"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:j7wJa.1024524$OV.1121639@no-spam
>
> You should defind exactly whom you are referring to when you
> say, "rich" and say, "poor" you talk about Bill Gates, when you talk
> rich......hardly typical.....and you talk about minimum wagers when you
say
> poor....There are a hell of a lot of us in between those two extremes. I
am
> retired.......My salery during most of my working life was about twice the
> national average.....Is that "rich" to you? - If so, then us "richies" are
> the ones who pay the bulk of the US taxes, because there are so damn many
of
> us. Bush's tax cuts are going to help me, and that's why I like them. The
> minimum wage earners in this country are tax free, and they get all kinds
of
> welfare benefits. Us richies are paying for their welfare too.....But you
> want us to pay more. And more, and more.....when will it ever end?
>
You're not rich, but I suspect you are going to be somewhat disappointed
when tax time rolls around. It's not
really aimed at folks like you, no matter how much Dubya may try to obscure
that fact. But as we discovered
in the Weapons of Mass Destruction fiasco, GWB is very much the snake-oil
salesman.
While we're on the subject, have you ever stopped to calculate how much of
this year's income taxes goes to paying
for the Reagan-Bush Administration? Remember, you're still paying for their
quadrupling of the national debt, and a
substantial chunk of every year's income tax payment will continue to go
toward that worthy cause, apparently forever, since the current Bush
administration seems intent on another massive increase in the debt.
-- bostnbob
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bIxJa.79147$sm5.79775@no-spam
>
> jps <trash@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:vfd9a17tvq0m7a@no-spam
> > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:xOvJa.1024367$OV.1121818@no-spam
> >
> > > You know, sometimes you have to suffer a little for the good things in
> > > life......
> >
> > Well, what have you suffered for your little part of heaven here on
earth.
> >
> >
> Having to support about a zillion welfare puppies, (thanks to the
liberals)
> for starters......Having to fund a dozen fair-haired ass-naughts' trip to
> the moon wasn't any picnick either......
Then, obviously, you should thank the Democrats for redirecting your money
to a worthy cause. You'd have blown it yourself and, if you had a heart,
feel incredibly guilty. At this point, we've got you covered.
When St. Peter asked what good you did on earth, you can point to the
Democrats.
"z" <gzuckier@no-spam> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0306230702.5d078d04@no-spam
> Well, I venture to say that Graham and Others Like Him would have
> thought it well worth the price if Al Qaeda had succeeded in
> flattening Washington, destroying our infrastructure, killing
> thousands of Americans, and occupying us for an unlimited time until a
> more agreeable government could be formed; as long as it would have
> liberated us from the evil Clinton regime, and released him from being
> robbed of his hard earned money for the support of zillions of welfare
> babies and astronauts.
That's a viewpoint I hadn't considered. Thanks for the giggle.
"Harry Krause" <etaoin_shrdlu@no-spam> wrote in message
news:CeednQxy5IO3V2ujXTWJig@no-spam
> William Graham wrote:
>
> > jps <trash@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:vfd9a17tvq0m7a@no-spam
> >> "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> >> news:xOvJa.1024367$OV.1121818@no-spam
> >>
> >> > You know, sometimes you have to suffer a little for the good things
in
> >> > life......
> >>
> >> Well, what have you suffered for your little part of heaven here on
earth.
> >>
> >>
> > Having to support about a zillion welfare puppies, (thanks to the
liberals)
> > for starters......Having to fund a dozen fair-haired ass-naughts' trip
to
> > the moon wasn't any picnick either......
> >
> >
>
> What hole did *this* right-wing cracker crawl out of?
>
He's complaining about being taxed to send men to the moon over thirty years
ago, but it apparently doesn't bother
him that he's paying billions on the Reagan-Bush debt now and into the
indefinite future -- and the Republicans are getting ready to pile hundreds
of billions on top of the pile.
-- bostnbob
"bostnbob" <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bd7k5s$t37$0@no-spam
>
> >
> > What hole did *this* right-wing cracker crawl out of?
> >
>
> He's complaining about being taxed to send men to the moon over thirty
years
> ago, but it apparently doesn't bother
> him that he's paying billions on the Reagan-Bush debt now and into the
> indefinite future -- and the Republicans are getting ready to pile
hundreds
> of billions on top of the pile.
>
> -- bostnbob
But in this instance, the deficit will be god's will, because "folks" want
it this way. :-)
("Folks" are what Bush calls people, because it makes them want to let the
insect into their homes)
"Doug Kanter" <dkanter@no-spam> wrote in message
news:76EJa.10121$uN3.9000@no-spam
> "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:2a6Ja.66835$sm5.69769@no-spam
>
> > If you don't want a war, then you elect a leader who doesn't break 18 UN
> > resolutions ........
>
> "Elect"? In Iraq under Saddam? Pardon mois? :-)
>
Republicans have a rather elastic view of what constitutes being "elected."
Remember 2000 . . .
-- bostnbob
"bostnbob" <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bd7klj$u3e$0@no-spam
>
> "Doug Kanter" <dkanter@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:76EJa.10121$uN3.9000@no-spam
> > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:2a6Ja.66835$sm5.69769@no-spam
> >
> > > If you don't want a war, then you elect a leader who doesn't break 18
UN
> > > resolutions ........
> >
> > "Elect"? In Iraq under Saddam? Pardon mois? :-)
> >
>
> Republicans have a rather elastic view of what constitutes being
"elected."
> Remember 2000 . . .
>
> -- bostnbob
"Don't shoot my children, and I promise not to vote against you". Sorta
like that....
jps <trash@no-spam> wrote in message
news:00IJa.51$Hs2.81495@no-spam
> "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:bIxJa.79147$sm5.79775@no-spam
> >
> > jps <trash@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:vfd9a17tvq0m7a@no-spam
> > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:xOvJa.1024367$OV.1121818@no-spam
> > >
> > > > You know, sometimes you have to suffer a little for the good things
in
> > > > life......
> > >
> > > Well, what have you suffered for your little part of heaven here on
> earth.
> > >
> > >
> > Having to support about a zillion welfare puppies, (thanks to the
> liberals)
> > for starters......Having to fund a dozen fair-haired ass-naughts' trip
to
> > the moon wasn't any picnick either......
>
>
> Then, obviously, you should thank the Democrats for redirecting your money
> to a worthy cause. You'd have blown it yourself and, if you had a heart,
> feel incredibly guilty. At this point, we've got you covered.
>
> When St. Peter asked what good you did on earth, you can point to the
> Democrats.
>
>
I think I'll point to the 1/2 million dollars that I kept invested in
American business for most of my life.....But I'll ask him, "Oh Lord, why
did you send that plague of Democrats to eat my crops and wreck havoc on my
property?"
Doug Kanter <dkanter@no-spam> wrote in message
news:76EJa.10121$uN3.9000@no-spam
> "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:2a6Ja.66835$sm5.69769@no-spam
>
> > If you don't want a war, then you elect a leader who doesn't break 18 UN
> > resolutions ........
>
> "Elect"? In Iraq under Saddam? Pardon mois? :-)
>
>
Political philosophers have put forth an argument that all leaders are,
"elected" by the people. They say that if the people don't care enough to
utilize their prime right.....The right of revolution.......To get rid of a
bad leader, then they will get what they deserve....They, "elect" their
leadership IOW, by simply doing nothing.........
bostnbob <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bd7klj$u3e$0@no-spam
>
> "Doug Kanter" <dkanter@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:76EJa.10121$uN3.9000@no-spam
> > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:2a6Ja.66835$sm5.69769@no-spam
> >
> > > If you don't want a war, then you elect a leader who doesn't break 18
UN
> > > resolutions ........
> >
> > "Elect"? In Iraq under Saddam? Pardon mois? :-)
> >
>
> Republicans have a rather elastic view of what constitutes being
"elected."
> Remember 2000 . . .
>
> -- bostnbob
>
>
1. Bush was elected.
2. I am a libertarian.
z <gzuckier@no-spam> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0306230702.5d078d04@no-spam
> "jps" <trash@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<vfd9g8igtvhmdc@no-spam>...
> > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:MnwJa.1024684$OV.1122187@no-spam
> >
> > > Just because the New York Times puts out the myth that
> > > millions of Iraqis are unhappy with our presence, that doesn't make it
> > > true.....In fact, just the opposite is true. I have been listening to
> > people
> > > who have just come back from Iraq, and they tell a far different
> > > story........
> >
> > Oy, you're making me ill. How far into the sand can you poke that head
of
> > yours?
> >
> > They don't have a clue why we're there (other than oil) and we're not
> > telling them either.
> >
> > They want us out. They don't care if they're ruled by feudal warloards.
> > They used to have water and electricity. They used to have functioning
> > schools and many people had jobs. Now they don't have any of that.
> >
> > They're trying to kill our kids in the street. That doesn't sound like
a
> > bunch of happy campers to me.
>
> Well, I venture to say that Graham and Others Like Him would have
> thought it well worth the price if Al Qaeda had succeeded in
> flattening Washington, destroying our infrastructure, killing
> thousands of Americans, and occupying us for an unlimited time until a
> more agreeable government could be formed; as long as it would have
> liberated us from the evil Clinton regime, and released him from being
> robbed of his hard earned money for the support of zillions of welfare
> babies and astronauts.
Where did you get that idea? - I do not engage in Clinton bashing. If you
have followed my posts with any care at all during the last 6 months or so,
you would have found out that that I am very easy on presidents.....I
realize that they do not have a great deal of power, at least, nothing like
the democrats on this forum are willing to give them. For the most part,
they can't do much about the economy (who can?) Can't get their preferred
legislation through a congress that contains a majority of the other party,
and can't, or at least, shouldn't mess with stuff that is the business of
the individual states, such as the Wade vs. Row decision, and stuff like
that. I was extremely angry at the republicans for trying to impeach Clinton
for his little foray with Monika, for example. I claimed that as president,
he had no other recourse to get a little hankey-pankey but to attempt it in
the White House. After all, he can't pop down to the local pub after work
and pick something up, like the rest of us can. The secret service would
have to take over the bar at least a week in advance, and replace the
bartender and everyone else in there with their own agents. - Even the
floozy he picked up would probably be a SS agent........So what do people
expect him to do? The only thing I said against him during that whole
episode, was that he should have said, "What I do with a lady in my own time
is no ones business but her's and mine." Instead, he whined, "We did not
have sex".........But I even forgive him for this.....One cannot become a
president today without being a whiner.....It's a necessary qualification in
order to ever get elected by the people........When Reagen was blasted by
that Sacramento newspaper woman for, "Not paying his taxes" one year when he
was govenor of California, instead of telling it like it was, (He lost a lot
of money when the mudslides wrecked several of his houses in Southern
California) he whined, "I'm sorry....I'll pay more next year" or some
assinine statement like that........ Make no mistake about it.....I don't
really like any of these assholes.....Bush included. All I do is try to vote
for the lessor of two (or several) evils.
