Your want may be someone elses need. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 2:58 PM Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for
> I can believe it. Especially if you are in SF NY or DC. But it's about > twice MY family income so I dont think we are honestly talking NEED at that > point do you? Wasn't Social Security originally supposed to be insurance? > > Dana > > William Bowen writes: > > > > $100,000 doesn't go as far as sounds like. > > > > boy, ain't *that* the truth... > > > > ^_^ > > > > will > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Nick McClure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 11:41 AM > > Subject: RE: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > > > > > $100,000 doesn't go as far as sounds like. > > > > > > My point is that government can not adequately determine what a person > > > needs, it isn't the same on every state or city. > > > > > > What a person needs to survive in Lexington KY, is much different than > > what > > > a person needs in New York City. > > > > > > So do you have a cost of living scale for each city? This type of system > > > would punish the rich for being rich, which is wrong. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 2:29 PM > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > > > > > > I'd agree with you if I thought everyone would get their 8k. Maybe. But > > > > since we all know it isn't going to work out that way, why should poor > > > > people subsidize the affluent white elderly? The current system is just > > > > grotesque. If you are going to cut, cut where it wont hurt, geez. As for > > > > need, that is to be determined. I proposed a cutoff of 100,000 but it > > > > could > > > > be anywhere; that is just my perception of where 8k doesnt matter too > > much > > > > any more. The point is there should be SOME point where it cuts off. > > > > > > > > Nick McClure writes: > > > > > > > > > So you determine if a person needs the money before you send it back > > to > > > > > them? What gives the government the right to decide that this person > > > > needs > > > > > the money or not? > > > > > > > > > > If the person gets the 8K check, then goes and spends it buying stuff, > > > > then > > > > > hasn't that done more for the economy than the government keeping the > > > > money? > > > > > > > > > > The sense is, that the 8k is that person's money, not matter how much > > > > money > > > > > they have, it is still there money. We must tax people equally, I > > almost > > > > > have a problem having a staggered tax bracket. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 2:07 PM > > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > > Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > > > > > > > > > > my point is I fail to see the sense in sending checks for what, 8k a > > > > year, > > > > > > to multi-millionaires. Sure a means test would be bureaucracy, but > > if > > > > it > > > > > > saves money would't it be a necessary evil? > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > > > > > Heald, Tim writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I advocate not giving out any money. No problems with a budget > > when > > > > the > > > > > > > budget is $0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: Dana Tierney [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 7:51 PM > > > > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what, you advocate indiscrimiately handing out money? That helps > > > > > > balance > > > > > > > > the budget, fer sure.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 30 May 2003 07:21:50 -0400, Heald, Tim > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A means test? From a small government advocate? > > > > > > > > > Sometimes................ > > > > > > > > > Nevermind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > >> From: Dana Tierney [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > >> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 5:34 PM > > > > > > > > >> To: CF-Community > > > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> yep. I can I can. It's not that I begrudge people their > > > > pensions, > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > >> just > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> that hey I was paying this when I was driving a cab gettign > > > > robbed > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > >> living in DC to feed my kids and people with many times my > > > > income > > > > > > where > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> saying hey we paid in so we are entitled. I paid in too and I > > > > doubt > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > >> will > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ever see mine. Personally I think social security pensions > > > > should > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > >> means test. Maybe $100 000 a year and below. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Dana > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, 29 May 2003 14:52:14 -0500, Doug White > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > | > > > > > > > > >> > | Also, we could make Social Security a progessive not a > > > > > > regressive > > > > > > > > >> tax. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > But > > > > > > > > >> > | that would end the subsidy of the affluent elderly and > > > > > > politically > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> would > > > > > > > > >> > | never happen as those people vote. > > > > > > > > >> > | > > > > > > > > >> > | Dana > > > > > > > > >> > | > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > I paid in to SS (and with employer match) from the > > beginning, > > > > and > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > >> > now am > > > > > > > > >> > reaping the so-called benefits. Thankfully, there are a > > > > couple > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > >> other > > > > > > > > >> > retirement pensions, and investments to help out, plus I am > > > > still > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> working, in a > > > > > > > > >> > way, that is. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > You Betcha we do <grin> and likewise support a very > > active > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> effective > > > > > > > > >> > lobby, as well. Can you spell AARP? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
