Many of the 2010 Congress Freshman Class have already been corrupted.
________________________________ From: Carl Lindner <[email protected]> To: 'ProFox Email List' <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 5:05 PM Subject: RE: [OT] Now David Brookes is talking I've known this for a great many years. In the very early 70's 10,000 was a reasonable salary. If there was a 500 increase you got a 5% raise. If a guy was making 15,000 and he received a 700 increase they got a 4.67 per cent increase. So, the guy getting the 700 raise got less of an increase than the guy getting 500. As to the government programs... I understand all the words and am quite competent in the math. But, to me, a cut today needs to be referenced in what we are spending today - not what we project spending to be 10 years from now. Let me close - our current leader makes wonderful spending cuts. But, to achieve them we need to spend more while he is in office. The cuts only take effect in years 7-10 when someone else has to deal with them. Wow, again Carl Lindner -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of john harvey Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 4:43 PM To: 'ProFox Email List' Subject: RE: [OT] Now David Brookes is talking Now you are starting to get it. Lies, damn lies, statistics, politicians, republocrats, Obama. John Harvey -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Carl Lindner Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 3:25 PM To: 'ProFox Email List' Subject: RE: [OT] Now David Brookes is talking So, if I earn $10 a year and pay $10 to go to a federal park, that means I pay 100% of my income in taxes? Wow! As for the feds cutting taxes. Suppose they cut 200 from a program that would have increased by 1,000. So, it was "cut" by 20%. Wow again. Carl Lindner -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Leafe Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 3:45 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] Now David Brookes is talking On Feb 24, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Stephen Russell wrote: > Past Fox news, or CBS, are there real facts to drive this probable > fiction? I am sure there is a lot of bias in this news. The focus on *income* tax is largely accurate: there is a minimum income level for each family size under which you do not owe taxes. However, these people pay a lot of federal taxes, just not as income tax. The numbers that I have seen show that the lower your income, the larger the percentage of it goes to the federal government when you count all forms of taxes, fees, etc. -- Ed Leafe [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