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:zKSIa.49122$vq.10232@no-spam
>
> Harry Krause <etaoin_shrdlu@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:KOCdnU_Tqv2aW26jXTWJkQ@no-spam
> > I guarantee the Bush Mis-Administratino will find WMD in Iraq. They were
> > packed into boxes in the United States and shipped over to Iraq, and,
> > when the time is right, they'll be unpacked in Iraq and...discovered.
> >
> > Remember, we're talking about the Bush Mis-Administration and the
> > military establishment. If you believe either about anything of
> > consequence, you're a fool. Bush won't even tell the truth about his
> > drinking and use of cocaine.
>
> Ha! - Just as I predicted......"It doesn't matter weather we find WMD's
in
> Iraq or not, because if we do, they will just say that we planted them
> there, and if we don't, they will say that they never existed in the first
> place.....IOW, Bush is damned if he does, and damned if he don't." -
> Quoted from one of my former posts about two months ago.......
>
Which is exactly why the Administration's refusal to accept assistance from
the UN inspectors is so self-defeating.
-- bostnbob
bostnbob <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bd7emv$hdh$0@no-spam
>
> "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:j7wJa.1024524$OV.1121639@no-spam
> >
> > You should defind exactly whom you are referring to when you
> > say, "rich" and say, "poor" you talk about Bill Gates, when you talk
> > rich......hardly typical.....and you talk about minimum wagers when you
> say
> > poor....There are a hell of a lot of us in between those two extremes. I
> am
> > retired.......My salery during most of my working life was about twice
the
> > national average.....Is that "rich" to you? - If so, then us "richies"
are
> > the ones who pay the bulk of the US taxes, because there are so damn
many
> of
> > us. Bush's tax cuts are going to help me, and that's why I like them.
The
> > minimum wage earners in this country are tax free, and they get all
kinds
> of
> > welfare benefits. Us richies are paying for their welfare too.....But
you
> > want us to pay more. And more, and more.....when will it ever end?
> >
>
> You're not rich, but I suspect you are going to be somewhat disappointed
> when tax time rolls around. It's not
> really aimed at folks like you, no matter how much Dubya may try to
obscure
> that fact. But as we discovered
> in the Weapons of Mass Destruction fiasco, GWB is very much the snake-oil
> salesman.
>
> While we're on the subject, have you ever stopped to calculate how much of
> this year's income taxes goes to paying
> for the Reagan-Bush Administration? Remember, you're still paying for
their
> quadrupling of the national debt, and a
> substantial chunk of every year's income tax payment will continue to go
> toward that worthy cause, apparently forever, since the current Bush
> administration seems intent on another massive increase in the debt.
>
> -- bostnbob
>
>
Deficit government spending began with FDR, and it has grown with every
administration during my life.....You're right, we will be paying for that
multi-trillion dollar debt forever....But to blame it on just republican
administrations is to be extremely short sighted......For one thing, every
administration has to assume, and make up for, inadaquacies of the ones
before, so just as the economy's improvement lags a whole administration in
time, so does the spending have to lag what should have been done, or spend
several years before. IOW, If the economy is bad today, it isn't because of
Bush, and probably isn't because of Clinton, but it comes from things that
were done over 10 years ago, and policies that were instituted way back
then. Even the experts don't know what should be done to fix it. No
president that I have seen in my entire life knows even 1/10th as much about
the economy as most economists do, so how can they be blamed? To blame Bush
for our present situation is shortsighted in the extreme. Besides, the
economy is improving. If it does, will you give Bush credit for that? -
Well, you shouldn't, because he will have had nothing to do with that
either. But he will be able to say that he does. That's why he came up with
this tax decrease.....So that he will have an excuse to say, "See! - I did
it!" And the truth of the matter is, neither Bush, nor anyone else, has a
clue why the economy does what it does......If anyone did, the economy would
always do well, wouldn't it? - Absolutely no one has anything to gain by it
not doing well.........
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 19:09:04 -0400
bostnbob wrote:
> "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:zKSIa.49122$vq.10232@no-spam
>>
>> Harry Krause <etaoin_shrdlu@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:KOCdnU_Tqv2aW26jXTWJkQ@no-spam
>> > I guarantee the Bush Mis-Administratino will find WMD in Iraq. They were
>> > packed into boxes in the United States and shipped over to Iraq, and,
>> > when the time is right, they'll be unpacked in Iraq and...discovered.
>> >
>> > Remember, we're talking about the Bush Mis-Administration and the
>> > military establishment. If you believe either about anything of
>> > consequence, you're a fool. Bush won't even tell the truth about his
>> > drinking and use of cocaine.
>>
>> Ha! - Just as I predicted......"It doesn't matter weather we find WMD's
> in
>> Iraq or not, because if we do, they will just say that we planted them
>> there, and if we don't, they will say that they never existed in the first
>> place.....IOW, Bush is damned if he does, and damned if he don't." -
>> Quoted from one of my former posts about two months ago.......
>>
>
> Which is exactly why the Administration's refusal to accept assistance from
> the UN inspectors is so self-defeating.
>
> -- bostnbob
>
>
Bush is damned, period, and he's going to take us all down to hell with
him.
--
* * *
email sent to etaoin_shrdlu@no-spam will *never* get to me.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 19:09:04 -0400, Harry Krause <etaoin_shrdlu@no-spam>
wrote:
>bostnbob wrote:
>
>> "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:zKSIa.49122$vq.10232@no-spam
>>>
>>> Harry Krause <etaoin_shrdlu@no-spam> wrote in message
>>> news:KOCdnU_Tqv2aW26jXTWJkQ@no-spam
>>> > I guarantee the Bush Mis-Administratino will find WMD in Iraq. They were
>>> > packed into boxes in the United States and shipped over to Iraq, and,
>>> > when the time is right, they'll be unpacked in Iraq and...discovered.
>>> >
>>> > Remember, we're talking about the Bush Mis-Administration and the
>>> > military establishment. If you believe either about anything of
>>> > consequence, you're a fool. Bush won't even tell the truth about his
>>> > drinking and use of cocaine.
>>>
>>> Ha! - Just as I predicted......"It doesn't matter weather we find WMD's
>> in
>>> Iraq or not, because if we do, they will just say that we planted them
>>> there, and if we don't, they will say that they never existed in the first
>>> place.....IOW, Bush is damned if he does, and damned if he don't." -
>>> Quoted from one of my former posts about two months ago.......
>>>
>>
>> Which is exactly why the Administration's refusal to accept assistance from
>> the UN inspectors is so self-defeating.
>>
>> -- bostnbob
>>
>>
>
>Bush is damned, period, and he's going to take us all down to hell with
>him.
When you go, Harry, can I have your boat?
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 19:58:40 -0400
JohnH wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 19:09:04 -0400, Harry Krause <etaoin_shrdlu@no-spam>
> wrote:
>
>>bostnbob wrote:
>>
>>> "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
>>> news:zKSIa.49122$vq.10232@no-spam
>>>>
>>>> Harry Krause <etaoin_shrdlu@no-spam> wrote in message
>>>> news:KOCdnU_Tqv2aW26jXTWJkQ@no-spam
>>>> > I guarantee the Bush Mis-Administratino will find WMD in Iraq. They were
>>>> > packed into boxes in the United States and shipped over to Iraq, and,
>>>> > when the time is right, they'll be unpacked in Iraq and...discovered.
>>>> >
>>>> > Remember, we're talking about the Bush Mis-Administration and the
>>>> > military establishment. If you believe either about anything of
>>>> > consequence, you're a fool. Bush won't even tell the truth about his
>>>> > drinking and use of cocaine.
>>>>
>>>> Ha! - Just as I predicted......"It doesn't matter weather we find WMD's
>>> in
>>>> Iraq or not, because if we do, they will just say that we planted them
>>>> there, and if we don't, they will say that they never existed in the first
>>>> place.....IOW, Bush is damned if he does, and damned if he don't." -
>>>> Quoted from one of my former posts about two months ago.......
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which is exactly why the Administration's refusal to accept assistance from
>>> the UN inspectors is so self-defeating.
>>>
>>> -- bostnbob
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Bush is damned, period, and he's going to take us all down to hell with
>>him.
>
> When you go, Harry, can I have your boat?
>
>
> John
> On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
You'll have to work that out with my wife.
--
* * *
email sent to etaoin_shrdlu@no-spam will *never* get to me.
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 01:19:25 -0700, ralph <124c41@no-spam> wrote:
>Steven Shelikoff wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:37:59 -0700, ralph <124c41@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> >Steven Shelikoff wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 08:15:49 -0400, "Allan Smith"
>> >> <netsmith@no-spam> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Rick,
>> >> >
>> >> >When were you in military ordinance?
>> >> >
>> >> >What is required to ship already-produced hydrogen?
>> >>
>> >> Put it in a tanker truck. Same way we ship all sorts of other flammable
>> >> gases like propane.
>> >>
>> >> >Why did NASA build the facilities to fill the Shuttle's large fuel tank
>> >> >themselves, onsite? Why not simply buy commercial?
>> >>
>> >> http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2002news/hydropower.htm
>> >>
>> >> >Oh, I get it, there are no commercial producers.
>> >> >
>> >> >Hydrogen is produced when and where needed, for reasons anyone taking
>> >> >Chemistry 101 would understand (in the past, High School Physics would be
>> >> >adequate, but not sure about High Schools today).
>> >>
>> >> You need to move on to Chemistry 102.
>> >>
>> >> Steve
>> >
>> >yeah, driving trucks full of hydrogen around your troops in the middle
>> >of a shooting war.
>>
>> Which is safer for the troops than driving trucks full of gasoline and
>> ammunition around them in the middle of a shooting war. Both of those
>> can be accomplished.
>>
>But you don't exactly have the choice of producing gasoline and
>ammunition at the point of use.
Of course you have that choice. Build a tractor trailer that can take
the components of gunpowder and mix them, load it in primed shells and
put a bullet on top. You can crack relatively safe crude oil into it's
more volatile distilates in a trailer at the point of use as well. But
we don't do it because it's more productive to produce it in large
plants and we have plently of experience safely shipping it where it's
needed.
Steve
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 06:16:54 GMT, "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam>
wrote:
>
>ralph <124c41@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:3EF5668D.1C33@no-spam
>> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:37:59 -0700, ralph <124c41@no-spam> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Steven Shelikoff wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 08:15:49 -0400, "Allan Smith"
>> > >> <netsmith@no-spam> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >Rick,
>> > >> >
>> > >> >When were you in military ordinance?
