🚀 go-pugleaf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5bEhN7_abc&mode=related&search

this is not one lie they promote. I saw the video where he is saying death 
to israe. The guy is supporting weapons to America ok?

The media is in bed with big business and right now that includes arab oil 
and polluters and  pharmacy at the expense of saving lives in Amercia ..We 
ignore our own murders and violence and so on. It could be worse, and will 
be worse.. eventually they will turn on Israel.. I see no hope for Israel 
but that don't concern me... Israel allows this Iranian nut case to live..




@hotmail.com > wrote in message 
news:b75473trguhmm54b07mp312urdkmuvrqu5@4ax.com...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5bEhN7_abc&mode=related&search
>
> 

weapons to kill americans..
"mcs" <mcs@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:hdpci.13674$Nz5.11508@trndny09...
> this is not one lie they promote. I saw the video where he is saying death 
> to israe. The guy is supporting weapons to America ok?
>
> The media is in bed with big business and right now that includes arab oil 
> and polluters and  pharmacy at the expense of saving lives in Amercia ..We 
> ignore our own murders and violence and so on. It could be worse, and will 
> be worse.. eventually they will turn on Israel.. I see no hope for Israel 
> but that don't concern me... Israel allows this Iranian nut case to live..
>
>
>
>
> @hotmail.com > wrote in message 
> news:b75473trguhmm54b07mp312urdkmuvrqu5@4ax.com...
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5bEhN7_abc&mode=related&search
>>
>>
>
> 

Rush Limbaugh has been expecting liberals to start "whining" about the
$5000 fine undocumented immigrants will have to pay to gain
citizenship under the new immigration bill, but most liberals have
been too busy chortling about the immigration-induced split in the GOP
to make their own case against the bill. So let a mighty whine rise
over the land: Undocumented workers shouldn't be fined; they should
get a hefty bonus!

All right, they committed a "crime"--the international equivalent of
breaking and entry. But breaking and entry is usually a prelude to a
much worse crime, like robbery or rape. What have the immigrants been
doing once they get into the US? Taking up time on the elliptical
trainers in our health clubs? Getting ahead of us on the wait-lists
for elite private nursery schools?

In case you don't know what immigrants do in this country, the Latinos
have a word for it--trabajo. They've been mowing the lawns, cleaning
the offices, hammering the nails and picking the tomatoes, not to
mention all that dish-washing, diaper-changing, meat-packing and
poultry-plucking.

CONTINUED BELOW
The punitive rage directed at illegal immigrants grows out of a larger
blindness to the manual labor that makes our lives possible: The
touching belief, in the class occupied by Rush Limbaugh among many
others, that offices clean themselves at night and salad greens spring
straight from the soil onto one's plate.

Native-born workers share in this invisibility, but it's far worse in
the case of immigrant workers, who are often, for all practical
purposes, nameless. In the recent book There's No Jos� Here: Following
the Lives of Mexican Immigrants, Gabriel Thompson cites a construction
company manager who says things like, "I've got to get myself a couple
of Jos�s for this job if we're going to have that roof patched up by
Saturday." Forget the Juans, Diegos, and Eduardos - they're all
interchangeable "Jos�s."

Hence no doubt the ease with which some prominent immigrant-bashers
forget their own personal reliance on immigrant labor, like Nevada's
Governor Jim Gibbons, who, it turns out, once employed an undocumented
nanny. And as the Boston Globe revealed late last year, Mitt Romney's
lawn in suburban Boston was maintained by illegal immigrants from
Guatemala.

The only question is how much we owe our undocumented immigrant
workers. First, those who do not remain to enjoy the benefits of old
age in America will have to be reimbursed for their contributions to
Medicare and Social Security, and here I quote the website of the San
Diego ACLU:

Undocumented immigrants annually pay an estimated $7 billion more than
they take out into Social Security, and $1.5 billion more into
Medicare.... A study by the National Academy of Sciences also found
that tax payments generated by immigrants outweighed any costs
associated with services used by immigrants.

Second, someone is going to have to calculate what is owed to
"illegals" for wages withheld by unscrupulous employers: The homeowner
who tells his or her domestic worker that the wage is actually several
hundred dollars a month less than she had been promised, and that the
homeowner will be "holding" it for her. Or the landscaping service
that stiffs its undocumented workers for their labor. Who's the
"illegal" here?

