Digest for rec.sport.football.college@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 10 topics

Thursday, June 8, 2017

"the_andrew_smith@yahoo.com" <agavinsmith@gmail.com>: Jun 08 02:27PM -0700

Or, you know, a weasel.
xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>: Jun 08 03:41PM -0700

He's the only man in Washington everyone loves and hates in equal measure.
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>: Jun 08 02:43PM -0700

Riddle me this. People most resolute in opposition to Presdident
Trump also oppose his regular use of Twitter?
 
--
Michael Press
xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>: Jun 08 03:40PM -0700

No. His use of Twitter is a gold mine for us. We are completely supportive of it.
 
People who support Trump are the ones who oppose his use of Twitter. Well, the smrat ones at least.
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: Jun 08 02:21PM -0700

Meanwhile, Connecticut is seeing increasing budget deficits after sharply raising taxes on both top earners and companies - and seeing them flee
 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/connecticuts-tax-comeuppance-1496443958
"Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger" <damonhynes@gmail.com>: Jun 08 03:05PM -0700

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 4:22:02 PM UTC-5, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:
> Meanwhile, Connecticut is seeing increasing budget deficits after sharply raising taxes on both top earners and companies - and seeing them flee
 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/connecticuts-tax-comeuppance-1496443958
 
Mass exodus to Kansas?
dotslashderek@gmail.com: Jun 08 03:17PM -0700

Wish I could read that - it's paywalled for me.
 
I googled it and read the first two results which basically called out that recent tax increases had burdened the working class and hadn't had commiserate increases that would impact folks who make the mojority of their income via investments (read: rich folks):
 
https://ctmirror.org/2017/04/24/dramatically-eroding-ct-income-tax-receipts-complicate-budget-debate/
 
Would like to read your link to get the counter opinion - got a 'graf or two you can copy n paste?
 
Cheers.
Ken Olson <kolson@freedomnet.org>: Jun 08 04:55PM -0400

> They'd make major cuts to all their other sources of tax revenue, the Republicans would promise it'd spur enormous business growth and actually generate more tax revenue, it wouldn't, and they'd spiral like kansas.
 
> Really not that complicated. Unless you're trying to make some point about a state that doesn't generate any tax revenue. Which state is that, again?
 
> Cheers.
 
You didn't answer the question. Please reread it and answer again.
Ken Olson <kolson@freedomnet.org>: Jun 08 04:56PM -0400

On 6/8/2017 12:15 PM, Some dued wrote:
> The following paragraph sums it up nicely:
 
> "As the years passed, the promised growth failed to materialize. Monthly tax receipt reports became a drumbeat bearing the same bad news: revenues were lower than expected, meaning budget shortfalls would be greater than expected."
 
The same thing that happens when tax rates are too high.
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: Jun 08 02:01PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 11:20:17 PM UTC-5, Some dued wrote:
> Cause huge budget shortfalls!
 
> It's the end of the road for the GOP's big tax experiment in Kansas
> http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-kansas-tax-20170607-story.html
 
It's good to know what side of the Laffer curve you're on.
 
And yes - too big a tax cut too quickly will/can hurt - just as too big a tax hike too quickly can.
 
As well as other factors.
Ken Olson <kolson@freedomnet.org>: Jun 08 05:04PM -0400

On 6/8/2017 5:01 PM, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:
 
> It's good to know what side of the Laffer curve you're on.
 
> And yes - too big a tax cut too quickly will/can hurt - just as too big a tax hike too quickly can.
 
> As well as other factors.
 
IAWTP
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: Jun 08 02:06PM -0700

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 12:51:04 PM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
 
> > Really not that complicated. Unless you're trying to make some point about a state that doesn't generate any tax revenue. Which state is that, again?
 
> The state that comes closest is probably Alaska. No state income, sales, or property tax. Oh yeah, right,did I also mention a budget crisis that's entering its third year with no end in sight?
 
> https://www.adn.com/tag/alaska-budget-crisis/
 
Interestingly, both Alaska and Kansas are commodity dependent states.
michael anderson <mianderson79@gmail.com>: Jun 08 02:53PM -0700

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 1:28:10 PM UTC-5, JGibson wrote:
 
> > So how do the states with zero income taxes fit into this thinking?
 
> > Doug
 
> Most have them make up for it other ways:
 
and for most workers who make decent salaries, those OTHER WAYS don't come close to confiscating as much money(thankfully) as a state income tax does.
 
I'd gladly pay more in property tax, sales tax, other taxes to get rid of the MASSIVE money the state of Alabama confiscates every month from me in income tax.
 
Sales tax in my county is already 10 cents on the dollar(rather high), but even if it were raised 2 more cents I'd have to buy like 120,000 dollars in taxable goods per month to even things out.....
 
I don't buy 120,000 dollars worth of taxable goods every month.
 
 
 
Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan): Jun 08 07:03PM

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:25:12 -0700 (PDT), dotslashderek@gmail.com
wrote:
 
>With the sheer ballsyness of their "hey, don't look at me" approach to gove=
>rnance.
 