>> > >> >
>> > >> >What is required to ship already-produced hydrogen?
>> > >>
>> > >> Put it in a tanker truck. Same way we ship all sorts of other
>flammable
>> > >> gases like propane.
>> > >>
>> > >> >Why did NASA build the facilities to fill the Shuttle's large fuel
>tank
>> > >> >themselves, onsite? Why not simply buy commercial?
>> > >>
>> > >> http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2002news/hydropower.htm
>> > >>
>> > >> >Oh, I get it, there are no commercial producers.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Hydrogen is produced when and where needed, for reasons anyone
>taking
>> > >> >Chemistry 101 would understand (in the past, High School Physics
>would be
>> > >> >adequate, but not sure about High Schools today).
>> > >>
>> > >> You need to move on to Chemistry 102.
>> > >
>> > >yeah, driving trucks full of hydrogen around your troops in the middle
>> > >of a shooting war.
>> >
>> > Which is safer for the troops than driving trucks full of gasoline and
>> > ammunition around them in the middle of a shooting war. Both of those
>> > can be accomplished.
>> >
>> > Steve
>> But you don't exactly have the choice of producing gasoline and
>> ammunition at the point of use.
>> --
>
>Hydrogen is not nitro glycerine. You don't have to produce it where you are
>going to use it. My company (Stanford University) bought it from a
>commercial supplier. It was delivered to us in dewar trucks, in liquid form.
>(Because we used it in liquid form) If you don't need it in liquid form, you
>can buy it in bottles at room temperature under a pressure of 2000 lbs. per
>square inch. Just like oxygen and acetelyne for welding. But if you need it
>liquified, as does NASA, then you have to have the ability to cool it to
>more than -400 degrees F, until it liquifies. This is difficult to do, so we
>(Stanford) didn't do it, but perhaps NASA needed it in such great
>quantities, that it was cheaper for them to cool it and liquify it
>themselves on location. (near the launch pad)
NASA buys their hydrogen commercially in liquid form and transports it
600 miles from the Air Products plant to the cape.
Steve
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 01:26:15 -0700, ralph <124c41@no-spam> wrote:
>William Graham wrote:
>>
>> Allan Smith <netsmith@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:6yhIa.13834$nY2.12133@no-spam
>> > William,
>> >
>> > Natural gas is not lighter than air. Only hydrogen or helium will float an
>> > obeservation or ordinanace balloon.
>> But apparently, hydrogen can be made from natural gas.....Or, since it's an
>> element, there are hydrogen molecules in natural gas. So it can be
>> chemically removed from the natural gas, and that's a relatively cheap way
>> to make it. Of course, you can also electrolyze it from salt water, but the
>> energy that you would put into it in order to get it that way would be
>> greater than the energy that you would get out of it by burning it. This is
>> why I question the advisability of using it to power cars. You not only have
>> to use large quantities of electrical power to make it from water, but then
>> you have to cool and compress it in order to liquify it. Otherwise, you
>> wouldn't be able to put enough of it into a 20 gallon automobile tank to get
>> you across town, much less 2 or 3 hundred miles. They talk about fuel cells,
>> but I don't know what they are, or how they will get the hydrogen into them,
>> or in what form it will exist when it is in them, so it's a technology that
>> I know nothing about. In any case, I don't see how you will save anything
>> when it will take electricity to get the hydrogen they will use.....60% of
>> the electricity we use here in the US comes from burning coal.....So this
>> kind of makes a big joke of the statement that hydrogen cars won't pollute
>> the air, because the product of burning hydrogen in air is just heat and
>> water. If you have to burn coal to get the hydrogen to begin with, what does
>> that do to your non-pollution equation?
>
>Similarly; the fuel cell methodology that they are working on, afik, is
>to carry tanks of methane, nat gas, etc. and strip the hydrogen in situ
>for the fuel cells, rather than carry around the hydrogen. In which
>case, I can never get a definitive answer on this, but it seems to me
>that the carbon after the hydrogen is stripped must end up CO2. Or else
>you have to stop the car every few miles and dump out the soot.
Yes, CO2 (a greenhouse gas) is a byproduct of producing hydrogen that
way. So while the exhaust from the car is clean, you pollute when
producing the hydrogen. Pay me now or pay me later.
Steve
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:kSJJa.1033$Fy6.326@no-spam
> > When St. Peter asked what good you did on earth, you can point to the
> > Democrats.
> >
> >
> I think I'll point to the 1/2 million dollars that I kept invested in
> American business for most of my life.....But I'll ask him, "Oh Lord, why
> did you send that plague of Democrats to eat my crops and wreck havoc on
my
> property?"
Oh yeah, that's likely. Just as likely that Jesus roots for Notre Dame.
"Steven Shelikoff" <shelikoff@no-spam>
>You can crack relatively safe crude oil into it's
> more volatile distilates in a trailer at the point of use as well. But
> we don't do it because it's more productive to produce it in large
> plants and we have plently of experience safely shipping it where it's
> needed.
>
> Steve
Portable fractional distillation would be difficult if not impossible Steve.
The bubblecap tower needs to be of specific physical proportions (read:
tall) to allow the various distillates to condense at their corresponding
pressures. Plus where are you going to get 1100 F steam? ...this isn't
something you can feasibly do out of a trailer. At least not on a scale
that you could squeeze anything worthwhile out of the oil.
Mike P
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 01:22:18 GMT, "Mike" <pilling1@no-spam> wrote:
>"Steven Shelikoff" <shelikoff@no-spam>
>>You can crack relatively safe crude oil into it's
>> more volatile distilates in a trailer at the point of use as well. But
>> we don't do it because it's more productive to produce it in large
>> plants and we have plently of experience safely shipping it where it's
>> needed.
>
>Portable fractional distillation would be difficult if not impossible Steve.
>The bubblecap tower needs to be of specific physical proportions (read:
>tall) to allow the various distillates to condense at their corresponding
>pressures. Plus where are you going to get 1100 F steam? ...this isn't
>something you can feasibly do out of a trailer. At least not on a scale
>that you could squeeze anything worthwhile out of the oil.
Well, I think it could be done. But I agree with the limited scale,
which is the point. At least you seem agree that you can produce
ammunition locally.
Steve
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 22:58:50 -0700
No One wrote:
>
> "Rick Langel" <ricklangel@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:kdi7fv0qbo37t6a91h785o17rlt5rgklpq@no-spam
> > On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:31:52 -0500, "No One" <noone@no-spam>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Might as well look in the Mirror and attack ourselves, because if what
> the
> > >Israelis have been doing to the Palestinians isn't terrorism, nothing is.
> >
> > I think John McCain described it best when he said that if someone
> > comes into Phoenix and blows up some buildings and buses and kills
> > people there, that the citizens are going to want action taken against
> > those responsible.
>
> And if someone comes into Phoenix and starts bulldozing millions of their
> homes in and putting them in refugee camps while other people settle there
> the citizens are going to want action taken against those responsible as
> well. If action isn't taken, they will put matters into their own hands.
What country is this? Who bulldozed millions of Palestinian homes? Who
put them in refugee camps? (that's easy, that was the other Arab
nations).
Was there some moral proscription against Jews moving to the British
Mandate? 'No Jews need apply?' Presumably so, since the first thing the
Jordanians did after taking over what should have been a Palestinian
state in 1948 was to run all the Jews out of the West Bank, where they
had been living continually since biblical times, and keep the area
Judenrein until Jordan attacked Israel in an abortive bid to help their
'brothers' the Egyptians and lost control of the area. None of this
foofraw argument about whether or not the Jews threatened the Arabs if
they didn't move out of Israel (where many did remain and are currently
Israeli citizens), they just chased all the Jews out on pain of death.
Apparently, you've been given information the rest of us haven't been
privileged to see. It'd be nice if you share it.
>
> >
> > >And in the last half-century we've given Israel 90 billion worth of aid,
> in
> > >the forms of cash, our most sophisticated military machines, and even
> WMD.
> > >I'm not saying what the Palestinians are doing isn't terrorism, I'm
> saying
> > >we should support either side. But when you consider the fact that
> > >according to Reuters 5 times as many Palestinians have died, and
> according
> > >to whowillsavethechildren.org (run by the American Jewish group Jews for
> > >Peace in Palestine and Israel) 448 Palestinian Children have been killed
> by
> > >the Israelis mostly from gonshots to the head and/or chest by Israeli
> > >forces, and that according to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency
> > >over a million Palestinians live in slum-like camps, you get a good idea
> of
> > >what's going on there.
> >
> > Ever read about those stories of those deaths? Many times what
> > happens is that some Palestinians will attack Israeli security
> > checkpoints or outposts, and then run back through civilian areas,
> > where lots of innocents are to include children, so that when the
> > Israelis come after them they can induce them into killings for which
> > the international community will get outraged.
>
> Many times yes, however that doesn't justify the 448 Palestinian children
> killed only since Sept 2000. How much caution does it take not to shoot
> hundreds (probably thousands over the decades) of children in the head
> and/or chest? If this isn't terrorism then nothing is.
The majority of these children are males in their late teens and early
twenties. These are children in the same sense the Israeli soldiers are
children, but badly ill equipped for the battle. Whether there are less
fatal ways to deal with them is a valid question, as is whether more
humane treatment would encourage or discourage them, but they are not
children in the same way that the majority of Israeli children killed
are; the ages there are skewed way towards the preschool ages, since
those kids are more likely to be around when random attacks occur; and
there is another bump in the mid-teens, accounting for those killed in
bombings of malls, discos, etc.
You can argue whether the actions of 20 year olds throwing stones at
tanks are incredibly brave, or just incredibly dumb stuff that 20 year
old males world-wide do; but it's hard to see how you could argue that
shooting 2 year olds in their beds because their parents moved into your
neighborhood is a brave act. That kind of thing used to happen in the US
now and then, and we pretty much put a stop to it.
>
> >
> > The Palestinians have chosen this path, they have the option to choose
> > another. There are MANY Palestinians who have joined civilized
> > society and who live and work in Jerusalem and other cities in Israel.
> > The ones that remain in the West Bank and Gaza Strip choose to be
> > there.
> >
> I don't believe either side is clean on this and both have wronged the
> other, however I do believe neither side is worthy of our support. Have we
> given 90 billion worth of aid, advance military weapons, and WMD to the
> Palestinians?
I really wouldn't recommend it, until their mission and goals change.
While I continue to believe that by and large they'd just like to get on
with life, their leadership continues to be a gang of thugs whose major
goal is enriching themselves at everyone else's expense; you might want
to check what activities led up to the Black September massacres by
their closest brethren, the Jordanians. Here's hoping the current
shakeup in their leadership amounts to something.
