Posted on 10/10/2006 8:59:26 AM PDT by cryptical
Seems you need to read the three posts where I explained how this worked ... and it ain't like you say it is but just the opposite. Read and learn. Or not - your choice!
Perhaps you'd like to contact his widow for verification?? As I said, scurrilous.
That's all you got??? How do you expect me to earn a raise with that ... and all you offered was hearsay and no data at all on how "rich" that made him???
C'mon!!!
Pigdog forget it. If you can't accept basic facts of the bill which are stated in black and white, it is just stupid to argue with you. The 23% rate is not fixed in law after 2007. You are by far the most intellectually dishonest freeper on this forum. Instead of admitting obvious errors, you tell everyone else to learn to read. You wonder why none of your buddies defend you?
Hearsay, perhaps. But it was made by a poster/friend who was asked by Herb's wife to post it. You are correct, I don't have his paystubs so I don't have proof what he was paid. But if I recall, it was only a few hundred a month. I have no reason to doubt the information that was posted.
As CHIEF negotiator used to say:
"Ignorance is temporary but STUIPD is forever."
He was certainly right and it's clear you've made your choice by not learning.
"... I have no reason to doubt the information that was posted ..."
Nor any reason to believe it, either ... especially since you choose to disbelieve what I've told you. You'd merely rather castigate someone who isn't around to kick your (err) teakettle ... as you richly deserve.
I don't bother, because posters like you are here flaming the living and the dead alike. Pigdog needs no defense, and I am in favor of and would vote for the Fair Tax in a split second, were it ever offered.
No thanks necessary, FRiend. Some posters just tick me off.
... indeed, I know the feeling!!!
I was not flaming chief. I was stating a fact his widow provided openly to this forum. How is that flaming?
"Pigdog insists that the rate is fixed at 23% after 2007. Is that what the bill says? If you can honestly read that and agree with pigdog that the bill fixes the rate at 23% after 2007, I will apologize to pigdog."
Since I've never made the statement you attribute to me your offer to "apologize" is mere foolishness. It would be nice if you'd stop trying to claim I've said things I never have - putting words of your own devising in my mouth is something I'm not a big fan of.
You could also read the 3 posts where I explained what would happen under the terms of the bill as written - as you obviously never have - rather than continuing to blow off such nonsense and hyperbole . CHIEF negotiator was right apparently.
PIGDOG post 368...."the statutory rate for all three combined must be 23% (or whatever the rate ends up as in the bill) unless changed by Congress."
Yes you did make that statement.
Have you checked your phone or cable tv bill lately?
"And when the two entitlement rates fall in proportion to the third one (the GRR) due to the increased economic activity the FairTax brings, the amount needed to generate the requisite wage proportion will be less that at present for both not more. This means that the remaining portion which is the General Revenue Rate will in effect increase since the other two have decreased and the statutory rate for all three combined must be 23% (or whatever the rate ends up as in the bill) unless changed by Congress.Do you not grasp that? Perhaps your misunderstanding stems from your initial belief that the rates would increase with increased economic activity? Sorry - won't happen. "
That's the entire post which is quite different that your false claim of what I said or of what you attempted to show by your selective out of context quoting. It says exactly the opposite of your claim and especially so if read in conjunction with #334 and #351 (and the bill itself) as I originally said.
You can't even understand the little bit you post and attempt to attack.
You should read and take to heart #457 and read the three posts in conjunction with the bill's wording. Yfou're much too eager to launch personal attacks in lieu of debating points.
In this area, trash collection is done by a private company that contracts with the city. Do you believe that communities should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they prefer public or private trash collection?
During California's energy crisis, a community down the road from me that generates its own electricity skated through without the rolling blackouts and high rates the rest of us endured. Friends living there are very happy with their service and comparatively low rates. Do you think communities should have the right to decide to run their own power companies?
Barnes & Noble, by virtue of its size, is able to negotiate reduced prices with publishers and is, in turn able to sell for less. They are also able to pressure publishers to accept returned unsold books for full credit. Certainly that puts independent bookstores at a disadvantage.
Do you think Avis Rent-A-Car pays the same price for a new car that private parties pay? Some private institutions are also self insured. And what would you call it when private sector is able to pressure government to cap the amount of money that can be awarded in a lawsuit?
Public Transportation systems of every sort under the exact same conditions.
The US government got into passenger train service because the private railroads wanted out. The same is true for local bus service in this area.
Public housing of all sorts.
Does public housing exist because government won't allow private competition or because there is a need the private sector is unwilling to meet?
Education systems and many other things that YOU could youself identify if you would just stop and think about it a little.
Private schools exist and are able to cherry pick their students. Do you think education should exist for those private schools would choose to exclude? Do you think government should force private schools to take all children?
The context of providing the whole post did nothing but bulster my claim. You still wrongly claim that the rates must add up to 23% unless changed by Congress. Nothing you posted changed the lie you continue to post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.