"Nathan Collier" <JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote in message
news:2mPqb.90063$IA2.3093658@twister.southeast.rr. com...
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bogbf1$44t$30@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > Yeah, tell them about your scientific qualifications to judge me too.
>
> lol......its nice to see youre still the same idiot loser twit youve
always
> been. the same ignorant *** that claimed rear wheel only engine braking
was
> just as effective as 4 wheel engine braking off road on steep slick
declines
> because of some "scientific" reasoning you read in a magazine. it doesnt
> take any "scientific qualifications" to know youre a idiot lloyd. you
speak
> for yourself rather well.
>
> and just incase you were wondering, i still hope you die a slow miserable
> death as the cholesterol that wraps your obese heart chokes the life out
of
> you. i read the atlanta journal online daily hoping to find "obese
> homosexual professor dies due to massive blood loss when the gerbil he
> shoved up his *** worked the tape from his claws". only a matter of time,
> feltcher. :-)
>
> --
> Nathan W. Collier
> http://7SlotGrille.com
> http://UtilityOffRoad.com
>
>
>

Well, why don't you, like, get emotional about it.

--
Certe, toto, sentio nos in kansate non iam adesse

 

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:hrinqvo0bavd59olh21bko9eq09c8rc6ee@4ax.com...
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
> >>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>, Bill Funk
<bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
> >>>
> >>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
> >
> >It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
> >Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
>
> You are basing your conclusion on an unproven premise. It was "fairly
> obvious" that the earth was flat as well. That didn't make it true...
>


Doesn't make it false either.
The earth is Flat, my friend.
It may not look like it from where you are, but just go to Saskatchewan.

--
Certe, toto, sentio nos in kansate non iam adesse

 

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:hrinqvo0bavd59olh21bko9eq09c8rc6ee@4ax.com...
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
> >>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>, Bill Funk
<bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
> >>>
> >>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
> >
> >It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
> >Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
>
> You are basing your conclusion on an unproven premise. It was "fairly
> obvious" that the earth was flat as well. That didn't make it true...
>


Doesn't make it false either.
The earth is Flat, my friend.
It may not look like it from where you are, but just go to Saskatchewan.

--
Certe, toto, sentio nos in kansate non iam adesse

 

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:hrinqvo0bavd59olh21bko9eq09c8rc6ee@4ax.com...
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
> >>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>, Bill Funk
<bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
> >>>
> >>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
> >
> >It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
> >Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
>
> You are basing your conclusion on an unproven premise. It was "fairly
> obvious" that the earth was flat as well. That didn't make it true...
>


Doesn't make it false either.
The earth is Flat, my friend.
It may not look like it from where you are, but just go to Saskatchewan.

--
Certe, toto, sentio nos in kansate non iam adesse

 

> If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs ...... <

Governments cannot create as many jobs for the same amount of money as the
private sector. As they have no profit motive, the internal waste, etc. goe
unchedcked and money oozes out due to low productivity, patronage, protected
absenteesism, etc.

...... at exactly the same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that
affect the economy? <

Government cannot pay the same salaries as the private sector for the same
number of jons, plus since they produce no goods or services the money they
absorb is merely transfers private sector assets to public sector
liabilities. For the given amount of revenue they produce no profit,
therefore have nothing to reinvest and create new wealth. They must
therefore either cut costs, raise taxes, or print money, devaluing all
revenues to the detrimant of the entire economy. Name the last time before
the Republicans took control in the 90s the liberals govt reduced spending
to balance a budget? That's right NEVER! That's why Carter and his lib
biddies in congress gave us double-digit inflation prining money, which they
then turened in touble didgit unemployment. All that in only 4 short years!

> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

> If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs ...... <

Governments cannot create as many jobs for the same amount of money as the
private sector. As they have no profit motive, the internal waste, etc. goe
unchedcked and money oozes out due to low productivity, patronage, protected
absenteesism, etc.

...... at exactly the same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that
affect the economy? <

Government cannot pay the same salaries as the private sector for the same
number of jons, plus since they produce no goods or services the money they
absorb is merely transfers private sector assets to public sector
liabilities. For the given amount of revenue they produce no profit,
therefore have nothing to reinvest and create new wealth. They must
therefore either cut costs, raise taxes, or print money, devaluing all
revenues to the detrimant of the entire economy. Name the last time before
the Republicans took control in the 90s the liberals govt reduced spending
to balance a budget? That's right NEVER! That's why Carter and his lib
biddies in congress gave us double-digit inflation prining money, which they
then turened in touble didgit unemployment. All that in only 4 short years!

> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

> If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs ...... <

Governments cannot create as many jobs for the same amount of money as the
private sector. As they have no profit motive, the internal waste, etc. goe
unchedcked and money oozes out due to low productivity, patronage, protected
absenteesism, etc.

...... at exactly the same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that
affect the economy? <

Government cannot pay the same salaries as the private sector for the same
number of jons, plus since they produce no goods or services the money they
absorb is merely transfers private sector assets to public sector
liabilities. For the given amount of revenue they produce no profit,
therefore have nothing to reinvest and create new wealth. They must
therefore either cut costs, raise taxes, or print money, devaluing all
revenues to the detrimant of the entire economy. Name the last time before
the Republicans took control in the 90s the liberals govt reduced spending
to balance a budget? That's right NEVER! That's why Carter and his lib
biddies in congress gave us double-digit inflation prining money, which they
then turened in touble didgit unemployment. All that in only 4 short years!

> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:guinqv0md1knhpd2775dg4obke0pccplqh@4ax.com...
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of
the
> >private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of
where
> >the money comes from (rich or poor).
>
> If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
> public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
> same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
>


1) Politicos get a cut, say 15%
2) You have to set up a department for this, say 30%
3) All government employees belong to unions, another 5%
4) see:3 - Union employees work a little slower, another 20%
5) see:3 - It takes two union members to do the work of 1, another 30%
6) see:3 - Union dues, another 2%
7) Total - 102%.
8) 2% of $1,000,000,000 ===> $20,000,000
9) Marc - please come up with another $20,000,000





--
Certe, toto, sentio nos in kansate non iam adesse

 

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:guinqv0md1knhpd2775dg4obke0pccplqh@4ax.com...
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of
the
> >private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of
where
> >the money comes from (rich or poor).
>
> If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
> public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
> same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
>


1) Politicos get a cut, say 15%
2) You have to set up a department for this, say 30%
3) All government employees belong to unions, another 5%
4) see:3 - Union employees work a little slower, another 20%
5) see:3 - It takes two union members to do the work of 1, another 30%
6) see:3 - Union dues, another 2%
7) Total - 102%.
8) 2% of $1,000,000,000 ===> $20,000,000
9) Marc - please come up with another $20,000,000





--
Certe, toto, sentio nos in kansate non iam adesse

 

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:guinqv0md1knhpd2775dg4obke0pccplqh@4ax.com...
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of
the
> >private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of
where
> >the money comes from (rich or poor).
>
> If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
> public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
> same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
>


1) Politicos get a cut, say 15%
2) You have to set up a department for this, say 30%
3) All government employees belong to unions, another 5%
4) see:3 - Union employees work a little slower, another 20%
5) see:3 - It takes two union members to do the work of 1, another 30%
6) see:3 - Union dues, another 2%
7) Total - 102%.
8) 2% of $1,000,000,000 ===> $20,000,000
9) Marc - please come up with another $20,000,000





--
Certe, toto, sentio nos in kansate non iam adesse