--
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could
agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but
... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of
mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as
I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a
reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
we did".
-Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:11:57 -0700
William Graham wrote:
>
> ralph <124c41@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EF692AF.181@no-spam
> > William Graham wrote:
> > >
> > > Mark Browne <mbrowne@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:yRkJa.751217$Si4.884971@no-spam
> > > > Blame of others, while a popular Republican pastime, is not an excuse
> for
> > > > our poor performance.
> > > >
> > > > Despite his considerable flaws, Saddam provided jobs and clean
> drinking
> > > > water despite a brutal embargo that stopped among other things,
> chlorine
> > > for
> > > > drinking water purification. Saddam provided jobs. His forces
> maintained
> > > law
> > > > and order. Considering the problems we are having with looters, we may
> be
> > > > learning why his efforts were so brutal.
> > >
> > > God, you certainly are easy to please......And you complain about our
> > > government when the republicans are in office? How many people has Bush
> and
> > > his administration tortured to death in the dungeons beneath the White
> > > House?
> >
> > You think people aren't being tortured on our behalf in Afghanistan,
> > Iraq, even Guantanamo to some degree? You think they're just asking
> > politely in Baghdad: 'scuse me, sir, any WMD here? No? Wel, thanks and
> > sorry for bothering you, we'll be on our way'?
> > You think 30 or so devout Muslims in Guantanamo decided to risk eternal
> > damnation (that they actually believe in) by attempting suicide, just
> > because the food wasn't tasty enough?
>
> But the food was tasty....And now, they are all free and enjoying their good
> life in the US.
eh?
>And their Iraqi friends are free of Saddam Hussein, too. And
> you better believe that their free Iraqi friends are telling them about it,
> too. You know, sometimes you have to suffer a little for the good things in
> life......
> >
> > I tell you what you should do. Find out where Saddam Hussein is, and
> > > then, when we have a Republican administration in power, pack up your
> > > things, and go and live under him for 8 years.....(I'm sure he will find
> a
> > > position for you as a servant in one of his palaces) Then, you can come
> back
> > > here during the periods that the Democrats are in power.....:^)
> >
> > --
> > "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
> > government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could
> > agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but
> > ... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of
> > mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the
> > criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as
> > I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a
> > reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
> > we did".
> > -Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine
>
> Read my answer to Wolfowitz in the post above......
--
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could
agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but
... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of
mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as
I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a
reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
we did".
-Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:14:38 -0700
bostnbob wrote:
>
> "Harry Krause" <etaoin_shrdlu@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:CeednQxy5IO3V2ujXTWJig@no-spam
> > William Graham wrote:
> >
> > > jps <trash@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:vfd9a17tvq0m7a@no-spam
> > >> "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > >> news:xOvJa.1024367$OV.1121818@no-spam
> > >>
> > >> > You know, sometimes you have to suffer a little for the good things
> in
> > >> > life......
> > >>
> > >> Well, what have you suffered for your little part of heaven here on
> earth.
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Having to support about a zillion welfare puppies, (thanks to the
> liberals)
> > > for starters......Having to fund a dozen fair-haired ass-naughts' trip
> to
> > > the moon wasn't any picnick either......
> > >
> > >
> >
> > What hole did *this* right-wing cracker crawl out of?
> >
>
> He's complaining about being taxed to send men to the moon over thirty years
> ago, but it apparently doesn't bother
> him that he's paying billions on the Reagan-Bush debt now and into the
> indefinite future -- and the Republicans are getting ready to pile hundreds
> of billions on top of the pile.
>
> -- bostnbob
For the money they're going to blow on star wars, they could extend
amtrack service to the moon.
--
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could
agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but
... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of
mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as
I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a
reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
we did".
-Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:25:11 -0700
Mike wrote:
>
> "Steven Shelikoff" <shelikoff@no-spam>
> >You can crack relatively safe crude oil into it's
> > more volatile distilates in a trailer at the point of use as well. But
> > we don't do it because it's more productive to produce it in large
> > plants and we have plently of experience safely shipping it where it's
> > needed.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Portable fractional distillation would be difficult if not impossible Steve.
> The bubblecap tower needs to be of specific physical proportions (read:
> tall) to allow the various distillates to condense at their corresponding
> pressures. Plus where are you going to get 1100 F steam? ...this isn't
> something you can feasibly do out of a trailer. At least not on a scale
> that you could squeeze anything worthwhile out of the oil.
>
> Mike P
convert everything to steam turbines; could we refine the oil in situ
well enough to get something decently flammable?
--
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could
agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but
... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of
mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as
I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a
reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
we did".
-Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:26:19 -0700
Steven Shelikoff wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 01:26:15 -0700, ralph <124c41@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >William Graham wrote:
> >>
> >> Allan Smith <netsmith@no-spam> wrote in message
> >> news:6yhIa.13834$nY2.12133@no-spam
> >> > William,
> >> >
> >> > Natural gas is not lighter than air. Only hydrogen or helium will float an
> >> > obeservation or ordinanace balloon.
> >> But apparently, hydrogen can be made from natural gas.....Or, since it's an
> >> element, there are hydrogen molecules in natural gas. So it can be
> >> chemically removed from the natural gas, and that's a relatively cheap way
> >> to make it. Of course, you can also electrolyze it from salt water, but the
> >> energy that you would put into it in order to get it that way would be
> >> greater than the energy that you would get out of it by burning it. This is
> >> why I question the advisability of using it to power cars. You not only have
> >> to use large quantities of electrical power to make it from water, but then
> >> you have to cool and compress it in order to liquify it. Otherwise, you
> >> wouldn't be able to put enough of it into a 20 gallon automobile tank to get
> >> you across town, much less 2 or 3 hundred miles. They talk about fuel cells,
> >> but I don't know what they are, or how they will get the hydrogen into them,
> >> or in what form it will exist when it is in them, so it's a technology that
> >> I know nothing about. In any case, I don't see how you will save anything
> >> when it will take electricity to get the hydrogen they will use.....60% of
> >> the electricity we use here in the US comes from burning coal.....So this
> >> kind of makes a big joke of the statement that hydrogen cars won't pollute
> >> the air, because the product of burning hydrogen in air is just heat and
> >> water. If you have to burn coal to get the hydrogen to begin with, what does
> >> that do to your non-pollution equation?
> >
> >Similarly; the fuel cell methodology that they are working on, afik, is
> >to carry tanks of methane, nat gas, etc. and strip the hydrogen in situ
> >for the fuel cells, rather than carry around the hydrogen. In which
> >case, I can never get a definitive answer on this, but it seems to me
> >that the carbon after the hydrogen is stripped must end up CO2. Or else
> >you have to stop the car every few miles and dump out the soot.
>
> Yes, CO2 (a greenhouse gas) is a byproduct of producing hydrogen that
> way. So while the exhaust from the car is clean, you pollute when
> producing the hydrogen. Pay me now or pay me later.
>
> Steve
that's what I figured. otherwise, where would the energy come from?
--
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could
agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but
... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of
mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as
I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a
reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
we did".
-Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message news:<wpQJa.2526$R73.1133@no-spam>...
> ralph <124c41@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EF7EC9B.6EE0@no-spam
> > Well I know that I'm grateful for getting to donate an extra $700 a year
> > so that wealthy heirs can receive their capital gains totally untaxed,
> > ever.
>
> Troll alert! - Troll alert! - "My" companies pay full income tax on
> their profits just before they send the profits to me....Then, when I get
> those already taxed profits, the IRS wants me to pay tax on them again. And
> you wonder why I bitch about that? - Why don't you pay your taxes twice,
> too? Next April, sit down and pay your taxes. Then, right after you've
> dropped them in the box, sit down and do it all over again. Then, you'll
> know how us investors feel, and why we thank God for George Bush when he
> finally addresses our problem......
To begin with, have you made a check to see that 'your' companies do
in fact pay 'full income tax'? Are you familiar with the study a year
or so ago that examined the tax returns of the 250 biggest
corporations in the US and found that they paid an average of 20%,
rather than 35%, shifting $100 billion of tax burden onto the
individual taxpayer? In fact, 41 of these companies, while making a
combined profit of $25 billion, received $3 billion net from the
government, instead of paying what would have been $9 billion in
taxes?
Are any of 'your' companies oil companies, which pay an average of
only 12% in income taxes? Do you have any stock in Cisco Systems, the
second wealthiest company in the U.S., $2.7 billion net income, which
paid no federal income taxes?
Does your righteous anger over supporting deadbeats and welfare bums
and chiselers extend only to those who are human beings, most of whom
are just trying to stay alive from one month to the next, but some of
whom actually chisel a few grand out of the goverment? Are you content
with supporting hugely profitable corporations through government
handouts?
As to 'double taxation'... what isn't? It's the transfer of the money
that's taxed, not the money itself, else we could just take 35 cents
off the top at the mint and never tax it again. I get paid, my income
is taxed. I leave the waitress at the donut shop a quarter, it's now
her income and gets taxed. DOUBLE TAXATION!!!! Why the special
treatment for capital gains, dividends, etc.?
Let me pose this scenario; Joe Blow buys a thousand dollars worth of
Microsoft at the IPO and hasn't touched it. Joe dies and his son
inherits the stock and sells it for $350k. What tax was paid on that
$349k? You can't even say Microsoft paid income tax on it, since it
represents capital appreciation of the company, which was funded by
deductible purchases.
If the son puts the $350K back into stock, or doesn't cash it in in
the first place before he dies, his son inherits the appreciated stock
tax free, and the cycle repeats. When is the tax ever paid on this
stock? Double taxation? Ha. The only taxes ever paid on this money are
the estate tax, on the portion of this snowball over $600k, soon to be
a million. Are we supposed to believe that it's unfair to tax any of
it at all, therefore the estate tax needs repealing?
"z" <gzuckier@no-spam> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0306240832.4253fa05@no-spam
> Are we supposed to believe that it's unfair to tax any of
> it at all, therefore the estate tax needs repealing?
My take on this: The government's error is that they are obsessed with the
mantra of tax simplification. Your example of the stock is a good in, in
terms of assets that could be taxed when passed to heirs. But, there are
examples of assets, like farms, which by all rights should be passed to
heirs who may want to continue working those farms. But, estate taxes
sometimes force farming families to liquidate so much land (to pay the
taxes) that the farm loses its "economy of scale".
So, do we specify that farms can't be taxed when passed on to the next
generation? No...because that would also include a farm used to raise and
train race horses. So, do we differentiate between farms which produce
necessities? I have no idea.
z <gzuckier@no-spam> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0306240832.4253fa05@no-spam
> "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<wpQJa.2526$R73.1133@no-spam>...
