Lucky...

Ewww, gross, you have Texan friends? You should go check out Austin. I believe the only city that might be more liberal than Austin is San Fran. It's a little blue dot in the middle of the state in the county or precinct voting maps. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm (yeah, not recent but indicative, and was near the top of the google search results). Used to go there every year for Xmas with my GF - her family lives there. It's ok, artsy fartsy near teh univ, but still RW maggotted elsewhere. The freeway system is slow Texas BS, jobs are scarce. I found nothing compelling about the place.

By any chance did he have a Manlicher-Carcano? Hey genius...check your spelling before you confirm the arrogant fool you are... don't you mean Mannlicher-Carcano ? Aren't you the one who bitches when someone goes 'off thread' context ? I've noticed somethings about you. You seem to get aroused out of slamming chicks, or those who acknowledge they're new to the 'forums' gig, but as soon as anyone who raises confrontation with you / you're posts...you bumble up ! Reminds me of the bullied kid growing up, couldn't get a date, could only make water boy for the football team...grows up & decides to show everyone & puts on a cop uniform ! You probably figured you looked best in a suit & tie ( don't get me wrong, I have total respect for most cops & some attorneys, just not the ones who abuse it to their advantage ) Why is it you give no personal info., nor can receive messages per your profile, & as an attorney... you seem to have an excessive amount of free time ?!? Perhaps business isn't so good...or you looking for business ! Either way, I find you to be a total asshole...ASSHOLE ...as far as my Dad...he was a Kennedy man, though he did have CIA clearance til '85 I couldn't disagree with you more about Andy; don't see how you arrive at your conclusion.

1) WSJ? Come on, was Hannity's site down? 2) This is it? Today marks the six-month anniversary of the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, widely known as ObamaCare. It is a day when the first significant round of benefits kicks in, and the Obama administration is taking every opportunity to tout them to the American public. Insurers, we are being told, will no longer be able to impose annual limits or lifetime caps on benefits, and they will face a higher standard before than can drop anyone's coverage. Children will be guaranteed access to insurance, regardless of health condition. And there is more to come in the future. What does it tell us? It's a nasty anti-Obaam op ed, hardly empirical or otherwise meaningful.

Portability is addressed isn't it? If we have descent coverage then it isn't a huge issue, is it? Tort reform = civil immunity, I don't want that either. It also created the preexisting conds clause; the real only important aspect of it to me. I'm not crazy about what was passed either, the HC Bill was a product of both sides (and some within each side) pulling crap off of it until it was bearable. I don;t think it's real reform, but it's a start and the preexisters is a good clause as well as the ins cos not cancelling you ar setting ceilings on coverage. It's a real good start, not nearly done. I agree, I would liek to see it too. I do think that as times get tougher and tougher, peopel will become more fond of it.

One case study used at Harvard and other MBA programs: Lincoln Electric's incentive management program. It involves piecework and a guaranteed employment program plus other attributes that all work together. Easy to show how working harder leads to less pay: Union jobs. Work hard, job gets done...but you get laid off. Sandbag it and stretch it out as long as possible you get paid for a few more weeks, maybe even long enough to jump right onto the next job. Or this: The more you work the more you earn and the higher tax bracket you jump into so each hour you work you get to take home a little bit less than the hour preceeding it. It even works in negative numbers! Don't work=no income=the government GIVES you money! Welfare is so monetarily puny that few think it's a good idea. Very few %-wise are chronic welfare recipients, most use it as a step-out of it. Show your case studt rather than, "one study." Illustrate how unionization is laziness vs non-unionization by objective data.

For the very last time, you and your ilk are worthless in these discussions. Stop dealing with drug gangs. IMO, that's the only thing you're good at. Yes I do. You are an incredibly clueless person. I will mock you, and your ilk, in public at will going forward. Ever notice you borrow a keyword and wear it out? Formalized education teaches to mix up the orbate language in the same paper, let alone the same sentence. First it was clueless 3 times in every post, now it's ilk; would you like to borrow a new one?

Nailed it! So seriously you might as well give up on Lucky it is pointless..... just be ready after November to post Then after Obama gets beat two years later you will get to do it again. How's that stock market crash working out? Hmmmm, 200 pts on friday; > 10,800 - looks like a real bear market to me; you were right. That was about a year ago you predicted a sell-off/crash, laughing at your computer with your moronic co-workers. The market was about 10,200 then, blew up to > 11K, then months later down to 9800 and now back to 10,800. Do you need more time, perhaps another year to make your dream prognostication come true?

