er, from the poor to the rich. Dana Tierney writes:
> I don't know your income? But I like the sound of your garden! My point is > that however you define need, there are people whose income is above it. > Right now those people still draw social security. Since we know the system > is goign broke wouldnt that be a place to start? I really do have to get > some work done though. I will write something longer later about why I > figure it's income redistribution from the right to the poor. > > Dana > > Doug White writes: > > > 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 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