> > ralph <124c41@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3EF7EC9B.6EE0@no-spam
> > > Well I know that I'm grateful for getting to donate an extra $700 a
year
> > > so that wealthy heirs can receive their capital gains totally untaxed,
> > > ever.
> >
> > Troll alert! - Troll alert! - "My" companies pay full income tax on
> > their profits just before they send the profits to me....Then, when I
get
> > those already taxed profits, the IRS wants me to pay tax on them again.
And
> > you wonder why I bitch about that? - Why don't you pay your taxes twice,
> > too? Next April, sit down and pay your taxes. Then, right after you've
> > dropped them in the box, sit down and do it all over again. Then, you'll
> > know how us investors feel, and why we thank God for George Bush when he
> > finally addresses our problem......
>
> To begin with, have you made a check to see that 'your' companies do
> in fact pay 'full income tax'?
No.....I'll leave that to the IRS.....God knows that I pay them enough money
to do their job without my help.....
Are you familiar with the study a year
> or so ago that examined the tax returns of the 250 biggest
> corporations in the US and found that they paid an average of 20%,
> rather than 35%, shifting $100 billion of tax burden onto the
> individual taxpayer? In fact, 41 of these companies, while making a
> combined profit of $25 billion, received $3 billion net from the
> government, instead of paying what would have been $9 billion in
> taxes?
If they broke the law, they should be prosecuted. - If they didn't, then why
are you telling me about this? - I neither make the tax laws, not enforce
them. I just have to live with them, like everyone else.
> Are any of 'your' companies oil companies, which pay an average of
> only 12% in income taxes? Do you have any stock in Cisco Systems, the
> second wealthiest company in the U.S., $2.7 billion net income, which
> paid no federal income taxes?
Yes....See above.
>
> Does your righteous anger over supporting deadbeats and welfare bums
> and chiselers extend only to those who are human beings, most of whom
> are just trying to stay alive from one month to the next, but some of
> whom actually chisel a few grand out of the goverment? Are you content
> with supporting hugely profitable corporations through government
> handouts?
I am a human being, and I am concerned with my own welfare.....I expect you
to be just as concerned with yours......
>
> As to 'double taxation'... what isn't? It's the transfer of the money
> that's taxed, not the money itself, else we could just take 35 cents
> off the top at the mint and never tax it again. I get paid, my income
> is taxed. I leave the waitress at the donut shop a quarter, it's now
> her income and gets taxed. DOUBLE TAXATION!!!! Why the special
> treatment for capital gains, dividends, etc.?
Big, big difference.....The waitress is a different person....When you hire
her, she has to pay taxes too. But when you give your wife money to run your
household with, she doesn't have to pay taxes again on that money, and when
my company earns money, and pays taxes on it, I shouldn't have to pay taxes
on it again when my companie's bank sends it to me. If I take it out of my
left pocket, and put it in my right pocket, should I have to pay taxes on it
a third time?
>
> Let me pose this scenario; Joe Blow buys a thousand dollars worth of
> Microsoft at the IPO and hasn't touched it. Joe dies and his son
> inherits the stock and sells it for $350k. What tax was paid on that
> $349k? You can't even say Microsoft paid income tax on it, since it
> represents capital appreciation of the company, which was funded by
> deductible purchases.
The tax is paid when the stock is sold. Paper profits aren't taxed. (thank
God!) Stocks go up and down all the time, but when you sell them, then your
profit/loss is calculated, and you either pay taxes on the profit, or you
take the loss off of your other profits before you pay taxes.....Gambling is
the same way. If you gamble for a living, millions of dollars may pass
through your hands during the course of a year, but you only pay taxes on
your net winnings at the end of the year.....It must be that way, or no one
could afford to be in any kind of business.........
>
> If the son puts the $350K back into stock, or doesn't cash it in in
> the first place before he dies, his son inherits the appreciated stock
> tax free, and the cycle repeats. When is the tax ever paid on this
> stock? Double taxation? Ha. The only taxes ever paid on this money are
> the estate tax, on the portion of this snowball over $600k, soon to be
> a million. Are we supposed to believe that it's unfair to tax any of
> it at all, therefore the estate tax needs repealing?
His son doesn't inherit the stock tax free....He will pay taxes on it when
he sells it. However, there is one advantage. When I die, my portfolio will
be re-evaluated on the date of my death, and this new value will be the
value of my estate, and my children will only have to pay the taxes on any
appreciation since my death when they sell it. IOW, if I buy a share at $10,
and it goes to $100, and I die, and my children inherit it, they will
inherit it at the $100 value, so if it goes to $150, and they sell it, they
will only have to pay taxes on $50 profit, not the other $90 that it
appreciated during my lifetime.....
Doug Kanter <dkanter@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Ms%Ja.11020$UE6.969@no-spam
> "z" <gzuckier@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:b5b4685f.0306240832.4253fa05@no-spam
>
> > Are we supposed to believe that it's unfair to tax any of
> > it at all, therefore the estate tax needs repealing?
>
> My take on this: The government's error is that they are obsessed with the
> mantra of tax simplification. Your example of the stock is a good in, in
> terms of assets that could be taxed when passed to heirs. But, there are
> examples of assets, like farms, which by all rights should be passed to
> heirs who may want to continue working those farms. But, estate taxes
> sometimes force farming families to liquidate so much land (to pay the
> taxes) that the farm loses its "economy of scale".
>
> So, do we specify that farms can't be taxed when passed on to the next
> generation? No...because that would also include a farm used to raise and
> train race horses. So, do we differentiate between farms which produce
> necessities? I have no idea.
>
>
I don't know much about farming, so I don't know either, but you can set up
a trust, and put your property, even a farm in that trust, and the trust, as
a separate entity, can continue to exist if you die and your sons (named the
new holders of the trust) can continue to operate it......I can do this with
my estate too. - In fact, I already have, even though the death tax won't
cut in until I am worth approx. twice what I am worth now.....
"Famous Amos Moses®" <amoses@no-spam> wrote in message
news:buaafv05aricevbm4jluvqt7dmtha60udm@no-spam
>
> Yeah, I talked to Dick the other day. He said Rudy thought you were a
> dickhead. Dick thought that was a compliment.
>
> He didn't have time to chat however; he and Rummy were going to spank
> Condi
>
What a photo op!
-- bostnbob
"ralph" <124c41@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EF92FA3.3CE6@no-spam
> Doug Kanter wrote:
> >
> > "z" <gzuckier@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:b5b4685f.0306240832.4253fa05@no-spam
> >
> > > Are we supposed to believe that it's unfair to tax any of
> > > it at all, therefore the estate tax needs repealing?
> >
> > My take on this: The government's error is that they are obsessed with
the
> > mantra of tax simplification. Your example of the stock is a good in, in
> > terms of assets that could be taxed when passed to heirs. But, there are
> > examples of assets, like farms, which by all rights should be passed to
> > heirs who may want to continue working those farms. But, estate taxes
> > sometimes force farming families to liquidate so much land (to pay the
> > taxes) that the farm loses its "economy of scale".
> >
> > So, do we specify that farms can't be taxed when passed on to the next
> > generation? No...because that would also include a farm used to raise
and
> > train race horses. So, do we differentiate between farms which produce
> > necessities? I have no idea.
>
> Well, there are some semi-loopholes, like extended time to pay estate
> taxes on farms, etc. And the Republicans never were able to come up with
> a single example of a farm that had to go under because of estate taxes.
> But the simplest thing to do would be raise the exemption for family
> farms or businesses; even if you included fun-farms, it still wouldn't
> be any worse than letting huge masses of capital gains snowball from
> generation to generation completely untaxed.
>
> --
> "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
> government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could
> agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but
> ... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of
> mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the
> criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as
> I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a
> reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
> we did".
> -Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine
How about going aback to the reason for the estate tax! Was to stop
financial aristocracy in the USA. The tax was implemented to the Carnegies,
Rockerfellers (sp?) et. al. would not become the kings of the USA just
because of money. Not to raise money for the Federal Government (and
states) The estate tax did not kick in until $300,000. This in a time when
a $1 / day was decent wages. Average family income was maybe $3000 / year.
or 100 times the average annual income before the Estate tax kicked in.
Average annual income has gone up a lot more than 3x, which is what the
Death Tax comes to now at about $1,000,000. Figure the average income in
the country for the same $3000 / year family is now $42,000 or 14 times the
amount and raise the $300k 14x or 4.2 million. Now the ordinary family is
not devastated financially as well as emotionally by the death of the
parents. Even with a good living trust, you are only protecting 2x this
amount. And a lot of people in this country leave a million dollar estate,
just because inflation has raised the value of their house. My 1972 house
which cost $36k, even with added room and pool probably cost about $45,000
is now worth $750,000.
Bill
"ralph" <124c41@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EF930DA.10A3@no-spam
> William Graham wrote:
> >
> > z <gzuckier@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:b5b4685f.0306240832.4253fa05@no-spam
> > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:<wpQJa.2526$R73.1133@no-spam>...
> > > > ralph <124c41@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:3EF7EC9B.6EE0@no-spam
> > > > > Well I know that I'm grateful for getting to donate an extra $700
a
> > year
> > > > > so that wealthy heirs can receive their capital gains totally
untaxed,
> > > > > ever.
> > > >
> > > > Troll alert! - Troll alert! - "My" companies pay full income tax
on
> > > > their profits just before they send the profits to me....Then, when
I
> > get
> > > > those already taxed profits, the IRS wants me to pay tax on them
again.
> > And
> > > > you wonder why I bitch about that? - Why don't you pay your taxes
twice,
> > > > too? Next April, sit down and pay your taxes. Then, right after
you've
> > > > dropped them in the box, sit down and do it all over again. Then,
you'll
> > > > know how us investors feel, and why we thank God for George Bush
when he
> > > > finally addresses our problem......
> > >
> > > To begin with, have you made a check to see that 'your' companies do
> > > in fact pay 'full income tax'?
> >
> > No.....I'll leave that to the IRS.....God knows that I pay them enough
money
> > to do their job without my help.....
> >
> > Are you familiar with the study a year
> > > or so ago that examined the tax returns of the 250 biggest
> > > corporations in the US and found that they paid an average of 20%,
> > > rather than 35%, shifting $100 billion of tax burden onto the
> > > individual taxpayer? In fact, 41 of these companies, while making a
> > > combined profit of $25 billion, received $3 billion net from the
> > > government, instead of paying what would have been $9 billion in
> > > taxes?
> >
> > If they broke the law, they should be prosecuted. - If they didn't, then
why
> > are you telling me about this? - I neither make the tax laws, not
enforce
> > them. I just have to live with them, like everyone else.
> >
> > > Are any of 'your' companies oil companies, which pay an average of
> > > only 12% in income taxes? Do you have any stock in Cisco Systems, the
> > > second wealthiest company in the U.S., $2.7 billion net income, which
> > > paid no federal income taxes?
