GREENDALE FORUM by GreendaleLife.com

Our Garden Community's Cyber Town Square
It is currently Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:12 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: GOP: MASSIVE TAX CUT FOR WEALTHY
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:00 pm 
Offline
Active User
Active User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 12:36 pm
Posts: 336
Location: just over yonder
I'm not making this up:

House Republican leaders called a press conference Thursday to unveil their "alternative budget." While it was thin on specifics, it does include one major policy proposal: a huge tax cut for the wealthy.

Under the Republican plan, the top marginal tax rate would be slashed from 35 to 25 percent, facilitating a dramatic transfer of wealth up the economic scale. Anyone making more than a $100,000 would pay the top rate; those under would pay 10 percent.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090326/pl_mcclatchy/3198734;_ylt=Ahl9pqvHrW7qB82gqY5RIKSyFz4D

Image

_________________
Wisconsin Supper Clubs - An Old Fashioned Experience


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: GOP: MASSIVE TAX CUT FOR WEALTHY
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:46 am 
Offline
Active User
Active User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:58 am
Posts: 311
Location: Here And There
How is that not fair???
Im not sure of what the cutoff is but a lot of families at lower incomes do not pay any income tax at all.
If everyone paid we would all be doing what is fair.
Flat tax 25 percent over 100,000. 10 percent below 100,000.

_________________
Strength And Honor


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GOP: MASSIVE TAX CUT FOR WEALTHY
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:32 am 
Offline
Active User
Active User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 12:36 pm
Posts: 336
Location: just over yonder
Its not fair because the rich get richer and the government continues to add to the debt. Less tax money = government programs cut. That will affect the poor and middle class (health care for starters).

That said, it will never happen, at least the way the Republicans presented it this time. Their budget, "The Republican Road to Recovery" contains absolutely no details. They came off as complete buffoons on this. Watch the highlights...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuAstDdFA2M

And right now wealthy Americans are paying some of the lowest tax rates ever! From 1944-1963 the top tax rate was between 91-94%.

It was Reagan who cut it down to 50% then Bush 1 knocked it down to 28% until "read my lips..." he had to raise it to 31%. Even so, note the corresponding spike in the National Debt.

Clinton raised the top rate to 39.6% and the Debt went down. Bush 2 lowered the tax rate to 33-35%, erased Clinton's surplus and spiked the Debt once again.

Obama is asking to return to the Clinton era's tax levels of 36-39.6% for people making more than $250,000 per year. Seems like a good idea to me. And its fair.

Image
Image

_________________
Wisconsin Supper Clubs - An Old Fashioned Experience


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: GOP: MASSIVE TAX CUT FOR WEALTHY
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:14 am 
Offline
Semi-Active User
Semi-Active User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:36 am
Posts: 86
Location: beyond the pale
Parentof3 wrote:
How is that not fair???
Im not sure of what the cutoff is but a lot of families at lower incomes do not pay any income tax at all.
If everyone paid we would all be doing what is fair.
Flat tax 25 percent over 100,000. 10 percent below 100,000.

Thomas Jefferson did say that the Tree of Liberty needs to be watered by the Blood of Revolution every 50 years.

It's time to stop being rule - followers.
Rules, like pens, are for sheep.
Just line up the placid middle classes so they can be shorn for profit by the wealthy.

They are not even trying to hide it anymore.

Maybe, someday, I will be able to aspire to reaching even the $100K plateau of luxury.....
But not if I keep having to bail out all these testosterone-poisoned Wall Street bunko, er, banker, guys.
$30,000 for every person in the country, and climbing.

How is THAT fair?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GOP: MASSIVE TAX CUT FOR WEALTHY
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:20 am 
Offline
Active User
Active User

Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:56 pm
Posts: 302
Ron 80 wrote:
Its not fair because the rich get richer and the government continues to add to the debt. Less tax money = government programs cut. That will affect the poor and middle class (health care for starters).

That said, it will never happen, at least the way the Republicans presented it this time. Their budget, "The Republican Road to Recovery" contains absolutely no details. They came off as complete buffoons on this. Watch the highlights...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuAstDdFA2M

And right now wealthy Americans are paying some of the lowest tax rates ever! From 1944-1963 the top tax rate was between 91-94%.

