> Do you have any idea how few estates are subject to the estate tax? <

Well, Lloyd, I'm sure when you've amassed roughly $650k in combined net
worth (easy to do with either coast's real estate market) your heirs will be
more than happy to fork over 50% of it to the Socialists to spend on
patronage jobs for their leftist cronies.

MILLIONS of normal, everyday folks are worth this much and their heirs
either have to give it away in terms of $10k gifts, of sell the family
residence to pay the ------- taxes.

 

> Do you have any idea how few estates are subject to the estate tax? <

Well, Lloyd, I'm sure when you've amassed roughly $650k in combined net
worth (easy to do with either coast's real estate market) your heirs will be
more than happy to fork over 50% of it to the Socialists to spend on
patronage jobs for their leftist cronies.

MILLIONS of normal, everyday folks are worth this much and their heirs
either have to give it away in terms of $10k gifts, of sell the family
residence to pay the ------- taxes.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
> It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.

You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2 has
never been static. In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
concentration until about 10,000 years ago. CO2 is constantly being more or less
permanently removed from the atmosphere and tied up in corral reefs, limestone,
coal, oil, peat, etc., etc., etc. Recently mankind has released some of the
stored CO2. Maybe we are actually helping to restore the balance. At any rate the
era of fossil fuel will sooner or later come to an end. It may take another 200
years or 1000 years, but it will end. On the geologic time scale it will just be
a blip.

I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a change
in the climate. However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not a
change in the CO2 concentration. The component of climate change attributable to
human activity may actually be beneficial. It might counter some "natural change"
(whatever that means) or reinforce the "natural change" or it may be trivial
compared to the "natural change." The manmade component might be a good thing, a
bad thing, or an insignificant thing. I object to what I perceive to be a
hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals. I think the potential for harm
is deliberately overstated. I think the science supporting global warming is not
subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
theory" with liberals. I think the new medias trumpets global warming because it
generates a lot interest. I think a lot of scientist promote global warming
because they can get money to study it.

If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise 10
feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise over
night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you buy land
in Kansas now. If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
rearranged for no reason. If the global warming people are right, rearranging the
lives of millions of Americans to meet the terms of the Kyoto treaty won't have
any affect on the end results. We will just continue to move most of our CO2
generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.

To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse than
the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is being
dramatically overstated.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
> It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.

You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2 has
never been static. In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
concentration until about 10,000 years ago. CO2 is constantly being more or less
permanently removed from the atmosphere and tied up in corral reefs, limestone,
coal, oil, peat, etc., etc., etc. Recently mankind has released some of the
stored CO2. Maybe we are actually helping to restore the balance. At any rate the
era of fossil fuel will sooner or later come to an end. It may take another 200
years or 1000 years, but it will end. On the geologic time scale it will just be
a blip.

I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a change
in the climate. However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not a
change in the CO2 concentration. The component of climate change attributable to
human activity may actually be beneficial. It might counter some "natural change"
(whatever that means) or reinforce the "natural change" or it may be trivial
compared to the "natural change." The manmade component might be a good thing, a
bad thing, or an insignificant thing. I object to what I perceive to be a
hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals. I think the potential for harm
is deliberately overstated. I think the science supporting global warming is not
subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
theory" with liberals. I think the new medias trumpets global warming because it
generates a lot interest. I think a lot of scientist promote global warming
because they can get money to study it.

If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise 10
feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise over
night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you buy land
in Kansas now. If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
rearranged for no reason. If the global warming people are right, rearranging the
lives of millions of Americans to meet the terms of the Kyoto treaty won't have
any affect on the end results. We will just continue to move most of our CO2
generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.

To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse than
the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is being
dramatically overstated.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
> It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.

You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2 has
never been static. In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
concentration until about 10,000 years ago. CO2 is constantly being more or less
permanently removed from the atmosphere and tied up in corral reefs, limestone,
coal, oil, peat, etc., etc., etc. Recently mankind has released some of the
stored CO2. Maybe we are actually helping to restore the balance. At any rate the
era of fossil fuel will sooner or later come to an end. It may take another 200
years or 1000 years, but it will end. On the geologic time scale it will just be
a blip.

I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a change
in the climate. However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not a
change in the CO2 concentration. The component of climate change attributable to
human activity may actually be beneficial. It might counter some "natural change"
(whatever that means) or reinforce the "natural change" or it may be trivial
compared to the "natural change." The manmade component might be a good thing, a
bad thing, or an insignificant thing. I object to what I perceive to be a
hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals. I think the potential for harm
is deliberately overstated. I think the science supporting global warming is not
subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
theory" with liberals. I think the new medias trumpets global warming because it
generates a lot interest. I think a lot of scientist promote global warming
because they can get money to study it.

If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise 10
feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise over
night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you buy land
in Kansas now. If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
rearranged for no reason. If the global warming people are right, rearranging the
lives of millions of Americans to meet the terms of the Kyoto treaty won't have
any affect on the end results. We will just continue to move most of our CO2
generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.

To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse than
the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is being
dramatically overstated.