> >
> > Yes....See above.
> > >
> > > Does your righteous anger over supporting deadbeats and welfare bums
> > > and chiselers extend only to those who are human beings, most of whom
> > > are just trying to stay alive from one month to the next, but some of
> > > whom actually chisel a few grand out of the goverment? Are you content
> > > with supporting hugely profitable corporations through government
> > > handouts?
> >
> > I am a human being, and I am concerned with my own welfare.....I expect
you
> > to be just as concerned with yours......
> > >
> > > As to 'double taxation'... what isn't? It's the transfer of the money
> > > that's taxed, not the money itself, else we could just take 35 cents
> > > off the top at the mint and never tax it again. I get paid, my income
> > > is taxed. I leave the waitress at the donut shop a quarter, it's now
> > > her income and gets taxed. DOUBLE TAXATION!!!! Why the special
> > > treatment for capital gains, dividends, etc.?
> >
> > Big, big difference.....The waitress is a different person....When you
hire
> > her, she has to pay taxes too. But when you give your wife money to run
your
> > household with, she doesn't have to pay taxes again on that money, and
when
> > my company earns money, and pays taxes on it, I shouldn't have to pay
taxes
> > on it again when my companie's bank sends it to me. If I take it out of
my
> > left pocket, and put it in my right pocket, should I have to pay taxes
on it
> > a third time?
> > >
> > > Let me pose this scenario; Joe Blow buys a thousand dollars worth of
> > > Microsoft at the IPO and hasn't touched it. Joe dies and his son
> > > inherits the stock and sells it for $350k. What tax was paid on that
> > > $349k? You can't even say Microsoft paid income tax on it, since it
> > > represents capital appreciation of the company, which was funded by
> > > deductible purchases.
> >
> > The tax is paid when the stock is sold. Paper profits aren't taxed.
(thank
> > God!) Stocks go up and down all the time, but when you sell them, then
your
> > profit/loss is calculated, and you either pay taxes on the profit, or
you
> > take the loss off of your other profits before you pay
taxes.....Gambling is
> > the same way. If you gamble for a living, millions of dollars may pass
> > through your hands during the course of a year, but you only pay taxes
on
> > your net winnings at the end of the year.....It must be that way, or no
one
> > could afford to be in any kind of business.........
> > >
> > > If the son puts the $350K back into stock, or doesn't cash it in in
> > > the first place before he dies, his son inherits the appreciated stock
> > > tax free, and the cycle repeats. When is the tax ever paid on this
> > > stock? Double taxation? Ha. The only taxes ever paid on this money are
> > > the estate tax, on the portion of this snowball over $600k, soon to be
> > > a million. Are we supposed to believe that it's unfair to tax any of
> > > it at all, therefore the estate tax needs repealing?
> >
> > His son doesn't inherit the stock tax free....He will pay taxes on it
when
> > he sells it. However, there is one advantage. When I die, my portfolio
will
> > be re-evaluated on the date of my death, and this new value will be the
> > value of my estate, and my children will only have to pay the taxes on
any
> > appreciation since my death when they sell it. IOW, if I buy a share at
$10,
> > and it goes to $100, and I die, and my children inherit it, they will
> > inherit it at the $100 value, so if it goes to $150, and they sell it,
they
> > will only have to pay taxes on $50 profit, not the other $90 that it
> > appreciated during my lifetime.....
>
> Isn't that exactly what he said? the parent bought $1000 of stock, it
> went to $350,000, the kid inherited it at $350k, so he can sell it right
> away and pay no tax at all.
>
If the $350,000 of stock was in excess of the death tax deduction, the
estate paid about 53% of the $350,000 in taxes. A lot higher than capitol
gains tax would yield. The new rules do not give the benefit of the step up
in value, the stock is still a cost basis to the child at the $100, and when
he sells it, pays capitol gains tax on the difference from cost basis. Plus
the estate can only leave $1,000,000 before the estate tax kicks in. And
the estate tax raises to 53% with only maybe $50k over the exemption. All
the rest of the money, including the $100 originally invested was taxed. If
you live the high life, and buy cruises and BMW's in place of Fords, and you
spend all your money, you do not pay the tax man, but also there is no money
for investment in new business. Is a disincentive to save. And those
savings are what makes for new business's.
Bill
ralph <124c41@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EF930DA.10A3@no-spam
> Isn't that exactly what he said? the parent bought $1000 of stock, it
> went to $350,000, the kid inherited it at $350k, so he can sell it right
> away and pay no tax at all.
Yes, but he has to pay taxes on it even though he doesn't sell it. The only
money that he doesn't have to pay taxes on is the money he puts into his own
IRA. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for anyone to save anything for
their old age. They would just gamble and spend any profit they make
immediately. You can't penalize someone for investing money after he's paid
taxes on it once. Now, If I put my income in a tax-free IRA, then I will
have to pay tax on it as I spend it, but not before. If I inherit money that
is not part of my IRA, then I will pay tax on it as it earns money, weather
I take it out and spend it or not. - Both of these things are true in my
case. I have Ira funds, and funds that I inherited from my mother. I have to
pay taxes on her funds' appreciation every year, even though I don't spend
it, but I only pay taxes on my IRA stuff if I sell part of it to spend. The
law is written the way it is to prevent what you suggest. People selling
stuff immediately as soon as they get it. If the tax base was set back to
the date when the stock was originally purchased. ($10 a share in my
example) then my heirs would pe heavily taxed as soon as they sold it. As it
is, there is an incentive for them to leave it alone, and let it remain
invested for their own future, and American business continues to use that
capitol into the next generation.
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:14:11 -0700
Doug Kanter wrote:
>
> "z" <gzuckier@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:b5b4685f.0306240832.4253fa05@no-spam
>
> > Are we supposed to believe that it's unfair to tax any of
> > it at all, therefore the estate tax needs repealing?
>
> My take on this: The government's error is that they are obsessed with the
> mantra of tax simplification. Your example of the stock is a good in, in
> terms of assets that could be taxed when passed to heirs. But, there are
> examples of assets, like farms, which by all rights should be passed to
> heirs who may want to continue working those farms. But, estate taxes
> sometimes force farming families to liquidate so much land (to pay the
> taxes) that the farm loses its "economy of scale".
>
> So, do we specify that farms can't be taxed when passed on to the next
> generation? No...because that would also include a farm used to raise and
> train race horses. So, do we differentiate between farms which produce
> necessities? I have no idea.
Well, there are some semi-loopholes, like extended time to pay estate
taxes on farms, etc. And the Republicans never were able to come up with
a single example of a farm that had to go under because of estate taxes.
But the simplest thing to do would be raise the exemption for family
farms or businesses; even if you included fun-farms, it still wouldn't
be any worse than letting huge masses of capital gains snowball from
generation to generation completely untaxed.
--
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could
agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but
... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of
mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as
I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a
reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
we did".
-Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:15:36 -0700
William Graham wrote:
>
> Doug Kanter <dkanter@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:Ms%Ja.11020$UE6.969@no-spam
> > "z" <gzuckier@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:b5b4685f.0306240832.4253fa05@no-spam
> >
> > > Are we supposed to believe that it's unfair to tax any of
> > > it at all, therefore the estate tax needs repealing?
> >
> > My take on this: The government's error is that they are obsessed with the
> > mantra of tax simplification. Your example of the stock is a good in, in
> > terms of assets that could be taxed when passed to heirs. But, there are
> > examples of assets, like farms, which by all rights should be passed to
> > heirs who may want to continue working those farms. But, estate taxes
> > sometimes force farming families to liquidate so much land (to pay the
> > taxes) that the farm loses its "economy of scale".
> >
> > So, do we specify that farms can't be taxed when passed on to the next
> > generation? No...because that would also include a farm used to raise and
> > train race horses. So, do we differentiate between farms which produce
> > necessities? I have no idea.
> >
> >
> I don't know much about farming, so I don't know either, but you can set up
> a trust, and put your property, even a farm in that trust, and the trust, as
> a separate entity, can continue to exist if you die and your sons (named the
> new holders of the trust) can continue to operate it......I can do this with
> my estate too. - In fact, I already have, even though the death tax won't
> cut in until I am worth approx. twice what I am worth now.....
that is indeed the flip side; anyone who ends up paying substantial
estate tax should have fired his financial adviser.
--
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could
agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but
... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of
mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as
I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a
reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
we did".
-Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:19:22 -0700
William Graham wrote:
>
> z <gzuckier@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:b5b4685f.0306240832.4253fa05@no-spam
> > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:<wpQJa.2526$R73.1133@no-spam>...
> > > ralph <124c41@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:3EF7EC9B.6EE0@no-spam
> > > > Well I know that I'm grateful for getting to donate an extra $700 a
> year
> > > > so that wealthy heirs can receive their capital gains totally untaxed,
> > > > ever.
> > >
> > > Troll alert! - Troll alert! - "My" companies pay full income tax on
> > > their profits just before they send the profits to me....Then, when I
> get
> > > those already taxed profits, the IRS wants me to pay tax on them again.
> And
> > > you wonder why I bitch about that? - Why don't you pay your taxes twice,
> > > too? Next April, sit down and pay your taxes. Then, right after you've
> > > dropped them in the box, sit down and do it all over again. Then, you'll
> > > know how us investors feel, and why we thank God for George Bush when he
> > > finally addresses our problem......
> >
> > To begin with, have you made a check to see that 'your' companies do
> > in fact pay 'full income tax'?
>
> No.....I'll leave that to the IRS.....God knows that I pay them enough money
> to do their job without my help.....
>
> Are you familiar with the study a year
> > or so ago that examined the tax returns of the 250 biggest
> > corporations in the US and found that they paid an average of 20%,
> > rather than 35%, shifting $100 billion of tax burden onto the
> > individual taxpayer? In fact, 41 of these companies, while making a
> > combined profit of $25 billion, received $3 billion net from the
> > government, instead of paying what would have been $9 billion in
> > taxes?
>
> If they broke the law, they should be prosecuted. - If they didn't, then why
> are you telling me about this? - I neither make the tax laws, not enforce
> them. I just have to live with them, like everyone else.
>
> > Are any of 'your' companies oil companies, which pay an average of
> > only 12% in income taxes? Do you have any stock in Cisco Systems, the
> > second wealthiest company in the U.S., $2.7 billion net income, which
> > paid no federal income taxes?
>
> Yes....See above.
> >
> > Does your righteous anger over supporting deadbeats and welfare bums
> > and chiselers extend only to those who are human beings, most of whom
> > are just trying to stay alive from one month to the next, but some of
> > whom actually chisel a few grand out of the goverment? Are you content
> > with supporting hugely profitable corporations through government
> > handouts?