It was Reagan who cut it down to 50% then Bush 1 knocked it down to 28% until "read my lips..." he had to raise it to 31%. Even so, note the corresponding spike in the National Debt.

Clinton raised the top rate to 39.6% and the Debt went down. Bush 2 lowered the tax rate to 33-35%, erased Clinton's surplus and spiked the Debt once again.

Obama is asking to return to the Clinton era's tax levels of 36-39.6% for people making more than $250,000 per year. Seems like a good idea to me. And its fair.

Image
Image


Its not fair because the rich get richer and the government continues to add to the debt.

LET THE GOVERNMENT STOP SPENDING, THEN. THAT WILL BE A DISCONTINUATION OF ADDING TO THE DEBT. CUTTING TAXES DOES NOT ADD TO THE DEFICIT IN AND OF ITSELF. SPENDING CUTS CUT THE DEBT.

Less tax money = government programs cut.

OH, THAT'S YOUR CONCERN, GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS, NOT DEBT, ACTUALLY. WHICH PROGRAMS WERE CUT, BY THE WAY? DEFICITS EQUAL BORROWING NOT PROGRAMS BEING CUT.

That will affect the poor and middle class (health care for starters).

THE FALLACY OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING = GOOD FOR PEOPLE CONTINUES.

That said, it will never happen, at least the way the Republicans presented it this time.

YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THAT. BOTH PARTIES PUT FORTH THEIR BEST STUFF WHEN THEY'RE OUT OF POWER SO THEY CAN POINT FINGERS AND CLAIM A BETTER WAY BUT REALLY DO NOTHING WHEN THEY HAVE THE POWER. BOTH PARTIES DO IT. MOST PEOPLE EAT IT UP WITH A SPOON.

Their budget, "The Republican Road to Recovery" contains absolutely no details. They came off as complete buffoons on this.

WELL THEY ARE LEGISLATORS AFTER ALL.

And right now wealthy Americans are paying some of the lowest tax rates ever! From 1944-1963 the top tax rate was between 91-94%.

DARN THOSE CONFISCATORY RATES SOUNDS GOOD TO YOU, DON'T THEY? THAT'S SHOWING THOSE RICH PEOPLE. (NOT THOSE WHO HAVE WEALTH, OF COURSE, LIKE THE KENNEDYS, BUT THOSE WHO ARE ACCUMULATING WEALTH.) MAYBE THEY SHOULD BE TAXED AT ONE-HUNDRED PERCENT?

It was Reagan who cut it down to 50%

WITH THE HELP OF A DEMOCRATIC-CONTROLLED HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RECALL. YOU DO RECALL THAT DO YOU NOT?

then Bush 1 knocked it down to 28% until "read my lips..."

WHO CONTROLLED THE LEGISLATURE THEN? AT LEAST THE HOUSE WAS STILL IN DEMOCRATIC CONTROL.

he had to raise it to 31%. Even so, note the corresponding spike in the National Debt.

NOTE: TAX CUTS DO not CAUSE DEBT. SPENDING CAUSES DEBT. GET THAT? SPENDING CAUSES DEBT. SPENDING. NOT REVENUE. SPENDING.

Clinton raised the top rate to 39.6% and the Debt went down.

PART OF THAT WAS THE PEACE DIVIDEND. ANOTHER BIG PART WAS THE BUBBLE-MANIA BEING TAXED.

Bush 2 lowered the tax rate to 33-35%, erased Clinton's surplus and spiked the Debt once again.

THOSE SURPLUSES WERE MOSTLY PROJECTED AND THE REPUBLICANS WERE THEN IN CONTROL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. RARELY IS ONE PARTY ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING EITHER BAD OR GOOD. WELL WHEN THERE'S GOOD WE'LL JUDGE THAT, I SUPPOSE.

Obama is asking to return to the Clinton era's tax levels of 36-39.6% for people making more than $250,000 per year. Seems like a good idea to me. And its fair.