Third, there's the massive compensation owed to undocumented
immigrants for preventable injuries on the job. In her book Suburban
Sweatshops: The Fight for Immigrant Rights, Jennifer Gordon reports
such gruesome cases as a Honduran who died from inhaling paint while
sanding yachts in Long Island and a Guatemalan worker whose boss
intentionally burned him with hot pans of oil for not washing dishes
fast enough. "Death rates for Latino workers," Gordon reports, "have
risen over the past decade even as workplace fatality rates for
non-Latinos have fallen."

When our debt to America's undocumented workers is eventually tallied,
I'm confident that it will be well in excess of the $5000 fine the
immigration bill proposes. There is still the issue of the original
"crime." If someone breaks into my property for the purpose of
trashing and looting, I would be hell-bent on restitution. But if they
break in for the purpose of cleaning it--scrubbing the bathroom,
mowing the lawn--then, in my way of thinking anyway, the debt goes in
the other direction. 

Barbara Ehrenreich


On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:27:23 -0700, Anthony Martinez
<anthony77123@hotmail.com > wrote:

>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5bEhN7_abc&mode=related&search
>

Twenty years ago it was risky to point out the growing inequality in
America. I did it in a New York Times essay and was quickly denounced,
in the Washington Times, as a "Marxist." If only. I've never been able
to get through more than a couple of pages of Das Kapital, even in
English, and the Grundrisse functions like Rozerem.

But it no longer takes a Marxist, real or alleged, to see that America
is being polarized between the super-rich and the sub-rich everyone
else. In Sunday's New York Times magazine we learn that Larry Summers,
the centrist Democratic economist and former Harvard president, is now
obsessed with the statistic that, since 1979, the share of pretax
income going to the top 1 percent of American households has risen by
7 percentage points, to 16 percent. At the same time, the share of
income going to the bottom 80 percent has fallen by 7 percentage
points.

As the Times puts it: "It's as if every household in that bottom 80
percent is writing a check for $7,000 every year and sending it to the
top 1 percent." Summers now admits that his former cheerleading for
the corporate-dominated global economy feels like "pretty thin gruel."

But the moderate-to-conservative economic thinkers who long refused to
think about class polarization have a fallback position, sketched out
by Roger Lowenstein in an essay in the same issue of the New York
Times magazine that features Larry Summers' sobered mood.

Briefly put: As long as the middle class is still trudging along and
the poor are not starving flamboyantly in the streets, what does it
matter if the super-rich are absorbing an ever larger share of the
national income?

In Lowenstein's view: "...whether Roger Clemens, who will get
something like $10,000 for every pitch he throws, earns 100 times or
200 times what I earn is kind of irrelevant. My kids still have health
care, and they go to decent schools. It's not the rich people who are
pulling away at the top who are the problem..."

Well, there is a problem with the super-rich, several of them in fact.
A bloated overclass can drag down a society as surely as a swelling
underclass.

First, the Clemens example distracts from the reality that a great
deal of the wealth at the top is built on the low-wage labor of the
poor. Take Wal-Mart, our largest private employer and premiere
exploiter of the working class: Every year, 4 or 5 of the people on
Forbes magazine's list of the ten richest Americans carry the surname
Walton, meaning they are the children, nieces, and nephews of
Wal-Mart's founder.

You think it's a coincidence that this union-busting low-wage retail
empire happens to have generated a $200 billion family fortune?

Second, though a lot of today's wealth is being made in the financial
industry, by means that are occult to the average citizen and do not
seem to involve much labor of any kind, we all pay a price, somewhere
down the line. All those late fees, puffed up interest rates and
exorbitant charges for low-balance checking accounts do not, as far as
I can determine, go to soup kitchens.

Third, the overclass bids up the price of goods that ordinary people
also need -- housing, for example. Gentrification is dispersing the
urban poor into overcrowded suburban ranch houses, while billionaires'
horse farms displace the rural poor and middle class. Similarly, the
rich can swallow tuitions of $40,000 and up, making a college
education increasingly a privilege of the upper classes.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the huge concentration of
wealth at the top is routinely used to tilt the political process in
favor of the wealthy. Yes, we should acknowledge the philanthropic
efforts of exceptional billionaires like George Soros and Bill Gates.

But if we don't end up with universal health insurance in the next few
years, it won't be because the average American isn't pining for
relief from escalating medical costs. It may well turn out to be
because Hillary Clinton is, as The Nation reports, "the number-one
Congressional recipient of donations from the healthcare industry."
And who do you think demanded those Bush tax cuts for the wealthy --
the AFLCIO.

Lowenstein notes, that "if the very upper crust were banished to a
Caribbean island, the America that remained would be a lot more
egalitarian."