Yeah, guys like you that don't have jobs, but feel entitled to take working peoples' money. That's what's been exposed here. I have paid more taxes in one year than you have probably made in personal income in a decade. At least you're good at pseudo blowing of the horn. I have worked since I was 17 straight thru, even as a 14 YO I lied and said I was 16 to work. Your attempt to make me a lazy guy works within the minds of you and yours, just fails in reality-ville.

I'm not interested in a spelling/typo contest, if you're out of args I suggest you rely on them heavily. I think all can realize I'm saying, 'landing gear' if I write, 'manding gear.' If you can't put that together, again, just make that the emphasis of your args. I work with them all the time. I've worked with private DER's as well as corporate engineers and largely they take our ideas and perform the stress analysis, crap out the 8130, field approval, EO or whatever engineering directive they choose to issue. But that's just me and my ~30 years experience, so what do I know. As for initial engineering on a part, appliance, design, etc, I'm sure it's different, probably a commitee of people headed by a chief engineer who delegates each aspect of teh product to various engineers based upon their specciality: fuel, structure, electrical, etc. Sad that you have no argument so you live on typos. But engineers do follow a book to a dgree, they must run stress analysis on products, which is a sort of guidance. If it's not stressworthy, that design can't be done or has to be modified. Engineers design landing gear, tech writers develop the manuals for maintenance/overhaul, at least in avaiation that is. Perhaps the trailer world is different. So first we go for typos, then we go for elitism. Generally, in manufacturing or maintenance, the engineers come down to to us and we shown them the issue. We suggest a repair, they run the stress and gice us teh OK. Unless it's an unusual issue, there are prescribed repairs either in the SRM or at the manufatcurer. I know Bombardier was good for these special repairs with engineering pre-approval. But somethimes we have to submit to the manufacturer for unique repairs. Of course trailer-land isn't quite so complex, I'm guessing even a guy like you could figure it out. Right, that's what I said; congress can order teh collection of taxes without limits. It doesn't care about trailer-boy specifically, it juts permits the collection of taxes for the general fund; how is that different from what you wrote? You take taxes waaaay too personally, as a Libertarian or whatever secret party you belong to, you think taxation and most aspects of gov are a conspiracy; they're not. OMG, you should have written, "earnings" you onitted the, 's.' And, "amendent" has 1 M, not 2. Wait, I have a life and an argument, we'll let it go and address the issue. No, so they had to create an amendment to collect whatever they see fit at varying times. Your money doesn't inherently belong to them, it is an amended need, so they codified and enumerated it for your viewing pleasure. Of course when the US Const was written we didn't have paved roads for your trailers to ride on so you have a job, so as much as you hate, you have to give back. And if you become disabled, you will be given funds to ensure you don't die in the streets, so just in case you have to give to that fund too. Sucks to live in society, huh? I'd like to see you move to Montana. Tell ya what, come up with 1 million bucks and I'll even renounce my citizenship. As well, I won't help but will send you well-wishes to see you move to Montana with your bretheren Freemen.

On social issues, you're really good at making it sound complicated. We are all equal under the law. No more, not less. Ok but you still didn't address the over/under taxation argument. The debt soared under Reagan, it's soaring now, the only time it hasn't increaszed beyond the interest rate is under higher taxation. I'm guessing you still won't address it.

Democrats start with R now? Or are you saying the Democrats didn't just cut medicare by 500 billion over the next 10 years? Hmm... Did they cut it or redirect it to others? And aren't you for these cuts, I mean all those lazy old people getting free HC is a travesty, right? Or are you being selective? I've heard the 500B number, never have seen it proven or the entire story behind it. Maybe Obamacare did strip it of 500B to help pay for everyone elses HC, then knowing the gov would be required to pay elder HC as needed and replace teh 500B. I dunno, make an argument, I'd love to read it.

That's a big leap to say 2 - 1 in favor. I wonder if they get dizzy spinning that fast. I dunno, I guess teh AP is a vast, LW conspiracy, unless they provide data that is complimentary to the RW.

Altho absolutley true, not spoken like a true Libertarian.