I'D LOVE TO KNOW HOW YOU DEFINE "FAIR."

THE ONLY FAIR IS FEE FOR SERVICE; PAY FOR WHAT YOU GET, GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GOP: MASSIVE TAX CUT FOR WEALTHY
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:59 am 
Offline
Active User
Active User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:21 pm
Posts: 323
Location: Greendale D-section
1. STOP SHOUTING: we can all hear you.

2. Fee for service is great: how do all the starved, homeless, dead poor people get buried? Or do we just let them pile up by the side of the road?

3. If my rent-a-cops don't agree with your rent-a-cops, can they shoot it out in the streets? If my cops are stronger than your cops, can I just declare you a terrorist, and take your car/house/boat/etc?

4. I presume that you see no down-side at all to lots of minor children having no access to schools or health care (think: burglary, vandalism, no immunizations, infectious diseases)? Measles and chicken pox epidemics are OK with you?

5. Let the government cut spending proportionally on all its programs: The biggest slice of the federal budget pie is Social Security and Medicare. How many grandmothers would you like to see eating cat food, or dying of pneumonia, heart attacks, and untreated chronic ailments?

6. Please explain how roads would be built and maintained under the fee-for-service scheme. Include diagrams showing how the owners of the land that is used for roads will collect their fees. (In Afghanistan, they do this using "local checkpoints").

7. What action should the Federal Government take when Canada starts erecting a wall to prevent the American poor from crossing the border to try and build a better life in the Great White North?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GOP: MASSIVE TAX CUT FOR WEALTHY
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:03 pm 
Offline
Active User
Active User

Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:56 pm
Posts: 302
firefly wrote:
1. STOP SHOUTING: we can all hear you.


You can hear me? I turned my volume all the way up and I can’t hear you.

Ever since I first read (in 1993?) that ALL CAPS was the same as shouting I thought that it was interesting that some people would just not discern that it was sometimes used to delineate between groups of text. This is what I was doing.

UNDERSTAND?

firefly wrote:
2. Fee for service is great: how do all the starved, homeless, dead poor people get buried? Or do we just let them pile up by the side of the road?


Ah, you’re one of those people who are less interested in finding solutions than coming up with silly questions. Answer: There will be/ would be fewer starved, homeless, dead poor people to bury if our government wasn’t so busy taxing the labor and wages away from people. It’s a situation in which, I contend, a change in how the economy is allowed to operate- unhindered by unconstitutional, unfair and immoral taxation, for instance- would result in what leftist “thinkers” and planners are always saying they are for, a more equitable distribution of the fruits of our labor; keeping more of our own for ourselves and our families. Strong families make a strong nation. Also, if we were to rid ourselves of the sort of programs (paid for by those who continue to produce) that are injurious to families and “old-fashioned” family-related dynamics, we would have fewer people looking for a handout. Don’t bother with the tired, old line about not looking for a handout but a hand up. I’m willing, as an individual to lend a hand for up. I do not like my government putting its thieving “hands” in my wallet, or anybody's wallet, for money to hand OUT.


firefly wrote:
3. If my rent-a-cops don't agree with your rent-a-cops, can they shoot it out in the streets? If my cops are stronger than your cops, can I just declare you a terrorist, and take your car/house/boat/etc?


I honestly don’t know what you are talking about. Communities historically hired peace officers to, well, maintain the peace while the community members then went about their business, able to concern themselves less with the security of the home to the extent that they didn’t need to stay home to protect it. What are you talking about? (Police protection is a fee for service of which I speak.) I have trouble, philosophically and Constitutionally with what is becoming of policing but it is fee for service. Maybe I lost track of something in this thread? Have some compassion on me and let me know what I am missing. PLEASE!!!!! And, no, I think only the President- certainly not you- can declare me a terrorist. As for taking my car/house/boat/etc that’s pretty much done by government all the time and sometimes for REAL bogus reasons such as my friend borrowed my car and his kid drove it, got pulled over and was caught with some dope in it. Yep, that car can be confiscated by an immoral and unConstitutional act of government. (Not sure how that sounded; that was an example I made up and did not experience.)


firefly wrote:
4. I presume that you see no downside at all to lots of minor children having no access to schools or health care (think: burglary, vandalism, no immunizations, infectious diseases)? Measles and chicken pox epidemics are OK with you?