Well, duh. The point is that it would also be more prosperous, at the
individual level, and democratic. In fact, why give the upper crust an
island in the Caribbean? After all they've done for us recently, I
think the Aleutians should be more than adequate.

 Barbara Ehrenreich

Toni - the money paid in to income taxes and SS barely scratches the 
surface of of the cost in schools and health care.

In fact, there are estimates that illegals cost $30K for every $10K they 
"pay"

Anthony Martinez wrote:

> Rush Limbaugh has been expecting liberals to start "whining" about the
> $5000 fine undocumented immigrants will have to pay to gain
> citizenship under the new immigration bill, but most liberals have
> been too busy chortling about the immigration-induced split in the GOP
> to make their own case against the bill. So let a mighty whine rise
> over the land: Undocumented workers shouldn't be fined; they should
> get a hefty bonus!
> 
> All right, they committed a "crime"--the international equivalent of
> breaking and entry. But breaking and entry is usually a prelude to a
> much worse crime, like robbery or rape. What have the immigrants been
> doing once they get into the US? Taking up time on the elliptical
> trainers in our health clubs? Getting ahead of us on the wait-lists
> for elite private nursery schools?
> 
> In case you don't know what immigrants do in this country, the Latinos
> have a word for it--trabajo. They've been mowing the lawns, cleaning
> the offices, hammering the nails and picking the tomatoes, not to
> mention all that dish-washing, diaper-changing, meat-packing and
> poultry-plucking.
> 
> CONTINUED BELOW
> The punitive rage directed at illegal immigrants grows out of a larger
> blindness to the manual labor that makes our lives possible: The
> touching belief, in the class occupied by Rush Limbaugh among many
> others, that offices clean themselves at night and salad greens spring
> straight from the soil onto one's plate.
> 
> Native-born workers share in this invisibility, but it's far worse in
> the case of immigrant workers, who are often, for all practical
> purposes, nameless. In the recent book There's No Jos� Here: Following
> the Lives of Mexican Immigrants, Gabriel Thompson cites a construction
> company manager who says things like, "I've got to get myself a couple
> of Jos�s for this job if we're going to have that roof patched up by
> Saturday." Forget the Juans, Diegos, and Eduardos - they're all
> interchangeable "Jos�s."
> 
> Hence no doubt the ease with which some prominent immigrant-bashers
> forget their own personal reliance on immigrant labor, like Nevada's
> Governor Jim Gibbons, who, it turns out, once employed an undocumented
> nanny. And as the Boston Globe revealed late last year, Mitt Romney's
> lawn in suburban Boston was maintained by illegal immigrants from
> Guatemala.
> 
> The only question is how much we owe our undocumented immigrant
> workers. First, those who do not remain to enjoy the benefits of old
> age in America will have to be reimbursed for their contributions to
> Medicare and Social Security, and here I quote the website of the San
> Diego ACLU:
> 
> Undocumented immigrants annually pay an estimated $7 billion more than
> they take out into Social Security, and $1.5 billion more into
> Medicare.... A study by the National Academy of Sciences also found
> that tax payments generated by immigrants outweighed any costs
> associated with services used by immigrants.
> 
> Second, someone is going to have to calculate what is owed to
> "illegals" for wages withheld by unscrupulous employers: The homeowner
> who tells his or her domestic worker that the wage is actually several
> hundred dollars a month less than she had been promised, and that the
> homeowner will be "holding" it for her. Or the landscaping service
> that stiffs its undocumented workers for their labor. Who's the
> "illegal" here?
> 
> Third, there's the massive compensation owed to undocumented
> immigrants for preventable injuries on the job. In her book Suburban
> Sweatshops: The Fight for Immigrant Rights, Jennifer Gordon reports
> such gruesome cases as a Honduran who died from inhaling paint while
> sanding yachts in Long Island and a Guatemalan worker whose boss
> intentionally burned him with hot pans of oil for not washing dishes
> fast enough. "Death rates for Latino workers," Gordon reports, "have
> risen over the past decade even as workplace fatality rates for
> non-Latinos have fallen."
> 
> When our debt to America's undocumented workers is eventually tallied,
> I'm confident that it will be well in excess of the $5000 fine the
> immigration bill proposes. There is still the issue of the original
> "crime." If someone breaks into my property for the purpose of
> trashing and looting, I would be hell-bent on restitution. But if they
> break in for the purpose of cleaning it--scrubbing the bathroom,
> mowing the lawn--then, in my way of thinking anyway, the debt goes in
> the other direction. 
> 
> Barbara Ehrenreich
> 
> 
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:27:23 -0700, Anthony Martinez
> <anthony77123@hotmail.com > wrote:
> 
> 
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5bEhN7_abc&mode=related&search
>>
> 
> 

Valeria Palmer wrote:

> Toni - the money paid in to income taxes and SS barely scratches the
> surface of of the cost in schools and health care.
> 
> In fact, there are estimates that illegals cost $30K for every $10K they
> "pay"

You're spouting misinformation, it's not true!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400965.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/nyregion/16immig.html

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060501.shtml

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=881584  (download the pdf
associated with this link)

I guess you better find better and more accurate sources of information.