Totally agree. There is one main reason why that didn't happen and it starts with an R.

Yea, you claim to be an engineer, now you're a roughneck; choose 1 and stick with it. Geez, are you schizophrenic? So you're down to typing errors now? You really are desperate. On an up-note, at least you are now admitting you aren't an acft expert.

Here inlies your vast misunderstanding: THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH TRICKLE DOWN IS THAT THE RICH POCKET IT AND DON'T SPEND IT; THE GOV DEFINATELY WILL. When cash fails to circulate, that is the essence in a general sense, of a recession. The rich hoard it, which I don't blame them for, the gov spends it creating constant stimulus. Spending it does benefit us, hoarding it ices eveything. Apparently you are using Jed Clampet intellect and can't fathom banking it. They pocket it meaning they profit-take and remove the money from circulation. Evan wasted money goes somewhere. Of course I want it spent wisely, but ill-spent money is better than a recession as the rich pocket their cash under low taxes.

Pretty amazing country, isn't it? Yea, esp considering the reciprocal affect of that is to make millions of empoverished people. What a great trade-off for neo-fascists.

Removed entire assertion being emboldened so the author doesn't look so ******. I don't care if they're wages, investment income, capital gains or any other form of income, the 16th allows the gov to tax all of us; move to Montana or sit there in denial, I really don't care. Just as you have no clue about the US Const, impeachment, etc, you have no clue as to how the 16th is written and interpreted. The Congress can collect taxes as they see fit per teh 16th, it's up to the vote at the time of the sessions, no limits are preset. I know you don't like the open-ended nature, which makes it more sweet. There's no backing up anything other than the 16th allows Congress unabridged federal taxation rights. Sorry you understand it like you understand impeachment processes; it's not written like a comic book (your mode of interpretation) so I can't explain it better than that for you. That's Communism, I don't expect a neo-con to understand the vast difference, perhaps take a trip to Communist Canada before it gets too cold since you don't know the difference. That was my point, glad to see you right on top of it. But you seem to think socialism and communism are the same and you understand neither. Princess, my hands are riddled with scars, cuts and grease right now in the fingernails; you are clearly barking at the wrong person here. Last week I remover the manding gear out of a 737 and I don't wear gloves. Scan your princess-manicured nails and post them. Glad to see I taught you a new word; moot. I did pull a set of gear out of a 737; not that hard to fathom. Again, your ribbon is on the way and I also included a trophy. Riiiiight, we get that brief response. You vote for R's or L's = sociopaths. I've posted my historical voting, you refuse to; we get your avoidance as being voting for pro-sociopathic candidates. All you have to do is ask for data that doesn't exist, whereas a massive mountain of data exists that when taxes are low, the debt soars, unemp flys and growth slows, and that's since at least the FDR admin. But you want specific data that doesn't exist; typical cop-out. Just explain why the afformentioned occurs. Guessing with 100 years of major federal data in a few forms, I think that qualifies as a fair guess, esp since you have never been able to refute it. Not sure that is really more than a vastly mushy, totally indirect answer, but in a way it's right, at least conceptually. So explain why you, the real Amrercan, wants to starve the US Gov, hence the people and hurt America. Are you a terrist (intentional misspelling for conservatives)? Why not advocate for America and as Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but whatyou can do for your country." Paying enough taxes to keep her well is being a true American versus a typical nationalist which is all we get from the RW. How does it affect corporate welfare teet suckers? No, just fairness and the ability to colelctively bargain, not like your Nazi's utopia where he threatened 2 major airline's employees that he would void their contract if they went on strike. You like the Nazi affect, I like the ability to collectively baragain and strike, a fair set of rules over fascist oppression that you like. Oh, so rich kids who are obviously born into money/fame/etc have teh same chance as everyone else? I see, you don't make sense. All you can do is guess. I want there to be competition, just not the results of losing being denied HC, food, shelter, etc. Let's establish a baseline and the winners can go from there - upward.

Ewww, gross, you have Texan friends?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100925/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_poll A new AP poll finds that Americans who think the law should have done more outnumber those who think the government should stay out of health care by 2-to-1. As I thought it would be and will become even more as time goes on.

