Thank you, Mr. O.
 

On 2010-01-23 10:13:15 -0500, "Tom Littleton" said:


"David LaCourse" wrote in message
news:2010012308022216807-dplacourse@aolcom...
You are misinformed again, Littleton. If my mother was here, she's wash
your mouth out with soap. *Never* have I been on public assistance. Both
my parents worked hard all of their life and for you to say that is very
hurtful. I myself have worked hard for everything I have.

I thought I understood you to have said in past posts that there was a brief
period where assistance was required.

Not my immediate family, Tom. I have never been on assistance of any
kind, nor has my family. We were a family of hard workers.

If I am wrong, let me be quick to
apologize for the error. It was unintentional, and not meant to demean
anyone.

Your apology is accepted.

In fact, just the opposite. I support social safety nets of various
sorts for the simple reason that they save for productive lives, many who
wouldn't otherwise make it.

I support the same safety nets, Tom. But that is not the subject of
this thread.

Still my point remains: income redistribution happens, and has happened, in
countless ways. As long as we have any taxes, paying for any programs,
income is being redistributed. Farm subsidies and other
agricultural/forestry programs flow to my family, businesses receive
largesse all the time. It's not so simple
as taking from them that has it, and giving to the undeserving, as you
state.

Tom, I am aware of all that, but *this* redistribution that Obama and
his wife talk about is not what has been and is currently going on. Of
course our taxes are used to help those less fortunate, and you KNOW
that I support that because of my work with the poor. But Obama is
talking about socialism when he says redistribute the wealth. If he is
not talking about socialism, then why even mention redistribution of
wealth.

Further, the poor, for the most part, receive far less in government
handouts, than the wealthy.

Well, I am wealthy and I can not agree with that. Wolfgag would say
that my retirement pay is a government handout, but it is something I
earned by fulfilling my part of a bargain; stay in the military for 20
years and we will give you free health care and 1/2 of your base pay.
My social security is again something that I earned. Will I draw out
of SS more than I put in? Probably, but I didn't set up the system, I
only paid into it. If you think that is a hand-out, well, so be it.

Capitalism with safety nets is now what we have. Leave it alone.
Obama himself said it is the best in the world. Why drastically change
it, especially behind closed doors. Has it ever dawned on any of you
progressives WHY Obama has to rush this thru? Why it had to be done
before anything else? Why it took precedence above the terrorist
problem and unemployment?

"He who is governed least is governed best." Our ever growing big
government and its requisite debt is not the answer.

Dave

Thank you, Mr. O.
 

" Redistribution of wealth ? "


aka: hope & change

Thank you, Mr. O.
 

o ' b u m m e r = bad for business, bad for america......

Thank you, Mr. O.
 

On 2010-01-23 10:31:55 -0500, "Tom Littleton" said:

oh, and David, a follow-up to my other post. A search from the past revealed
that you were discussing your brother's family, not your childhood home.
Hence, my memory was, indeed, foggy. Apologies for the mixup.

Tom

You wouldn't take my word for it, Tom? **** you!

Dave

Thank you, Mr. O.
 

On 2010-01-23 11:26:15 -0500, sgr said:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:33:05 -0500, David LaCourse
wrote:

Has it ever dawned on any of you
progressives WHY Obama has to rush this thru?

Perhaps to reduce U.S. infant mortality rates, or raise our life
expectancy numbers to be more inline with the rest of the
industrialized world?

Oh, gawd, not another "infant-mortality-rate-fool". Has it ever dawned
on you that numbers lie sometimes. WE, the U.S., have an excellent
heath care when it comes to services rendered. Look up prostate cancer
mortality in the U.S. and compare it to Canada or UK. Look up other
mortality rates like breast or lung and you will find ours is far
better. The infant crap that socialists constant put forth is NOT
because of our poor health care facilities, but because we try to safe
babies that would otherwise be dead before birth. I asked a doctor
friend about this and he rolled his eyes. There are too many things to
cover here, but suffice it to say, numbers lie.

Or maybe to reduce our expenditures on health care (as a percentage of
GDI) to a level closer to that of the "1st World"?

Yeah. Sounds great to me, and then we will get the same health care as
Canada and the UK. If we had done that 15 years ago when I had
prostate cancer (Gleason score of *9*), I would not be writing these
words. (Safe you the trouble, Wolfgang - "Die LaCourse you pig."
Wolfgang is the only person I know that actually wishes for someone
else's death. Nice guy, he.)

Or maybe he's just a Socialist punk.