When does your wheel stop spinning and the ball drop into a number?
 
Instead of backgammon I bet you play acey-douchey.
 
Did you really think pokemon was a Jamaican queer activity?
 
Hugh
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: Jun 08 12:18PM -0700


> "If we had the best plan in the history of the world we wouldn't get one Democrat vote. If we had a plan that gave you the greatest healthcare in history, you wouldn't get one Democrat vote because they are obstructionists," Trump said.
 
> Dude, y'all are running the executive, both legislative branches, and the scotus. You don't *need* one democrat vote. Your problem is 100% that your crazy winger ideas aren't palatable to normal conservatives. Hth. Hand.
 
> Cheers.
 
Insert PJ O'Rourke quote about GOP not believing in the efficacy of gov't here
Ken Olson <kolson@freedomnet.org>: Jun 08 04:49PM -0400

On 6/8/2017 2:15 PM, unclejr wrote:
 
>> Dude, y'all are running the executive, both legislative branches, and the scotus. You don't *need* one democrat vote. Your problem is 100% that your crazy winger ideas aren't palatable to normal conservatives. Hth. Hand.
 
>> Cheers.
 
> IAWTP. 100%.
 
I agree with the Trump quote.
 
100%.
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>: Jun 08 02:49PM -0700

In article <5b3e58ba-1217-472e-8b8d-14afdd4acd81@googlegroups.com>,
 
> Dude, y'all are running the executive, both legislative branches, and the scotus.
 
Checks and balances.
 
--
Michael Press
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>: Jun 08 01:16PM -0700

He really is a whiny little snot. I'll bet he was a rat in kindergarten
and told on the kids who didn't sleep during nap time...
Posted by CBD at 11:45 AM
 
<http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=370106>
 
--
Michael Press
Eric Ramon <ramon.eric@gmail.com>: Jun 08 02:32PM -0700

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 1:16:58 PM UTC-7, Michael Press wrote:
 
> <http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=370106>
 
> --
> Michael Press
 
the winger response is strangely predictable. Amazing how Hillary lovers hated him, now like him and wingers liked him, now hate him. There must be a correlation with something. I'll have to think about this one!
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>: Jun 08 02:46PM -0700

In article <f8c7e80f-0b5c-4355-8380-a5f1c3e5846d@googlegroups.com>,
 
> > --
> > Michael Press
 
> the winger response is strangely predictable. Amazing how Hillary lovers hated him, now like him and wingers liked him, now hate him. There must be a correlation with something. I'll have to think about this one!
 
winger
 
--
Michael Press
"the_andrew_smith@yahoo.com" <agavinsmith@gmail.com>: Jun 08 02:30PM -0700

A shelled creature called the Arkansas fatmucket is going to be released into a couple of Arkansas rivers this week. bit.ly/2sHqA4v
Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan): Jun 08 03:20PM

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 08:11:16 -0700 (PDT), dotslashderek@gmail.com
wrote:
 
>Phan, you're clearly a liberal - by definition, too dumn to get all the concentration camp upside!
 
>Cheers.
 
What an amazing grasp of the obvious...
 
Hugh
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>: Jun 08 12:29PM -0700

In article <4195eca3-0435-483c-9143-04e2c195b366@googlegroups.com>,
> > the aforementioned.
 
> > Hugh
 
> neither of them were actually socialists. Some people will believe anything they're told, I guess.
 
LBJ spent a trillion dollars buying votes.
Whatever label you use some do not like it.
Do you believe me?
 
--
Michael Press
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>: Jun 08 12:24PM -0700

In article <c24b52d7-b2f2-4c8d-a501-42fc0798c83e@googlegroups.com>,
 
> > > But its main emphasis is denying Iran a land link to Syria. The article doesn't say how isolating Qatar stops or even slows that.
 
> > Second order effect by weakening Hamas and other cat's paws?
 
> I think the more likely second order effect is driving Qatar deeper into Iran's arms, giving Iran its first strong ally on that side of the Gulf, and ultimately the US losing its air base there... it might even become an Iranian air base.
 
Notice how bin-Hamad later denied making inflammatory statements?
The internet is forever. Why deny? To lull the other Arabs or
because he really prefers to ally with them?
 
As for the USAF, I imagine President Trump or staff
before the meeting addressed that.
 
> As a first step I'm sure Iran would be more than happy to provide fraternal support to its besieged ally. A flashy food convoy route across the Gulf, maybe.
 
That would be interesting.
 
> You may be right that Qatar is playing both sides. Now they are being forced to choose, and one of the sides is making it clear they aren't welcome there.
 
I do not think the Saudis and others (now including Jordan)
want to reject Qatar; just put a bit of stick about.
 
--
Michael Press
Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan): Jun 08 06:53PM

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:43:59 -0700 (PDT), "the_andrew_smith@yahoo.com"
 
>Sometimes, you gotta let it go.
 
That's really good advice.
 
I always let it go when the other guy quits - or not all that long
afterwards depending on one's point of view.
 
Hugh
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.football.college+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

0 comments:

Post a Comment