Art Clemons wrote:
> Valeria Palmer wrote:
> 
> 
>>Toni - the money paid in to income taxes and SS barely scratches the
>>surface of of the cost in schools and health care.
>>
>>In fact, there are estimates that illegals cost $30K for every $10K they
>>"pay"
> 
> 
> You're spouting misinformation, it's not true!
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400965.html
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/nyregion/16immig.html
> 
> http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060501.shtml
> 
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=881584  (download the pdf
> associated with this link)
> 
> I guess you better find better and more accurate sources of information.


Certainly more accurate than those.  After all, haven't both of those 
papers gotten into sticky messes because of pandering to incompetent 
minorities?

Let's put it frankly - I own a home in GA and a professional level job 
and I pay taxes, but I might barely pay enough in property taxes & sales 
taxes & income taxes combined to cover the costs of educating one child. 
  Educating one English-speaking child costs between $5900 and $7500 in 
taxes depending on the county.  Add in the costs for bilingual 
"education" and your bracero with three kids isn't even coming close to 
paying the toll.

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:20:15 -0400, Art Clemons
<ArtClemons@aolSPAM.com> wrote:


>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400965.html

"The taxes paid by immigrant households in the Washington region are
on par with those paid by native-born Americans, although immigrants
here illegally pay less, according to a study being released today.

Overall, area immigrants pay nearly one-third of their income to the
government -- at least $10 billion a year -- but those here illegally
pay less than $1 of every $5 they earn in taxes, the report says. That
is partly because they earn less but also because many are paid off
the books and escape payroll taxes."

Legal immigrants do pay taxes and in the D.C. area there are many
affluent legal immigrants. However, we are talking about illegal
immigrants.

The article did have other comments about illegals but if you read it
carefully, some may be paying something approaching a reasonable share
but most are not.

Of course most citizens don't pay taxes that equal what the costs for
them are, either.

Valeria Palmer wrote:

> Certainly more accurate than those. �After all, haven't both of those
> papers gotten into sticky messes because of pandering to incompetent
> minorities?

Not that I know of!  You're making an assumption, what reputable sources for
your claims can you produce?  I produced some, now rebut them.
Incidentally, the IRS issues T.I.N's to illegals, they can use those to pay
taxes and do.  If they rent, a portion of their rent goes to paying for
local taxes and they can't escape sales taxes either.  You've made
assumptions based on your preconceived beliefs which apparently aren't true
or at least there is little data to support them.
 
> Let's put it frankly - I own a home in GA and a professional level job
> and I pay taxes, but I might barely pay enough in property taxes & sales
> taxes & income taxes combined to cover the costs of educating one child.
> Educating one English-speaking child costs between $5900 and $7500 in
> taxes depending on the county. �Add in the costs for bilingual
> "education" and your bracero with three kids isn't even coming close to
> paying the toll.


Theoretically though even after you stop having school age children, you pay
for education with property taxes, and those without children in your
community also pay taxes.  If you bother to check, bi-lingual education has
fallen out of favor and I don't believe it exists in Georgia at all.  I
believe ya'll have English immersion.  The total figure incidentally
includes the costs attributable to things like buses, bi-lingual education,
school nurses and administrative costs.  

Brian wrote:

> Of course most citizens don't pay taxes that equal what the costs for
> them are, either.


Actually most folks pay more in taxes than the government spends on them,
it's the wealthy who suck up more in services than they expend in taxes.

Art Clemons wrote:

> Valeria Palmer wrote:
> 
> 
>>Certainly more accurate than those.  After all, haven't both of those
>>papers gotten into sticky messes because of pandering to incompetent
>>minorities?
> 
> 
> Not that I know of! 

You don't remember a couple of years ago where the NYTimes pet Negro 
reporter was deiscovered to be plaigiarising everything in sight?  Andf 
the Post got caught in a similar scam by a black female reporter some 
years back ...  In both cases the editors were warned and wanred about 
these reporters, but ignored the warnings out of political correctness.