TA DA! Doctor, doctor, we have a winner in the orchestra! (You do
remember "Dr. IQ" don't you, or is that a little bit before your time?)

Others, not you, are paying for both your SS and your pension
benefits. You might try to be a bit more open minded towards those of
us paying for ourselves, and you.

Wrong, pizza face. My wife and I pay more taxes than you could ever
imagine. I pay taxes on my pension and my SS, in addition to taxes on
other income.

Dave

Thank you, Mr. O.
 

On 2010-01-23 18:57:21 -0500, sgr said:

What is your point here, I mean other than pointing out you pay taxes
on money received from Socialist systems?

Do you have an income of more than $200,000.oo a year? No? I pay more
taxes than you. My Navy retirement is NOT a socialist system. It was
part of a contract. I tried, oh how I tried, not to pay social
security. But, nope, ya gotta pay. Well, now I am reaping its
benefits. Ya pays ya get the benefit.

I do not want Canada or UK health care, TYVM. Why do you think
Canadians come here for procedures?

Baby mortality? No, the other countries don't just let them die. That
woud be cruel. They just don't try to save them. Infant mortality
rates are a straw dog.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1101649AAbzSDM

Like I said, if I had my cancer in Canada 15 years ago, chances are I'd
be dead.

What's your name, btw? We don't have any secrets here on roff. We all
know each other. Where we live. Number of wives/kids. Don't much
care for anonymous folks. Seems they have much to hide. Where are you
from? How long have you been fly fishing. DO you in fact fly fish?
There's Frank and his father Frank Sr., Wolfgang, Ken, Mark aka Opie,
John Baker, John Russell, me, Tom Littleton, Dave Snedeker, wayno boy
lawyer, et al. We all have met and fished together. Quite a club this
place.

Dave

Thank you, Mr. O.
 

Oh, almost forgot.

Have you ever seen a woman on crack? I mean, REALLY on crack. Facial
sores, grey skin, a beautiful face turned ugly. Rotten teeth. And
then looked down and see that she is 8 months pregnant? I have. I
know such a woman. *That* child doesn't stand a chance of surviving,
but the woman will go full term with it and it will die soon after
birth if not before. Have you ever seen a baby born with alchohol
syndrome? I have. She was fortunate (some say) that she lived. She
only has an IQ of about 70, but she's alive. That happens all too
often here in the U.S., probably more so than any other nation. Docs
tell me that is one thing that kills children here soon after birth or
even before birth. Russia also has a terrible problem with alcohol
syndrom babies.

It is not the medical care, sgr. And if you believe it is, you are a
fool if you have a child in the U.S. because it is so bad.

Dave LaCourse (my real name. I live in Massachusetts AND now Georgia.
Nothing to hide. No anonymity)

Thank you, Mr. O.
 

"David LaCourse" wrote in message
news:2010012316380143658-dplacourse@aolcom...
On 2010-01-23 10:24:03 -0500, "Tom Littleton"
said:


David,
A quick followup on your second post this AM(the post-coffee
one).......how, exactly, do you feel that Obama is proposing a more
unfair
income redistibution than, say, giving $250,000/yr to subsidize Rep.
Michelle Bachman's family farm in Ohio? Or, paying timber owners a
subsidy
to remove brush which inherently raises the value of their timber land,
once
it is removed(and thus, a smart move which in no way requires additional
incentive)? Or, dropping the cap gains tax rate to one far below the
income
tax rate(is investment income preferrable for a society to the detriment
of
labor income?)?
you puzzle me at times,
Tom

**** like that should not be, Tom. Why do you automatically assume that
because you are for something I must be against it, or vice versa. On most
things, we are on the same page.

If I have the gumption to make something of myself, if I have the balls to
take some risks that will be beneficial to me if they turn out ok (stocks,
bonds, other investments), if I have the whereforall to improve my life
and society's, then Obama has no right to that money. I will pay my taxes
like everyone else. Allowing *certain* union workers freedom from paying
taxes on their benefits and making the rest of us pay, is not fair.
Making the wealthy pay even more taxes is not fair because it would
discourage entrepreneurship. Why the hell should I invest in the economy
if the government is going to take that money away from me.

Do you remember the first thing that John F. Kennedy did when he became
president? Do you remember how bad the economy was then? The first thing
he did was give *everyone* a giant tax break. And he then sat back and
watched the revenue coffers overflow with money that the government could
spend on....... wait for it................social programs. In bad times
(now), the last thing you want to do is increase taxes. Just how in the
hell do you, an educated man, think we are going to pay for all of this
crazy spending? How are you going to pay for health care? How are you
going to pay for redistribution of the wealth? It does not work, Tom.
Marx, Lennon, Stalin, Mao, Fidel, and a few other fools found out that it
does not work.