No access to schools? Will there be no schools in your world if we stop forcing people to pay for the education of the children of others? Why stop there? Consider the logic. If we can force people to pay for the education of the children of others why not force them to pay for their food, clothing, toys? Why does it stop at education?

Are children educated out of infectious diseases? Are you telling me that burglary and vandalism are a result of no school? It seems to me that I hear of burglary and vandalism IN school.


firefly wrote:
5. Let the government cut spending proportionally on all its programs: The biggest slice of the federal budget pie is Social Security and Medicare. How many grandmothers would you like to see eating cat food, or dying of pneumonia, heart attacks, and untreated chronic ailments?


Wow. You really are about maintaining the stagnant quo not achieving success in societal matters. I want ZERO grandmothers eating cat food (unless they want to, of course). I want none dying of pneumonia or heart attacks. How many die of pneumonia and heart attacks now? Again, see above my contention about how to stop destroying families and help us all to become responsible for our families. If YOU aren’t going to be responsible for your family don’t ask me to- or rather, don’t FORCE me to.


firefly wrote:
6. Please explain how roads would be built and maintained under the fee-for-service scheme. Include diagrams showing how the owners of the land that is used for roads will collect their fees. (In Afghanistan, they do this using "local checkpoints").


Um…gasoline tax and related? I think we touched on that in another thread:

The State of Wisconsin relies on three main sources to fund state and local transportation needs. These include the Transportation Fund (gas tax, vehicle registration and other vehicle-related fees), bonds, and federal aid. (While I don't entirely agree with the idea of mandated registration of vehicles and other such mandated fees, I do agree that those fees should be used in ways related to maintaining the roads. That money sure shouldn’t be put into the general fund for other spending as is done by government sometimes. Sometimes. Such as whenever it can.)

By the way, are you driving across other people’s property?


firefly wrote:
7. What action should the Federal Government take when Canada starts erecting a wall to prevent the American poor from crossing the border to try and build a better life in the Great White North?


If Canada erects a wall? Has it been a long time since you had at least a nodding relationship with reality?

How about we help them. Some governments help people leave their nations behind to come to the US.

Just kidding.

DON’T GET MAD.

Canada build a wall?

Really.

Recall, FF, that we had this going on also: http://www.greendaleoriginals.com/bboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=847&start=20





edit: Added commentary


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GOP: MASSIVE TAX CUT FOR WEALTHY
PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:40 am 
Offline
Active User
Active User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:21 pm
Posts: 323
Location: Greendale D-section
Greetings, Smith!

It is hard to know when you are seriously espousing a position, vs. when you are using hyperbole to heighten contrast between positions.

You seem to be in the camp that thinks that any amount of government is too much government. Based on that premise, I posted a few questions about how things would work if there was truly NO public sector at all. I don't think this is loony. I am trying to understand what, if any, functions of government you think are legitimate, and how exactly you think things would work in those areas that you would return to private control.

Fee for service for getting buried is just the most extreme example I could think of to show what could happen to people who can't come up with the fee. When you were talking about fee for service, I (perhaps naively) assumed that you meant an individual must pay the fee out of his/her own funds in order to receive the service. Clearly, there are people who are not able to pay for some or all of the services they receive. Schools is a big one. If poor families cannot afford to pay the full cost of tuition for each of their children, then they will not be able to send their kids to school. It's as simple as that. Kids who are not in school will find other ways to keep busy, some of them detrimental to the community (e.g vandalism). Wellness care is another one. Families that cannot afford $60 for an office visit, and $30-$60 per vaccine will skip their immunizations. This is definitely NOT in the community's best interests. The US immunization prgram is successful in keeping down disease because everyone participates. It's the "herd immunity" that protects the individual: there aren't enough hosts for the disease to let it get a footing in the community. We all benefit when we subsidize low-cost or free immunization clinics

It's not just unemployed or impoverished people who will find themselves in this situation: Many families start out in the lower socio-economic groups when they begin having children, but as the parents advance in their careers, the family's situation improves. If you place the full cost of the schooling on the family when the family is starting out, it will be harder for the family to improve its situation. I am not talking about redistribution of wealth here, I am talking about the community investing in itself: The young family invests time and effort to begin a family, and both young and old families in the community pitch in to help educate the children in the community. The young family benefits disproportionately when the children are small, and then pays more than it receives after its children are grown. But the community as a whole derives many benefits from providing a basic level of schooling for all its children. At a minimum, this schooling provides all children in the community with the opportunity to gain enough education to be employable when they leave school.

