"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:boepta02gdc@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > Then you're in the minority. In most businesses, people pay more out of
> their paycheck to cover a family than if they were single. >
>
> But that doesn;t justify unfairly taxing singles. Marrieds use grossly
more
> resources and government services than do singles, and singles get
virtually
> nothing in exchange for paying double the taxes of marrieds.
>
> Being married and having children is a matter of choice. That decision
> should not be subsidised by the government at the expense of singles, the
> most discriminated against minority after white males over 45.
>
>

I wasn't trying to justify the tax rates. It sounds like Lloyd receives no
benefit for being cheaper to insure than employees with families. All the
companies I'm familiar with did away with that years ago. I've help pay for
my medical insurance premium for years now and it's more expensive if you
have dependents than it is if you're single.

I don't blame you for being frustrated at congress' hand in your pocket.

 

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:boepta02gdc@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > Then you're in the minority. In most businesses, people pay more out of
> their paycheck to cover a family than if they were single. >
>
> But that doesn;t justify unfairly taxing singles. Marrieds use grossly
more
> resources and government services than do singles, and singles get
virtually
> nothing in exchange for paying double the taxes of marrieds.
>
> Being married and having children is a matter of choice. That decision
> should not be subsidised by the government at the expense of singles, the
> most discriminated against minority after white males over 45.
>
>

I wasn't trying to justify the tax rates. It sounds like Lloyd receives no
benefit for being cheaper to insure than employees with families. All the
companies I'm familiar with did away with that years ago. I've help pay for
my medical insurance premium for years now and it's more expensive if you
have dependents than it is if you're single.

I don't blame you for being frustrated at congress' hand in your pocket.

 

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:boepta02gdc@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > Then you're in the minority. In most businesses, people pay more out of
> their paycheck to cover a family than if they were single. >
>
> But that doesn;t justify unfairly taxing singles. Marrieds use grossly
more
> resources and government services than do singles, and singles get
virtually
> nothing in exchange for paying double the taxes of marrieds.
>
> Being married and having children is a matter of choice. That decision
> should not be subsidised by the government at the expense of singles, the
> most discriminated against minority after white males over 45.
>
>

I wasn't trying to justify the tax rates. It sounds like Lloyd receives no
benefit for being cheaper to insure than employees with families. All the
companies I'm familiar with did away with that years ago. I've help pay for
my medical insurance premium for years now and it's more expensive if you
have dependents than it is if you're single.

I don't blame you for being frustrated at congress' hand in your pocket.

 

LOL!

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:boeq6e02gpt@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > There was nothing honest about it. It was all tilted to find Gore votes
> and not find Bush votes. What's honest about that? <
>
> Lloyd is like all the other liberal Socialists, they're convinced the
> citizens are idiots who wouldn't notice what you just pointed out. We're
to
> believe the old bastards in Palm Beach county, who can manage a
> multi-million dollar portfolio, handicap a horse race and manage 4 bingo
> cards at a time couldn't figure out a simple ballot, or were too weak or
> stupid to punch through a card. What, like these same people hadn't used
the
> same voting machines for years? What a crock!
>
>

 

LOL!

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:boeq6e02gpt@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > There was nothing honest about it. It was all tilted to find Gore votes
> and not find Bush votes. What's honest about that? <
>
> Lloyd is like all the other liberal Socialists, they're convinced the
> citizens are idiots who wouldn't notice what you just pointed out. We're
to
> believe the old bastards in Palm Beach county, who can manage a
> multi-million dollar portfolio, handicap a horse race and manage 4 bingo
> cards at a time couldn't figure out a simple ballot, or were too weak or
> stupid to punch through a card. What, like these same people hadn't used
the
> same voting machines for years? What a crock!
>
>

 

LOL!