>
> I am a human being, and I am concerned with my own welfare.....I expect you
> to be just as concerned with yours......
> >
> > As to 'double taxation'... what isn't? It's the transfer of the money
> > that's taxed, not the money itself, else we could just take 35 cents
> > off the top at the mint and never tax it again. I get paid, my income
> > is taxed. I leave the waitress at the donut shop a quarter, it's now
> > her income and gets taxed. DOUBLE TAXATION!!!! Why the special
> > treatment for capital gains, dividends, etc.?
>
> Big, big difference.....The waitress is a different person....When you hire
> her, she has to pay taxes too. But when you give your wife money to run your
> household with, she doesn't have to pay taxes again on that money, and when
> my company earns money, and pays taxes on it, I shouldn't have to pay taxes
> on it again when my companie's bank sends it to me. If I take it out of my
> left pocket, and put it in my right pocket, should I have to pay taxes on it
> a third time?
> >
> > Let me pose this scenario; Joe Blow buys a thousand dollars worth of
> > Microsoft at the IPO and hasn't touched it. Joe dies and his son
> > inherits the stock and sells it for $350k. What tax was paid on that
> > $349k? You can't even say Microsoft paid income tax on it, since it
> > represents capital appreciation of the company, which was funded by
> > deductible purchases.
>
> The tax is paid when the stock is sold. Paper profits aren't taxed. (thank
> God!) Stocks go up and down all the time, but when you sell them, then your
> profit/loss is calculated, and you either pay taxes on the profit, or you
> take the loss off of your other profits before you pay taxes.....Gambling is
> the same way. If you gamble for a living, millions of dollars may pass
> through your hands during the course of a year, but you only pay taxes on
> your net winnings at the end of the year.....It must be that way, or no one
> could afford to be in any kind of business.........
> >
> > If the son puts the $350K back into stock, or doesn't cash it in in
> > the first place before he dies, his son inherits the appreciated stock
> > tax free, and the cycle repeats. When is the tax ever paid on this
> > stock? Double taxation? Ha. The only taxes ever paid on this money are
> > the estate tax, on the portion of this snowball over $600k, soon to be
> > a million. Are we supposed to believe that it's unfair to tax any of
> > it at all, therefore the estate tax needs repealing?
>
> His son doesn't inherit the stock tax free....He will pay taxes on it when
> he sells it. However, there is one advantage. When I die, my portfolio will
> be re-evaluated on the date of my death, and this new value will be the
> value of my estate, and my children will only have to pay the taxes on any
> appreciation since my death when they sell it. IOW, if I buy a share at $10,
> and it goes to $100, and I die, and my children inherit it, they will
> inherit it at the $100 value, so if it goes to $150, and they sell it, they
> will only have to pay taxes on $50 profit, not the other $90 that it
> appreciated during my lifetime.....
Isn't that exactly what he said? the parent bought $1000 of stock, it
went to $350,000, the kid inherited it at $350k, so he can sell it right
away and pay no tax at all.
--
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could
agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but
... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of
mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as
I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a
reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
we did".
-Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
news:sXJJa.2362$Ab2.5461@no-spam
>
> bostnbob <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:bd7klj$u3e$0@no-spam
> >
> > "Doug Kanter" <dkanter@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:76EJa.10121$uN3.9000@no-spam
> > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:2a6Ja.66835$sm5.69769@no-spam
> > >
> > > > If you don't want a war, then you elect a leader who doesn't break
18
> UN
> > > > resolutions ........
> > >
> > > "Elect"? In Iraq under Saddam? Pardon mois? :-)
> > >
> >
> > Republicans have a rather elastic view of what constitutes being
> "elected."
> > Remember 2000 . . .
> >
> > -- bostnbob
> >
> >
> 1. Bush was elected.
By whom?
-- bostnbob
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:50:18 -0700
William Graham wrote:
>
> ralph <124c41@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EF930DA.10A3@no-spam
> > Isn't that exactly what he said? the parent bought $1000 of stock, it
> > went to $350,000, the kid inherited it at $350k, so he can sell it right
> > away and pay no tax at all.
>
> Yes, but he has to pay taxes on it even though he doesn't sell it. The only
> money that he doesn't have to pay taxes on is the money he puts into his own
> IRA. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for anyone to save anything for
> their old age. They would just gamble and spend any profit they make
> immediately. You can't penalize someone for investing money after he's paid
> taxes on it once. Now, If I put my income in a tax-free IRA, then I will
> have to pay tax on it as I spend it, but not before. If I inherit money that
> is not part of my IRA, then I will pay tax on it as it earns money, weather
> I take it out and spend it or not. - Both of these things are true in my
> case. I have Ira funds, and funds that I inherited from my mother. I have to
> pay taxes on her funds' appreciation every year, even though I don't spend
> it, but I only pay taxes on my IRA stuff if I sell part of it to spend. The
> law is written the way it is to prevent what you suggest. People selling
> stuff immediately as soon as they get it. If the tax base was set back to
> the date when the stock was originally purchased. ($10 a share in my
> example) then my heirs would pe heavily taxed as soon as they sold it. As it
> is, there is an incentive for them to leave it alone, and let it remain
> invested for their own future, and American business continues to use that
> capitol into the next generation.
you contradict yourseslf. any appreciation prior to inheritance is tax
free, as you said yourself:
His son doesn't inherit the stock tax free....He will pay taxes on it
when
he sells it. However, there is one advantage. When I die, my portfolio
will
be re-evaluated on the date of my death, and this new value will be the
value of my estate, and my children will only have to pay the taxes on
any
appreciation since my death when they sell it. IOW, if I buy a share at
$10,
and it goes to $100, and I die, and my children inherit it, they will
inherit it at the $100 value, so if it goes to $150, and they sell it,
they
will only have to pay taxes on $50 profit, not the other $90 that it
appreciated during my lifetime.....
--
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could
agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but
... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of
mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as
I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a
reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
we did".
-Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine
Rick Langel <ricklangel@no-spam> wrote in message news:<amo5fv83lkqbur4ov032m1msmo7hpse23r@no-spam>...
> On 19 Jun 2003 08:50:51 -0700, gzuckier@no-spam (z) wrote:
>
> >So your answer would be: 'Yes; had the administration announced that
> >they were about to make war on Iraq on Sept. 10, 2001, the public
> >would have been behind him.' OK.........
>
> Actually, that hasn't been my answer. As I said, I simply pointed out
> that the person claiming that the administration wouldn't have
> attacked Iraq without 9/11 has previously made claims that they would
> have. I don't think that the administration would have attacked Iraq
> without 9/11, as it showed the necessity of going after those
> countries that actively support terrorism.
Yeah. I keep forgetting that Saddam blew up the WTC towers. And that
the WMD that North Korea's actually provably got are just a diplomatic
issue.
Ennways, you Yanks got at LEAST 3,000 civilians in your little war so
maybe your "honor" is satisfied. Tho, come to think of it, the USA
doesn't have much honor left.
steve
On 26 Jun 2003 04:01:32 -0700, stevespears@no-spam (steve2000)
wrote:
>> Actually, that hasn't been my answer. As I said, I simply pointed out
>> that the person claiming that the administration wouldn't have
>> attacked Iraq without 9/11 has previously made claims that they would
>> have. I don't think that the administration would have attacked Iraq
>> without 9/11, as it showed the necessity of going after those
>> countries that actively support terrorism.
>
>Yeah. I keep forgetting that Saddam blew up the WTC towers. And that
>the WMD that North Korea's actually provably got are just a diplomatic
>issue.
Saddam did not have to give the order to execute the mission in order
to be supporting terrorism. We know he supported Palestinian
terrorism, and signs point to that he did a lot more than that.
>Ennways, you Yanks got at LEAST 3,000 civilians in your little war so
>maybe your "honor" is satisfied.
Can you show that Iraqi forces didn't kill any of those civilians?
>Tho, come to think of it, the USA doesn't have much honor left.
We have plenty of honor, as opposed to the people and countries that
would rather have Saddam in power.
"Rick Langel" <ricklangel@no-spam> wrote in message
news:j5mlfvcjj3g09iin510uolg4n0jgmjf2fr@no-spam
> On 26 Jun 2003 04:01:32 -0700, stevespears@no-spam (steve2000)
> wrote:
>
> >> Actually, that hasn't been my answer. As I said, I simply pointed out
> >> that the person claiming that the administration wouldn't have
> >> attacked Iraq without 9/11 has previously made claims that they would
> >> have. I don't think that the administration would have attacked Iraq
> >> without 9/11, as it showed the necessity of going after those
> >> countries that actively support terrorism.
> >
> >Yeah. I keep forgetting that Saddam blew up the WTC towers. And that
> >the WMD that North Korea's actually provably got are just a diplomatic
> >issue.
>
> Saddam did not have to give the order to execute the mission in order
> to be supporting terrorism. We know he supported Palestinian
> terrorism, and signs point to that he did a lot more than that.
he gave money to the families of those who 'fought'.
that's hardly the link to al-qaeda that georgie made it out to be.
>
> >Ennways, you Yanks got at LEAST 3,000 civilians in your little war so
> >maybe your "honor" is satisfied.
>
> Can you show that Iraqi forces didn't kill any of those civilians?
you're so pathetic, still.
btw, look at what's making headlines this morning:
WASHINGTON, June 25 - The State Department's intelligence division is
disputing the Central Intelligence Agency's conclusion that mysterious
trailers found in Iraq were for making biological weapons, United States
government officials said today.
In a classified June 2 memorandum, the officials said, the department's
Bureau of Intelligence and Research said it was premature to conclude that
the trailers were evidence of an Iraqi biological weapons program, as
President Bush has done. The disclosure of the memorandum is the clearest
sign yet of disagreement between intelligence agencies over the assertion,
which was produced jointly by the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency
and made public on May 28 on the C.I.A. Web site. Officials said the C.I.A.
and D.I.A. did not consult with other intelligence agencies before issuing
the report.
The report on the trailers was initially prepared for the White House, and
Mr. Bush has cited it as proof that Iraq indeed had a biological weapons
program, as the United States has repeatedly alleged, although it has yet to
produce any other conclusive evidence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/26/international/worldspecial/26WEAP.html
"William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message news:<WT9Ka.13457$XG4.12613@no-spam>...
> ralph <124c41@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EF930DA.10A3@no-spam
> > Isn't that exactly what he said? the parent bought $1000 of stock, it
> > went to $350,000, the kid inherited it at $350k, so he can sell it right
> > away and pay no tax at all.
>
> Yes, but he has to pay taxes on it even though he doesn't sell it.
???
Aren't you the same William Graham who posted
>When I die, my portfolio will
> be re-evaluated on the date of my death, and this new value will be the
> value of my estate, and
***my children will only have to pay the taxes on any appreciation
since my death when they sell it***.