  You're making an assumption, what reputable sources for
> your claims can you produce?  I produced some, now rebut them.
> Incidentally, the IRS issues T.I.N's to illegals, they can use those to pay
> taxes and do.  If they rent, a portion of their rent goes to paying for
> local taxes and they can't escape sales taxes either.  You've made
> assumptions based on your preconceived beliefs which apparently aren't true
> or at least there is little data to support them.
>  
> 
>>Let's put it frankly - I own a home in GA and a professional level job
>>and I pay taxes, but I might barely pay enough in property taxes & sales
>>taxes & income taxes combined to cover the costs of educating one child.
>>Educating one English-speaking child costs between $5900 and $7500 in
>>taxes depending on the county.  Add in the costs for bilingual
>>"education" and your bracero with three kids isn't even coming close to
>>paying the toll.
> 
> 
> 
> Theoretically though even after you stop having school age children, you pay
> for education with property taxes, and those without children in your
> community also pay taxes.  If you bother to check, bi-lingual education has
> fallen out of favor and I don't believe it exists in Georgia at all.

You'd be completely wrong.

   I
> believe ya'll have English immersion.  The total figure incidentally
> includes the costs attributable to things like buses, bi-lingual education,
> school nurses and administrative costs.  

You're not correct here.

Anthony Martinez quotes:
> When our debt to America's undocumented workers is eventually tallied,
> I'm confident that it will be well in excess of the $5000 fine the
> immigration bill proposes. There is still the issue of the original
> "crime." If someone breaks into my property for the purpose of
> trashing and looting, I would be hell-bent on restitution. But if they
> break in for the purpose of cleaning it--scrubbing the bathroom,
> mowing the lawn--then, in my way of thinking anyway, the debt goes in
> the other direction. 
> 
> Barbara Ehrenreich

  Who is this Barbara Ehrenreich and where is her house?

-- 
   - David Chesler <chesler@post.harvard.edu>
     Free Cory Maye

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:49:21 -0400, David Chesler
<chesler@post.harvard.edu> wrote:

>Anthony Martinez quotes:
>> When our debt to America's undocumented workers is eventually tallied,
>> I'm confident that it will be well in excess of the $5000 fine the
>> immigration bill proposes. There is still the issue of the original
>> "crime." If someone breaks into my property for the purpose of
>> trashing and looting, I would be hell-bent on restitution. But if they
>> break in for the purpose of cleaning it--scrubbing the bathroom,
>> mowing the lawn--then, in my way of thinking anyway, the debt goes in
>> the other direction. 
>> 
>> Barbara Ehrenreich
>
>  Who is this Barbara Ehrenreich and where is her house?

She's an author. Two of her most notable books were "Nickel and
Dimed:And not Getting by in America," and "Bait and Switched" The
books detail the plight of American workers who are losing out to
downsizing, sub par minimum wage, and outsourcing. I highly recommend
these books. They make good reading. Who cares where her house is
located? Are you going over there to toilet paper her house, and spray
graffiti  all over? Huh...

Valeria Palmer wrote:

> You don't remember a couple of years ago where the NYTimes pet Negro
> reporter was deiscovered to be plaigiarising everything in sight? �Andf
> the Post got caught in a similar scam by a black female reporter some
> years back ... �In both cases the editors were warned and wanred about
> these reporters, but ignored the warnings out of political correctness.

Considering how the NYTimes had Judith Miller among others who often gets
her facts wrong, may I suggest you need to stop focusing on race.  As for
the Washington Post, have you ever read a Broder Column or a George Will
Column?
 
> You're making an assumption, what reputable sources for
>> your claims can you produce? �I produced some, now rebut them.
>> Incidentally, the IRS issues T.I.N's to illegals, they can use those to
>> pay taxes and do. �If they rent, a portion of their rent goes to paying
>> for local taxes and they can't escape sales taxes either. �You've made
>> assumptions based on your preconceived beliefs which apparently aren't
>> true or at least there is little data to support them.
>> 
>> 
>>>Let's put it frankly - I own a home in GA and a professional level job
>>>and I pay taxes, but I might barely pay enough in property taxes & sales
>>>taxes & income taxes combined to cover the costs of educating one child.
>>>Educating one English-speaking child costs between $5900 and $7500 in
>>>taxes depending on the county. �Add in the costs for bilingual
>>>"education" and your bracero with three kids isn't even coming close to
>>>paying the toll.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Theoretically though even after you stop having school age children, you
>> pay for education with property taxes, and those without children in your
>> community also pay taxes. �If you bother to check, bi-lingual education
>> has fallen out of favor and I don't believe it exists in Georgia at all.
> 
> You'd be completely wrong.