Ed

 

> Not so. My employer won't even give me the money they save by my not
being married and not needing their subsidy for health insurance for a
spouse, tuition for children, etc. You're deluding yourself if you think
employers would give employees the money they'd save if they didn't have to
pay SS.>

No, they'd probably invest it in research, or HEAVENS, pay it out to the
shareholders, you know, all those filthy rich scubags making $40k a year.

> Which your employer would keep as profit otherwise.<

HORRORS!!! The employer MIGHT MAKE A PROFIT, where's Joe Stalin when you
need him?


> >That's why self-employed persons get the joyous honor of paying the WHOLE
amount, with the second half called "self-employment tax" on the 1040,
another piece of subterfuge your liberal tax & spend eleceted
representatives concocted back in the '70's when they wrote this entire scam
tax code. >

> >Lloyd and the other leftists think everyone's too stupid to figure this
all out, but it's actually very easy to unravel it using a program like
Turbo Tax....>>

Lloyd never comments on stuff he's worried about, ("Sheesh, no wonder I'm
always broke, Ted Kennedy got all my money!" Lloyd's just ordered Turbo Tax
and will secretly register as a Republican next year!!

 

> Not so. My employer won't even give me the money they save by my not
being married and not needing their subsidy for health insurance for a
spouse, tuition for children, etc. You're deluding yourself if you think
employers would give employees the money they'd save if they didn't have to
pay SS.>

No, they'd probably invest it in research, or HEAVENS, pay it out to the
shareholders, you know, all those filthy rich scubags making $40k a year.

> Which your employer would keep as profit otherwise.<

HORRORS!!! The employer MIGHT MAKE A PROFIT, where's Joe Stalin when you
need him?


> >That's why self-employed persons get the joyous honor of paying the WHOLE
amount, with the second half called "self-employment tax" on the 1040,
another piece of subterfuge your liberal tax & spend eleceted
representatives concocted back in the '70's when they wrote this entire scam
tax code. >

> >Lloyd and the other leftists think everyone's too stupid to figure this
all out, but it's actually very easy to unravel it using a program like
Turbo Tax....>>

Lloyd never comments on stuff he's worried about, ("Sheesh, no wonder I'm
always broke, Ted Kennedy got all my money!" Lloyd's just ordered Turbo Tax
and will secretly register as a Republican next year!!

 

> Not so. My employer won't even give me the money they save by my not
being married and not needing their subsidy for health insurance for a
spouse, tuition for children, etc. You're deluding yourself if you think
employers would give employees the money they'd save if they didn't have to
pay SS.>

No, they'd probably invest it in research, or HEAVENS, pay it out to the
shareholders, you know, all those filthy rich scubags making $40k a year.

> Which your employer would keep as profit otherwise.<

HORRORS!!! The employer MIGHT MAKE A PROFIT, where's Joe Stalin when you
need him?


> >That's why self-employed persons get the joyous honor of paying the WHOLE
amount, with the second half called "self-employment tax" on the 1040,
another piece of subterfuge your liberal tax & spend eleceted
representatives concocted back in the '70's when they wrote this entire scam
tax code. >

> >Lloyd and the other leftists think everyone's too stupid to figure this
all out, but it's actually very easy to unravel it using a program like
Turbo Tax....>>

Lloyd never comments on stuff he's worried about, ("Sheesh, no wonder I'm
always broke, Ted Kennedy got all my money!" Lloyd's just ordered Turbo Tax
and will secretly register as a Republican next year!!

 

> FL law allowed for a candidate to ask for a recount in specific counties.<

Common sense says people know total -------- when they smell it!


> The US constitution provides that a person's transgressions do not extend
to their children. Guess that puts you on the wrong side of the
constitution.>

Guess thais proves you're not very good at either history, logil or debate,
Bozo!


> >No, old Al Gore screwed himself and the entire Democrat party by what he
did, and the public hasn't forgotten. By the way, Texas has only recently
become a Republican state. The Democrats have controlled politics there
since the 1870's, and their latest trick to keep from accepting reality was
to LEAVE THE STATE! Some representation! >>

Again Lloyd avoids dealing with the obvious. Face it, the Democrats are
fading into obscurity, they even lost TWO MORE Governorships this week, and
will probably lose anpther next week.
> >

 

> FL law allowed for a candidate to ask for a recount in specific counties.<

Common sense says people know total -------- when they smell it!


> The US constitution provides that a person's transgressions do not extend
to their children. Guess that puts you on the wrong side of the
constitution.>

Guess thais proves you're not very good at either history, logil or debate,
Bozo!


> >No, old Al Gore screwed himself and the entire Democrat party by what he
did, and the public hasn't forgotten. By the way, Texas has only recently
become a Republican state. The Democrats have controlled politics there
since the 1870's, and their latest trick to keep from accepting reality was
to LEAVE THE STATE! Some representation! >>

Again Lloyd avoids dealing with the obvious. Face it, the Democrats are
fading into obscurity, they even lost TWO MORE Governorships this week, and
will probably lose anpther next week.
> >