Nothing here precludes a family with the means to do so from taking their children to a private school at their expense. However, such a family still has the responsibility to help support his community's public school.

Similarly with roads: If the government gets out of the business of roads, then roads are privatized. How does that work? Who owns the road bed? If everyone owns 40 feet of roadway, then how are roads maintained? If I can't afford to fill the pothole on my chunk of road, can I just let it get worse? How would fee for service on City streets get collected? Does a driver throw quarters into a toll booth to get the lights to change? Anything that is more removed / automated / collectivized than this kind of method, i.e. anything that is resolved by, say, quarterly payments to some shared entity which maintains the roads on behalf of the property owners, is just another way of saying "government agency" and "taxes" so if you are so opposed to taxes, please explain how things would work without any government agency and without any taxes.

It's simply magical thinking to presume that the elimination of taxes would result in everybody being able to afford all the services they need for a basic existence. A big chunkk of the homeless population is people who lost their footing due to a medical emergency. This can happen to anybody.

We have discussed school funding in Other Forum Entries in past years. We fundamentally disagree about this one, I think. I strongly support the public school option, while you seem to be saying that the best solution is a private only solution.

If you agree that there is a role for government to play in providing services and infrastructure to its citizens, then how would you propose to fund these goods and services, if not through taxes? Taxes are, in fact, the "fee for service" payment method that our collective communities have determined works the best to provide those services that we want and need in order to maintain well-ordered communities.

Come on now, let's get specific. What taxes would you eliminate? (besides all *your* taxes :wink:) What specific programs?

Do you think that Scott Walker is doing a good job of stewardship of the county's assets in his program of Lower Taxes Regardless, selling off park land and terminating services? Our park services and maintenance budgets have been starved long enough that the parks grounds and buildings are falling into disrepair. The cost to return these buidlings and grounds to their previous state is higher than if we had maintained them properly all along. Every homeowner understands this: He sees it in his own home. Regular painting, perioidic re-roofing, gutter cleaning and repair in spring and fall, all are lower cost investments when compared to the cost of replacing rotten eves, or repairing water-damaged walls and furnishings when roof or windows fail because they have not been maintained.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GOP: MASSIVE TAX CUT FOR WEALTHY
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:47 pm 
Offline
Active User
Active User

Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:56 pm
Posts: 302
firefly wrote:
Greetings, Smith!

It is hard to know when you are seriously espousing a position, vs. when you are using hyperbole to heighten contrast between positions.


Sorry about that.

firefly wrote:
You seem to be in the camp that thinks that any amount of government is too much government.


Nope. You’re not in the camp that thinks that any amount of government is not enough are you? You’re not of a camp that believes: That government is always right? That government should have power over the people instead of deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed, are you?


firefly wrote:
Based on that premise, I posted a few questions about how things would work if there was truly NO public sector at all.


That’s an erroneous premise so I will ignore the rest of your post since it’s based upon that erroneous premise. But I will tell you this so that you can understand whence I come.

I am in support of the Constitution. That is how much government I believe to be right. Simple. Find me the justification for the Department of Education (as one example) in the Constitution. The Constitution is where I start and finish. Is it perfect? No. When we come across an imperfection we need remediation, but, first, the Constitution lest we be governed by men not laws, by personalities, by powerful individuals and groups, not laws.

One last thing, you wrote:

firefly wrote:
We have discussed school funding in Other Forum Entries in past years. We fundamentally disagree about this one, I think. I strongly support the public school option, while you seem to be saying that the best solution is a private only solution.