No, I'm not incorrect and I pointedly note how you have yet to provide a
singe source rebutting my URLs and claims.  Instead you just proclaim it
incorrect.  How about some FACTS?
 
> I
>> believe ya'll have English immersion. �The total figure incidentally
>> includes the costs attributable to things like buses, bi-lingual
>> education, school nurses and administrative costs.
> 
> You're not correct here.


Oh but I am, note the following quote from a description of the Georgia LEP
program, which the state legislature refuses to fund.


http://www.ceousa.org/READ/50state.html
"Georgia
Contact: Beth Arnow, Migrant/ESOL Programs Coordinator, Georgia Department
of Education, (404) 656-4495.

Requirements: State law requires schools to provide LEP student programs,
designed to develop both the necessary English skills and American culture
concepts for participation in regular English classroom instruction.14

Funding: There are 15, 277 LEP students. There is no state funding."




May I suggest you get some facts and get back to me, until you do,
everything you've claimed so far has been rebutted by supposedly reputable
sources.  

Art Clemons wrote:

> Valeria Palmer wrote:
> 
> 
>>You don't remember a couple of years ago where the NYTimes pet Negro
>>reporter was deiscovered to be plaigiarising everything in sight?  Andf
>>the Post got caught in a similar scam by a black female reporter some
>>years back ...  In both cases the editors were warned and wanred about
>>these reporters, but ignored the warnings out of political correctness.
> 
> 
> Considering how the NYTimes had Judith Miller among others who often gets
> her facts wrong, may I suggest you need to stop focusing on race.  As for
> the Washington Post, have you ever read a Broder Column or a George Will
> Column?
>  
> 
>>You're making an assumption, what reputable sources for
>>
>>>your claims can you produce?  I produced some, now rebut them.
>>>Incidentally, the IRS issues T.I.N's to illegals, they can use those to
>>>pay taxes and do.  If they rent, a portion of their rent goes to paying
>>>for local taxes and they can't escape sales taxes either.  You've made
>>>assumptions based on your preconceived beliefs which apparently aren't
>>>true or at least there is little data to support them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Let's put it frankly - I own a home in GA and a professional level job
>>>>and I pay taxes, but I might barely pay enough in property taxes & sales
>>>>taxes & income taxes combined to cover the costs of educating one child.
>>>>Educating one English-speaking child costs between $5900 and $7500 in
>>>>taxes depending on the county.  Add in the costs for bilingual
>>>>"education" and your bracero with three kids isn't even coming close to
>>>>paying the toll.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Theoretically though even after you stop having school age children, you
>>>pay for education with property taxes, and those without children in your
>>>community also pay taxes.  If you bother to check, bi-lingual education
>>>has fallen out of favor and I don't believe it exists in Georgia at all.
>>
>>You'd be completely wrong.
> 
> 
> No, I'm not incorrect and I pointedly note how you have yet to provide a
> singe source rebutting my URLs and claims.  Instead you just proclaim it
> incorrect.  How about some FACTS?
>  
> 
>>I
>>
>>>believe ya'll have English immersion.  The total figure incidentally
>>>includes the costs attributable to things like buses, bi-lingual
>>>education, school nurses and administrative costs.
>>
>>You're not correct here.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but I am, note the following quote from a description of the Georgia LEP
> program, which the state legislature refuses to fund.
> 
> 
> http://www.ceousa.org/READ/50state.html
> "Georgia
> Contact: Beth Arnow, Migrant/ESOL Programs Coordinator, Georgia Department
> of Education, (404) 656-4495.
> 
> Requirements: State law requires schools to provide LEP student programs,
> designed to develop both the necessary English skills and American culture
> concepts for participation in regular English classroom instruction.14
> 
> Funding: There are 15, 277 LEP students. There is no state funding."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May I suggest you get some facts and get back to me, until you do,
> everything you've claimed so far has been rebutted by supposedly reputable
> sources.  


Because the state is not funding a particular prgram does not mean that 
the schools are not providing it through local funding. You don't live 
here, do ya?

Valeria Palmer wrote:

> Because the state is not funding a particular prgram does not mean that
> the schools are not providing it through local funding. You don't live
> here, do ya?


Did you bother to read the description of the program mandated by the State
of Georgia?  I suggest you read that description and reply in light of the
description.  