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:boeq6e02gpt@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > There was nothing honest about it. It was all tilted to find Gore votes
> and not find Bush votes. What's honest about that? <
>
> Lloyd is like all the other liberal Socialists, they're convinced the
> citizens are idiots who wouldn't notice what you just pointed out. We're
to
> believe the old bastards in Palm Beach county, who can manage a
> multi-million dollar portfolio, handicap a horse race and manage 4 bingo
> cards at a time couldn't figure out a simple ballot, or were too weak or
> stupid to punch through a card. What, like these same people hadn't used
the
> same voting machines for years? What a crock!
>
>

 

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:boeqjt02h7g@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is
> all academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots.
> (Not that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount and
> only had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out
ahead.
> This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how
Bush
> "stole" the election!>
>
> Now, David, there you go again, trying to bring reality rather than
Democrat
> fable into this entire matter. Now, Everyone knows Gore won, but those
awful
> Bush brothers and the Republicans conspired to steal the election by not
> allowing the Democrats to only count the votes they wanted counted, and
that
> AWFUL, Kathryn Harris had the audacity to interpret Florida election law
the
> way it was written. Maybe Howard Dean can fix all this after he wins the
> Presidency....
>
>
Actually, Lloyd will nail me for one thing I said. I don't think FL state
law specfies how to count ballots. I think each county specifies it's own
method. The point isn't lost though. None of that matters to Dems who hope
the battle cry of "Remember Florida 2000!" will swoop them to victory in
2004. Political reality isn't what "is", it's what's perceived. Dems have
taken that to a new low. Clinton was very good at it.

 

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:boeqjt02h7g@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is
> all academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots.
> (Not that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount and
> only had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out
ahead.
> This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how
Bush
> "stole" the election!>
>
> Now, David, there you go again, trying to bring reality rather than
Democrat
> fable into this entire matter. Now, Everyone knows Gore won, but those
awful
> Bush brothers and the Republicans conspired to steal the election by not
> allowing the Democrats to only count the votes they wanted counted, and
that
> AWFUL, Kathryn Harris had the audacity to interpret Florida election law
the
> way it was written. Maybe Howard Dean can fix all this after he wins the
> Presidency....
>
>
Actually, Lloyd will nail me for one thing I said. I don't think FL state
law specfies how to count ballots. I think each county specifies it's own
method. The point isn't lost though. None of that matters to Dems who hope
the battle cry of "Remember Florida 2000!" will swoop them to victory in
2004. Political reality isn't what "is", it's what's perceived. Dems have
taken that to a new low. Clinton was very good at it.

 

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:boeqjt02h7g@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is
> all academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots.
> (Not that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount and
> only had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out
ahead.
> This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how
Bush
> "stole" the election!>
>
> Now, David, there you go again, trying to bring reality rather than
Democrat
> fable into this entire matter. Now, Everyone knows Gore won, but those
awful
> Bush brothers and the Republicans conspired to steal the election by not
> allowing the Democrats to only count the votes they wanted counted, and
that
> AWFUL, Kathryn Harris had the audacity to interpret Florida election law
the
> way it was written. Maybe Howard Dean can fix all this after he wins the
> Presidency....
>
>
Actually, Lloyd will nail me for one thing I said. I don't think FL state
law specfies how to count ballots. I think each county specifies it's own
method. The point isn't lost though. None of that matters to Dems who hope
the battle cry of "Remember Florida 2000!" will swoop them to victory in
2004. Political reality isn't what "is", it's what's perceived. Dems have
taken that to a new low. Clinton was very good at it.

 

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:boeqp202ha5@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > Thank heaven for a Republican congress and for the fact that Clinton was
> less devoted to liberalism (tax & spend) than he was to staying in power.
Of
> course we can't forget that that much of that booming economy was built on
> unsound economic principles, like speculation and overstated earnings.
What
> did he call it? Irrational exhuberance! <
>
> Actually it was Greenspan that called it "irrational exuberance", for
which
> the Clintonites roundly condemned him...
>
> We can also note that the Enron, Tyco, Worldcom & Global Crossing scams
ALL
> occured during the Clinton Presidency.....Oh, how Lloyd hopes we'll all
> blame it on Bush....
>

I actually was infering Greenspan, but didn't make it clear. And Lloyd
already has blamed it on Bush. His argument says Wall Streets anticipation
of a Bush presidency is what caused the market decline. We all know how
Democrats are good for business and Republicans are bad for business :-D

They love those higher taxes and tougher regulations and product liability
lawsuits!

Oh, and some of us remember 4 years of Carter and 8 years of Reagan.