You provided this link:

http://www.greendaleoriginals.com/bboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=323

Was there some unfinished business there that I can help with?

Also we can dispatch this:
firefly wrote:
Come on now, let's get specific. What taxes would you eliminate? (besides all *your* taxes :wink:) What specific programs?



Well, I think you'll understand that anything that is unConstitutional I would be rid of were I to make such a choice.


And I'll be glad to address this before I close.
firefly wrote:
Do you think that Scott Walker is doing a good job of stewardship of the county's assets in his program of Lower Taxes Regardless, selling off park land and terminating services? Our park services and maintenance budgets have been starved long enough that the parks grounds and buildings are falling into disrepair. The cost to return these buidlings and grounds to their previous state is higher than if we had maintained them properly all along. Every homeowner understands this: He sees it in his own home. Regular painting, perioidic re-roofing, gutter cleaning and repair in spring and fall, all are lower cost investments when compared to the cost of replacing rotten eves, or repairing water-damaged walls and furnishings when roof or windows fail because they have not been maintained.


I do not know that this premise is, in this particular instance, true:

firefly wrote:
The cost to return these buidlings and grounds to their previous state is higher than if we had maintained them properly all along. Every homeowner understands this: He sees it in his own home.


Interestingly, this is an argument that was made by many in the Village of Greendale regarding the failure of regular maintenance of the High School buidling, resulting in the “need” for massive remodeling/fixing i.e. sticking the taxpayer for more money than should have been required had ordinary maintenance procedures not been neglected. I don’t know if it’s accurate, just that it parallels your observations regarding CE Walker’s stewardship regarding park buidlings and grounds. That argument was rejected as not pertinent, if memory serves, by just about everybody in government. But, that aside, your contention is one that I don't really find worth dealing with for the following reason.
I do not find that “Parks” is something that is properly the purview of government. Now that’s merely a matter of opinion, not the sort of thing I would argue about on Constitutional grounds, other than what is demanded to be inferred from the insistence of government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed, but, still, if you want to go to the park it would be better if YOU paid for it YOURSELF. Really, now, how many people who pay property taxes in Milwaukee County do you suppose USE the park(s); is it more than- or less than- the number of property taxpaying residents who pay for the park(s)? I suggest many fewer use than pay. Is that really fair? I drive through Whitnall Park. The last several times I used the Park System I paid for it. That would be at the Boerner Botanical Gardens. Is there still a fee there? I don’t golf, but I think one has to pay to golf in the parks, don’t they? Is that really fair? Well there was a time that I went to Wehr to ask about this beautiful spider I had found in my yard. I didn’t get any useful answer, though. I did find out, on the ‘net that it is commonly referred to as a Cross Spider and they are pretty common. It was a good-sized spider, just beautiful in its markings.
Hey, I just came across this: http://www.nrpa.org/Content.aspx?id=650. Seems as though CE Walker’s stewardship must be pretty good, wouldn’t you say? Not that I care all that much as I don’t believe that PARKS is, as I said, something that government should really be handling. There are many private parks all across this great land and, while they can’t, maybe, compare to the parks in Milwaukee County under the Stewardship of Scott Walker, they’re pretty good, or at least they’re as good as they need to be considering that you can’t use them unless you pay an entrance fee. And why stop at Parks? Why not Milwaukee County Bowling Lanes, free of charge? I don’t bowl much but have been thinking of taking it up again. But, if I do, I’ll pay when I bowl and won’t ask anybody to pay for me.
And, by the way, having taken the time to read your whole post, I wonder if you read mine. This little bit you wrote makes me think that maybe you didn’t because I did deal with this query of yours in my previous.

And you still haven’t finished with Mr. WIllie Horton I think.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GOP: MASSIVE TAX CUT FOR WEALTHY
PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:50 am 
Offline
Active User
Active User

Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:56 pm
Posts: 302
Hello Firefly,
I just wanted to let you know that I posted a response (see above) to your post and it didn't show up in the index due to the method I used to post. Therefore this message. Great work was done by Mr. Walker (and don't forget the board) it seems.
Be well.
Smith


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group