>>Requirements: State law requires schools to provide LEP student programs,
>>designed to develop both the necessary English skills and American culture
>>concepts for participation in regular English classroom instruction

That's a description of an English immersion program not bi-lingual
education.  Once again, got anything better than I don't live in Georgia
like some facts?  

Art Clemons wrote:
> Valeria Palmer wrote:
> 
> 
>>Because the state is not funding a particular prgram does not mean that
>>the schools are not providing it through local funding. You don't live
>>here, do ya?
> 
> 
> 
> Did you bother to read the description of the program mandated by the State
> of Georgia?  I suggest you read that description and reply in light of the
> description.  
> 
> 
>>>Requirements: State law requires schools to provide LEP student programs,
>>>designed to develop both the necessary English skills and American culture
>>>concepts for participation in regular English classroom instruction
> 
> 
> That's a description of an English immersion program not bi-lingual
> education.  Once again, got anything better than I don't live in Georgia
> like some facts?  

This would explain why we're "graduating" kids who don't habla Ingles?

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:04:55 -0400, Art Clemons
<ArtClemons@aolSPAM.com> wrote:


>Actually most folks pay more in taxes than the government spends on them,
>it's the wealthy who suck up more in services than they expend in taxes.

How do you figure that? 

The wealthy don't have more children than the poor and often send them
to private schools. That's half of the budget of most communities.

The bottom 50% pay 5% of federal income tax. 

The benefits of Social Security are weighted toward the lower income.
Someone earning $80,000 doesn't draw 4 times what someone making
$20,000 does even though they pay 4 times as much into the system.

"Brian" <drmorrisnospam@comcast.net> wrote

> How do you figure that?
>
> The wealthy don't have more children than the poor and often
> send them to private schools. That's half of the budget of
> most communities.
>
> The bottom 50% pay 5% of federal income tax.
>
> The benefits of Social Security are weighted toward the lower income.
> Someone earning $80,000 doesn't draw 4 times what someone
> making $20,000 does even though they pay 4 times as much
> into the system.


"Into the system", Brian says.  That's an important conception:  if you're a
taxpayer, all the different federal taxes you pay come out of the same
pocket;  if you're the federal government, all your tax receipts go into the
same pot.

Now,  Brian trots out the tired old class-warfare talking point that the
bottom 50% of incomes pay only 5% of all federal _income_ tax, but he
carefully avoids mentioning two things:

1) What percentage of all _income_ the bottom 50% earn.  After all, if we
had a dead flat tax structure, and the bottom half of all incomes amounted
to only 5% of the nation's total income, what fraction of all "income tax"
would he _expect_ the bottom half to pay?

2) Bill Gates pays a negligible percentage of his income in FICA.  Not so
for most people, including Brian I bet.  The fraction of _total_ federal
taxes paid by the lower half of incomes is therefore not necessarily the
same as the fraction of "income tax" they pay.

-- TP

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:44:44 -0400, "tonyp" <tonyp@world.std.com>
wrote:

>
>"Brian" <drmorrisnospam@comcast.net> wrote
>
>> How do you figure that?
>>
>> The wealthy don't have more children than the poor and often
>> send them to private schools. That's half of the budget of
>> most communities.
>>
>> The bottom 50% pay 5% of federal income tax.
>>
>> The benefits of Social Security are weighted toward the lower income.
>> Someone earning $80,000 doesn't draw 4 times what someone
>> making $20,000 does even though they pay 4 times as much
>> into the system.
>
>
>"Into the system", Brian says.  That's an important conception:  if you're a
>taxpayer, all the different federal taxes you pay come out of the same
>pocket;  if you're the federal government, all your tax receipts go into the
>same pot.
>
>Now,  Brian trots out the tired old class-warfare talking point that the
>bottom 50% of incomes pay only 5% of all federal _income_ tax, but he
>carefully avoids mentioning two things:
>
>1) What percentage of all _income_ the bottom 50% earn.  After all, if we
>had a dead flat tax structure, and the bottom half of all incomes amounted
>to only 5% of the nation's total income, what fraction of all "income tax"
>would he _expect_ the bottom half to pay?

