Widowed, no dependents retired Active member of AARP Mostly prepares meals at home, has a garden producing fresh veggies, and fruit trees, Peaches, lemons, and ruby red grapefruit. Make my own flour for breadmaking and, of course blueberry muffins, etc. still has 5 years left on mortgage at 5.25% (Texas Veteran's Land Board rate) Also runs hosting service, and am an independent consultant for networks, and server setups.
So I should be eliminated? LOL ====================================== Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For CF hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 ====================================== If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 4:01 PM Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for | it would be legislated like anything else. Before you fall over laughing, | remember I stipulated at the beginning of the discussion that none of this | was goign to happen due to the power of the AARP voting bloc. I also think | there is something slightly perverted about a society where we can | seriously talk about those poor people living paycheck to paycheck on | 100,000 a year, but poo poo the need of some guy with three kids and 5.50 | an hour. Let's see, if he works 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year that's | 11,440. I do believe this guy benefits very little from the Bush tax cut | since the increase in the child tax credit is based on income over $10,000. | And unlike me he doesnt have the option of refiling his taxes to use fewer | deductions, thats just what he makes. | | Kevin Schmidt writes: | | > So who would get to decide the means? A poor person would always assume the | > rich have too much and the rich wouldn't know what is needed to get by. | > Getting by all depends on how you live. I know people that make $100,000 a | > year and are paycheck to paycheck and I know peopl e making $50,000 that are | > doing quite well. | > | > ----- Original Message ----- | > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 3:07 PM | > Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for | > | > | > > Well, first of all, such a measure has no hope of passage. To discuss the | > > hypothetical however, I would be in favor of just about any means test as | > > long as there *was* one. I just don't think it is right to take money | > from | > > people who are struggling for survival and give it to people who don't | > need | > > it. To stop doing this would not be punishing the rich for being rich, it | > > would just be *not* giving them money they don't need. While we are at it | > > maybe we could reform the structure of the tax, and maybe drop the | > > retirement age so a black man an actual chance of benefiting from the | > > system he is paying into. Do you honestly think the poor slob working at | > > the minumum wage needs his money less than Bill Gates? | > > | > > Beyond all that though is the fact that the system is gonna go bankrupt if | > > it continues as is. | > > | > > Dana | > > | > > Nick McClure writes: | > > | > > > $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 Host with the leader in ColdFusion hosting. Voted #1 ColdFusion host by CF Developers. Offering shared and dedicated hosting options. www.cfxhosting.com/default.cfm?redirect=10481 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