Capital gains tax? Think about it, Tom. Stop drinking the socialists'
Kool Ade. Without investment perks, who the hell is going to invest in
our country, who is going to produce more jobs by such investment. Do you
really think that if they taxed the hell out of investment income that
people would continue to put their dollars in stocks and bonds? Where do
you think the money comes from that keeps business working. If I can make
$5 by taking a chance and investing $1, and I pay a reasonable tax on my
profit, then I will invest that dollar. However, if the Gov is going to
take more than half of what *I* earned by taking that chance, then I won't
spend that buck.

Bottom line, giving the investor a break on taxes because he risked HIS
money is NOT detrimental to labor income.

Dave



Dave

You are one of the few in this group that makes any sense. Well put!

Thank you, Mr. O.
 

On 2010-01-23 20:26:02 -0500, sgr said:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:33:56 -0500, David LaCourse
wrote:

On 2010-01-23 18:57:21 -0500, sgr said:

What is your point here, I mean other than pointing out you pay taxes
on money received from Socialist systems?

Do you have an income of more than $200,000.oo a year?

Combined, yes.

No? I pay more
taxes than you.

I believe that.

My Navy retirement is NOT a socialist system.

Your Navy is, so its expenditures must be.

It was
part of a contract. I tried, oh how I tried, not to pay social
security. But, nope, ya gotta pay. Well, now I am reaping its
benefits. Ya pays ya get the benefit.

I do not want Canada or UK health care, TYVM. Why do you think
Canadians come here for procedures?

My Canadian relatives don't. Why do you think that is?
(hint):
http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1
Results: We identified 38 studies comparing populations of patients in
Canada and the United States. Studies addressed diverse problems,
including cancer, coronary artery disease, chronic medical illnesses
and surgical procedures. Of 10 studies that included extensive
statistical adjustment and enrolled broad populations, 5 favoured
Canada, 2 favoured the United States, and 3 showed equivalent or mixed
results. Of 28 studies that failed one of these criteria, 9 favoured
Canada, 3 favoured the United States, and 16 showed equivalent or
mixed results. Overall, results for mortality favoured Canada
(relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.92-0.98, p= 0.002) but
were very heterogeneous, and we failed to find convincing explanations
for this heterogeneity. The only condition in which results
consistently favoured one country was end-stage renal disease, in
which Canadian patients fared better.

That's funny. My Canadian relatives and friends do. Go figure, eh?


Baby mortality? No, the other countries don't just let them die. That
woud be cruel. They just don't try to save them.

So they don't count as deaths?

Uh, try they aren't born. Period.


http://www.prb.org/Educators/Teacher...on/Health.aspx




Like I said, if I had my cancer in Canada 15 years ago, chances are I'd
be dead.

Citation, please.

Today as 15 years ago, survival of prostate cancer in Canada is and was
a dismal failure. And don't ask me for a "citation". Look it up, Mr.
A. This has been an argument on roff ever since Obama became
president. All sorts of numbers flying throught the air. Short of
shorts: If you want good care with the best docs, equipment, and
drugs, 9 out of 10 says do it here.


What's your name, btw? We don't have any secrets here on roff. We all
know each other.
Where we live.
Number of wives/kids.

One wife, one kid.

Don't much care for anonymous folks.

You don't apparently give that much of a **** about each other,
either, if your posts are any indication.

Fooled ya, fooled ya. We have and will continue to fish together. I
have put on two roffian claves with about 20 of these nitwits at them.
I have been to a total of 7 and 1/2 claves, meeting just about everyone
who posts here. You just don't know roff, Mr. A., and I doubt you will
stick around. Most Mr. As don't.

Seems they have much to hide.

I have nothing to hide. I just don't know if this is the kind of place
in which I want to share that much info. So far, it ain't what I
expected.

Yet here you are arguing with one of the inmates! That says a helluva
lot about your sanity, Mr. A.

Where are you
from?

I'm both from, and in, California.

Ah, yes, the Peoples Republic of Californicate. If youse guys were a
country you'd be in worse shape than the U.S. Hey, come to think of
it, why don't youse guys cede from the Union. I'm bettin' that the
other 49 would approve.

How long have you been fly fishing.

About 29 years

Good on ya, Mr. A. I've been at the wonderful passtime since the mid 40s.