>IOW, if I buy a share at $10,
> and it goes to $100, and I die, and my children inherit it, they will
> inherit it at the $100 value, so if it goes to $150, and they sell it, they
> will only have to pay taxes on $50 profit, not the other $90 that it
> appreciated during my lifetime.....
The only
> money that he doesn't have to pay taxes on is the money he puts into his own
> IRA. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for anyone to save anything for
> their old age. They would just gamble and spend any profit they make
> immediately. You can't penalize someone for investing money after he's paid
> taxes on it once. Now, If I put my income in a tax-free IRA, then I will
> have to pay tax on it as I spend it, but not before. If I inherit money that
> is not part of my IRA, then I will pay tax on it as it earns money, weather
> I take it out and spend it or not. - Both of these things are true in my
> case. I have Ira funds, and funds that I inherited from my mother. I have to
> pay taxes on her funds' appreciation every year, even though I don't spend
> it, but I only pay taxes on my IRA stuff if I sell part of it to spend. The
> law is written the way it is to prevent what you suggest. People selling
> stuff immediately as soon as they get it. If the tax base was set back to
> the date when the stock was originally purchased. ($10 a share in my
> example) then my heirs would pe heavily taxed as soon as they sold it. As it
> is, there is an incentive for them to leave it alone, and let it remain
> invested for their own future, and American business continues to use that
> capitol into the next generation.
Rick Langel <ricklangel@no-spam> wrote in message news:<j5mlfvcjj3g09iin510uolg4n0jgmjf2fr@no-spam>...
>
> Saddam did not have to give the order to execute the mission in order
> to be supporting terrorism. We know he supported Palestinian
> terrorism, and signs point to that he did a lot more than that.
What signs?
Considering that Al Qaeda and Saddam's greatest enemy, the Khomeini
regime in Iran, had identical aims of extending political, economic,
and military control of the Middle East by the most backwards Islamic
elements, it's ridiculous to state that Iraq in any way supported Al
Qaeda. Saddam's terrorism, like most of his actions, were only
concerned with increasing his own power and security, and so were
directed at dissidents at home and abroad, and supporting those who
undermined Israel, his other major competitor in the region after
Iran. He would never do anything with as much risk and as little
personal gain as any kind of attack on the US.
bostnbob <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdfi8d$ucg$0@no-spam
>
> "J&K Copeland" <jckc@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:2apKa.52233$fe.1023447@no-spam
> >
> > "bostnbob" <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:bdd542$t63$0@no-spam
> > >
> > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:sXJJa.2362$Ab2.5461@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > bostnbob <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:bd7klj$u3e$0@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > > "Doug Kanter" <dkanter@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:76EJa.10121$uN3.9000@no-spam
> > > > > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:2a6Ja.66835$sm5.69769@no-spam
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you don't want a war, then you elect a leader who doesn't
> break
> > > 18
> > > > UN
> > > > > > > resolutions ........
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Elect"? In Iraq under Saddam? Pardon mois? :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Republicans have a rather elastic view of what constitutes being
> > > > "elected."
> > > > > Remember 2000 . . .
> > > > >
> > > > > -- bostnbob
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > 1. Bush was elected.
> > >
> > > By whom?
> > >
> >
> > As President of the Senate, Vice President Albert Gore, in a combined
> > session of Congress, announced, George Bush won the election 271 votes
to
> > 266
> >
>
> In other words, he was not elected by the people of the United States, who
> chose Al Gore by a
> margin of half a million votes, and whose wisdom is being validated daily
by
> the catastrophes, both
> domestic and foreign, we are being led into by the morons imposed on us by
> five unelected political
> hacks on the Supreme Court. Thanks for making my point.
>
> -- bostnbob
>
>
If you don't like the electoral college system, then work to change it, but
as long as we have it, learn to live with it. Actually Bush, or no Bush, I
think it's a good system, since it forces the candidates to worry about the
smaller, non-mainstream states.....Without the electoral college system,
some large block of citizens with the same interests, such as, "the
farmers", could control every election. - The electoral college system gives
smaller states, and other interests some say in their government that they
wouldn't likely have if we just had a, "Majority vote wins" system........
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:54:02 GMT, the.Visitor wrote:
>
>"Rick Langel" <ricklangel@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:j5mlfvcjj3g09iin510uolg4n0jgmjf2fr@no-spam
>> On 26 Jun 2003 04:01:32 -0700, stevespears@no-spam (steve2000)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Actually, that hasn't been my answer. As I said, I simply pointed out
>> >> that the person claiming that the administration wouldn't have
>> >> attacked Iraq without 9/11 has previously made claims that they would
>> >> have. I don't think that the administration would have attacked Iraq
>> >> without 9/11, as it showed the necessity of going after those
>> >> countries that actively support terrorism.
>> >
>> >Yeah. I keep forgetting that Saddam blew up the WTC towers. And that
>> >the WMD that North Korea's actually provably got are just a diplomatic
>> >issue.
>>
>> Saddam did not have to give the order to execute the mission in order
>> to be supporting terrorism. We know he supported Palestinian
>> terrorism, and signs point to that he did a lot more than that.
>
>
>he gave money to the families of those who 'fought'.
>that's hardly the link to al-qaeda that georgie made it out to be.
He gave money to the families whose houses had been bulldozed
by the IDF (supposedly for the crime of being related to a
suicide bomber).
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-Ding Dang, My Dang-a-Long Ling Long."
"bostnbob" <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdfi8d$ucg$0@no-spam
>
> "J&K Copeland" <jckc@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:2apKa.52233$fe.1023447@no-spam
> >
> > "bostnbob" <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:bdd542$t63$0@no-spam
> > >
> > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:sXJJa.2362$Ab2.5461@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > bostnbob <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:bd7klj$u3e$0@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > > "Doug Kanter" <dkanter@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:76EJa.10121$uN3.9000@no-spam
> > > > > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:2a6Ja.66835$sm5.69769@no-spam
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you don't want a war, then you elect a leader who doesn't
> break
> > > 18
> > > > UN
> > > > > > > resolutions ........
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Elect"? In Iraq under Saddam? Pardon mois? :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Republicans have a rather elastic view of what constitutes being
> > > > "elected."
> > > > > Remember 2000 . . .
> > > > >
> > > > > -- bostnbob
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > 1. Bush was elected.
> > >
> > > By whom?
> > >
> >
> > As President of the Senate, Vice President Albert Gore, in a combined
> > session of Congress, announced, George Bush won the election 271 votes
to
> > 266
> >
>
> In other words,
> -- bostnbob
You are boring.
James...
"bostnbob" <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdfi8d$ucg$0@no-spam
>
> "J&K Copeland" <jckc@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:2apKa.52233$fe.1023447@no-spam
> >
> > "bostnbob" <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:bdd542$t63$0@no-spam
> > >
> > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:sXJJa.2362$Ab2.5461@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > bostnbob <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:bd7klj$u3e$0@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > > "Doug Kanter" <dkanter@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:76EJa.10121$uN3.9000@no-spam
> > > > > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:2a6Ja.66835$sm5.69769@no-spam
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you don't want a war, then you elect a leader who doesn't
> break
> > > 18
> > > > UN
> > > > > > > resolutions ........
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Elect"? In Iraq under Saddam? Pardon mois? :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Republicans have a rather elastic view of what constitutes being
> > > > "elected."
> > > > > Remember 2000 . . .
> > > > >
> > > > > -- bostnbob
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > 1. Bush was elected.
> > >
> > > By whom?
> > >
> >
> > As President of the Senate, Vice President Albert Gore, in a combined
> > session of Congress, announced, George Bush won the election 271 votes
to
> > 266
> >
>
> In other words, he was not elected by the people of the United States, who
> chose Al Gore by a
> margin of half a million votes, and whose wisdom is being validated daily
by
> the catastrophes, both
> domestic and foreign, we are being led into by the morons imposed on us by
> five unelected political
> hacks on the Supreme Court. Thanks for making my point.
Flunked American History and Government, did you?
--
Hooda Gest
"In a New York minute, everything can change..."
Rick Langel <ricklangel@no-spam> wrote:
> And that's a real hoot.
>
> "Among the alternative purposes for the trailers that the State
> Department report described as plausible were that they had been
> intended for the refueling of Iraqi missiles, one administration
> official said."
>
> The Iraqis use trailers to refuel missiles? And I suppose they use the
> missiles to deliver fertilizer to farmers' fields.
Don't forget that missile with limited range were authorized by the UN
resolutions.
>
> Really, schmidt, you should find a more credible source than the
> Times. Besides, the claims that those trailers were for anything
> other than making biological weapons has been debunked already.
"one administration official" still said that those trailer had been
intended for the refueling of iraqi missiles, whereas we all know they
were sold by the brits in the 80s to produce hydrogen. So basically,
we're better informed than officials. Ludicrious isn't it?
--
Florian NACHON - Omaha, NE
"Every man has two nations, and one of them is France"
Benjamin Franklin & Thomas Jefferson
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:45:20 -0700
William Graham wrote:
>
> bostnbob <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:bdfi8d$ucg$0@no-spam
> >
> > "J&K Copeland" <jckc@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:2apKa.52233$fe.1023447@no-spam
> > >
> > > "bostnbob" <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:bdd542$t63$0@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:sXJJa.2362$Ab2.5461@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > > bostnbob <bostnbob@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:bd7klj$u3e$0@no-spam
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Doug Kanter" <dkanter@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:76EJa.10121$uN3.9000@no-spam
> > > > > > > "William Graham" <weg9@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:2a6Ja.66835$sm5.69769@no-spam
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you don't want a war, then you elect a leader who doesn't
> > break
> > > > 18
> > > > > UN
> > > > > > > > resolutions ........
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Elect"? In Iraq under Saddam? Pardon mois? :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Republicans have a rather elastic view of what constitutes being
> > > > > "elected."
> > > > > > Remember 2000 . . .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- bostnbob
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > 1. Bush was elected.
> > > >
> > > > By whom?
> > > >
> > >
> > > As President of the Senate, Vice President Albert Gore, in a combined
> > > session of Congress, announced, George Bush won the election 271 votes
> to
> > > 266
> > >
> >
> > In other words, he was not elected by the people of the United States, who
> > chose Al Gore by a
> > margin of half a million votes, and whose wisdom is being validated daily
> by
> > the catastrophes, both
> > domestic and foreign, we are being led into by the morons imposed on us by
> > five unelected political
> > hacks on the Supreme Court. Thanks for making my point.
> >
> > -- bostnbob
> >
> >
> If you don't like the electoral college system, then work to change it, but
> as long as we have it, learn to live with it. Actually