Agreed. The solution will be challenging to develop and even harder to implement. But the problem is very simple. A concept which contributes to the problem. What one person feels is a reasonable and adequate standard of living another may find to be appalling and below what they consider minimum for comfort. What one person thinks is minimal another may think is extravagant. You're trying to use elloquent language, dancing around and overusing the term, "reasonable standard" to avoid addressing the issue that taxes are at a 40-year low and that the debt is going nuts due to this. On another note we're producing millionaires at an amazing rate.

Brown people. The US is in the business of killing brown people. Nationallity doesn't matter. OK, but back to his main point: WHY IS MILITARY SPENDING SO HIGH WHEN IT IS NOT NEEDED?

Here inlies your vast misunderstanding: THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH TRICKLE DOWN IS THAT THE RICH POCKET IT AND DON'T SPEND IT; THE GOV DEFINATELY WILL. When cash fails to circulate, that is the essence in a general sense, of a recession. The rich hoard it, which I don't blame them for, the gov spends it creating constant stimulus. Spending it does benefit us, hoarding it ices eveything.

Hey Lucky - do you even have a job? Rut roh, looks like the non-contributors have been exposed; you know who you are.

I'm single, have my own business, and make over 250K. These tax increases aren't going to affect me. They are going to hurt people who make less than I do. Here's why: Until now, I've paid more thanmy share of taxes (over 40 percent of my AGI, 100K+/year), but with these upcoming increases, I've gone to my CPA, and asked how I can shield myself from the increases. He has a perfectly legal method that I'm going to use. The kicker: I can't hire anyone else. So if I have the need for additional staff, I won't hire -- it would cost me too much. So there you go: I'll actually be saving more money (and paying less tax) next year, but I won't be hiring. Love your explanation; complete with a secret that you won't disclose. The million dollar question: WHAT DID YOU CPA TELL YOU TO SHIELD YOUR INCOME? And for your explanation as to not hire more people; DUH, BECAUSE THEN YOU WOULD MAKE MORE MONEY AND YOU WOULD PAY EVEN MORE TAXES. Hey, here's a clue: FUCKING SPEND MONEY ON COMPANY ASSETS THAT WILL DO 3 THINGS: - write down your AGI - increase the value of your businesss - make your business more profitable So stay hiden behind the veil of secrecy to keep your anti-tax rant seemingly viable, or tell us the general type of your business you're in and what the CPA told you to do in addition to not hiring more. Also, if you don't hire more, your competition will, as in free enmterprise, demand-supply you don't dictate need, the consumer does, so the people you don't hire using your secret reason will be picked up by your competition and they will be smart/ingenious enough to grow their business and hire. How would I know what your CPA told you? That's inane. I'm not looking to cross-examine you, just a brief explanation as to why your CPA told you to not hire people. I see you are not being honest so you avoid telling us; I'm sure others would like to read your answer as well. Why cry, no one has atatcked you? Ohhhhhhhhh, so the reason you cannot hire others is due to having to give them the same tax-deferred gift as yourself. That blows your whole, "My CPA said I can't hire people cause my taxes would be too high" rhetoric. I commend you in that youa re being creative, It's smart, but drop the crap about it costing more to hire more people as if it's a normal component of taxation; it's not, it interfere's with your tax deferral strategy. So your, 'poor me' arguement is moot to me. Fair enough, but again, this is not a normal component of income taxation, this is a special strategy. Very wise, I would do the same, I just wouldn't bitch about not being able to hire employees due to teh tax man, it's due to, in this case, your financial retirement strategy. So let's summarize: you're investing 150k into a tax-deferred retirement strategy, but due to this you cannot hire more people as it wouldn't be beneficial. So I wonder what the 150k/yr is doing for economic markets or wherever it is being invested? Yea, probably lots. And the fact that you aren't hiring, your competition who isn't as retirement savvy as you is hiring as the need exists, so it's a win-win. Unless you stop investing in that plan and the need exists due to growth. I don't know what business you're in, but if the demand in that field picks way up to the point you can hire 5 or 10 people and keep them busy and smoke your profits way up, you'll quit, for thee time being, your retirement plan, or you likely will, AT THE ADVICE OF YOUR BEAN COUNTER. Just as large businesses are run, by their CFO's. Nope, that was great, a quick and detailed answer; I think we're all smarter for it. But again, it only supports my claim that higher taxes motivate reinvestment; YOU'RE INVESTING 150K/YR IN AMERICA AREN'T YOU?