DO you in fact fly fish?

Do you ever post about fly fishing?

All the time. Check out some of my trip reports: Rapid River,
Labrador, Alaska (more'n a couple), Russia, Chile, Tierra del Fuego, et
cetera. Going out tomorrow to a late harvest river. Nothing exciting,
but it gets me out of the house. Better than golf. Too cold even here
for that.

There's Frank and his father Frank Sr., Wolfgang, Ken, Mark aka Opie,
John Baker, John Russell, me, Tom Littleton, Dave Snedeker, wayno boy
lawyer, et al. We all have met and fished together. Quite a club this
place.

Quite a club, indeed.
"You wouldn't take my word for it, Tom? **** you!"

Yeah, I tell Tom to go take a dump or whatever every once in alwhile.
But we fish well together.

"Wrong, pizza face."

Didja ever get an inspiration - "pizza face" just fit. Go figure.

You wouldn't happen to be the club's membership recruiter, would you?

No. You be speakin about the Wolfgang little person. I'm the Master
at Arms. You know.... the one that kills people. d;o)

Ya gotta come out of the closet , Mr. A. You'll feel better. Why, we
would even allow you to be the clave meister of a roffian clave.
Supposed to be one this summer, but I don't think it will come off.
We've never had a California Clave. RW (Steve Barnard) lives in the
Pala Alto area. You aren't Steve pulling a fast one, are you.
Nah....... He's got two children. Good fisherman too. We're all
pretty good at it, as a matter of fact, except one of us who lives in
Germany and whose name we can not mention. He never fishes..... just
talks about it.

Dave (The one in Jawja)

Thank you, Mr. O.
 

On Jan 23, 8:17*pm, "Dave Grant" wrote:
"David LaCourse" wrote in message

news:2010012316380143658-dplacourse@aolcom...





On 2010-01-23 10:24:03 -0500, "Tom Littleton"
said:

David,
* A quick followup on your second post this AM(the post-coffee
one).......how, exactly, do you feel that Obama is proposing a more
unfair
income redistibution than, say, giving $250,000/yr to subsidize Rep.
Michelle Bachman's family farm in Ohio? Or, paying timber owners a
subsidy
to remove brush which inherently raises the value of their timber land,
once
it is removed(and thus, a smart move which in no way requires additional
incentive)? Or, dropping the cap gains tax rate to one far below the
income
tax rate(is investment income preferrable for a society to the detriment
of
labor income?)?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * you puzzle me at times,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Tom

**** like that should not be, Tom. *Why do you automatically assume that
because you are for something I must be against it, or vice versa. On most
things, we are on the same page.

If I have the gumption to make something of myself, if I have the balls to
take some risks that will be beneficial to me if they turn out ok (stocks,
bonds, other investments), if I have the whereforall to improve my life
and society's, then Obama has no right to that money. *I will pay my taxes
like everyone else. *Allowing *certain* union workers freedom from paying
taxes on their benefits and making the rest of us pay, is not fair.
Making the wealthy pay even more taxes is not fair because it would
discourage entrepreneurship. *Why the hell should I invest in the economy
if the government is going to take that money away from me.

Do you remember the first thing that John F. Kennedy did when he became
president? *Do you remember how bad the economy was then? *The first thing
he did was give *everyone* a giant tax break. *And he then sat back and
watched the revenue coffers overflow with money that the government could
spend on....... wait for it................social programs. *In bad times
(now), the last thing you want to do is increase taxes. *Just how in the
hell do you, an educated man, think we are going to pay for all of this
crazy spending? How are you going to pay for health care? *How are you
going to pay for redistribution of the wealth? *It does not work, Tom..
Marx, Lennon, Stalin, Mao, Fidel, and a few other fools found out that it
does not work.

Capital gains tax? *Think about it, Tom. *Stop drinking the socialists'
Kool Ade. *Without investment perks, who the hell is going to invest in
our country, who is going to produce more jobs by such investment. *Do you
really think that if they taxed the hell out of investment income that
people would continue to put their dollars in stocks and bonds? *Where do
you think the money comes from that keeps business working. *If I can make
$5 by taking a chance and investing $1, and I pay a reasonable tax on my
profit, then I will invest that dollar. *However, if the Gov is going to
take more than half of what *I* earned by taking that chance, then I won't
spend that buck.

Bottom line, giving the investor a break on taxes because he risked HIS
money is NOT detrimental to labor income.

Dave

Dave

You are one of the few in this group that makes any sense. *Well put!- Hide quoted text -


Moron.

g.