!3% and they pay 3% of indivudual federal income taxes. The top 1%
earns 19% of income and pays 37% of the taxes.
http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/2006/10/income.html

And if you check Wikipedia, "The 2005 economic survey also found that
households in the top two income quintiles, those with an annual
household income exceeding $55,331, had a median of two income earners
while those in the lower quintiles (2nd and middle quintile) had
median of only one income earner per household. Due to high
unemployment among those in the lowest quintile the median number of
income earners for this particular group was determined to be zero"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
>
>2) Bill Gates pays a negligible percentage of his income in FICA.  Not so
>for most people, including Brian I bet.  The fraction of _total_ federal
>taxes paid by the lower half of incomes is therefore not necessarily the
>same as the fraction of "income tax" they pay.
>
>-- TP

And Bill Gates also will draw a negligible amount of Social Security.
I don't see where you refuted what I said about those with lower
income drawing a higher percentage payout relative to what was paid
in. Bill Gates has the same maximum as others. It is irrelevant what
his total income is.

And I haven't yet seen anything to support the claim about the upper
income people not paying taxes to equal what their costs are.

"Brian" <drmorrisnospam@comcast.net> wrote

> "tonyp" <tonyp@world.std.com> wrote:
> >1) What percentage of all _income_ the bottom 50% earn.

> !3% and they pay 3% of indivudual federal income taxes.
> The top 1% earns 19% of income and pays 37% of the taxes.
> http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/2006/10/income.html


Note that, once again, the cited numbers are exclusively about the "income
tax", as if that's the only tax that matters.  Greg Mankiew, citing the CBO,
says:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/04/are-rich-paying-enough.html


     Now that it is tax season, there is sure to be a bunch of articles
     and op-eds on the question of whether the rich are paying their
     fair share in taxes.

     Before one starts expressing opinions, it is good to look at the facts.
     The Congressional Budget Office is one place to look for the data
     on such issues. Here is the Total Effective Federal Tax Rate
     (all federal taxes divided by income) for different income groups,
     according to a CBO report, for 2005:

     Lowest quintile 5.5 percent
     Second quintile 12.0
     Middle quintile 15.6
     Fourth quintile 19.6
     Highest quintile 26.3

     Top 10 percent 27.8
     Top 5 percent 29.0
     Top 1 percent 31.1

     Does the average tax rate not rise sufficiently with income?
     Or does it rise too much? Or is it just right? Economics alone
     does not provide the answer. But when thinking about the issue,
     these are the key numbers that people should focus on.

Mankiew is right that economics cannot answer the question of "fairness".
But if we think it's "unfair" for anyone to pay more than, say, 25% of his
total income to the feds, then we have to do some arithmetic.  Brian says
the top 1% pull in 19% of the nation's total income.  If they now pay 31% of
it into the Treasury, they are chipping in about 6% of all federal revenues.
Reduce their effective taxes to 25%, and they're suddenly chipping in less,
by about one part in six.  A 1% drop in federal revenues may not seem like
much, but it's serious money.  Suppose we make it up by asking the bottom
half of the population to take up the slack.  According to Brian, the bottom
half pay just 3% of all income taxes.  Making them pay 4% would be a 33% tax
increase in their taxes.  If Brian wants to make half of all Americans pay
33% more in federal taxes, he is welcome to try.  Politically, it seems like
a losing proposition, but the American public has obviously been known to
fall sucker to voodoo economics before this.

Note, by the way, that if we wanted to bring the entire top quintile down to
an effective tax of 25%, the hit to the Treasury would be enormous.  Either
the "bottom 80%" of the population would have to face huge tax increases, or
the federal budget would have to be cut in major ways.  Perhaps we could
eliminate the Air Force :-)


> And I haven't yet seen anything to support the claim about the upper
> income people not paying taxes to equal what their costs are.


Well, the Air Force defends both you and Bill Gates.  It's hard to tell
whether it is providing more service to you or to Bill.  Likewise for the
SEC, the USPTO, and NASA, to name but a few.  Perhaps you and Bill should
each be paying the same _amount_ to fund these agencies, if you're each
getting the same amount of benefit from them.

-- TP

Anthony Martinez wrote:
>                                    Who cares where her house is
> located? Are you going over there to toilet paper her house, and spray
> graffiti  all over? Huh...

  I was considering that if I ever needed a place to live I could
take her up on her offer and simply break into her house and enter it 
and do some light housework, and then I, and my children, and my parents 
would have a nice place to live.

  I'm also considering doing my sunbathing this year at the Hyannisport 
compound.  As long as I bring my lawnmower, Teddy wouldn't be so crass 
as to claim that just because he was there before I was he has more 
right to it, and he certainly wouldn't cruelly separate me from my 
children for something as trivial as breaking the law.

-- 
   - David Chesler <chesler@post.harvard.edu>
     Free Cory Maye

In article <J-qdnYY2x_CQl-rbnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@rcn.net>, tonyp
<tonyp@world.std.com> wrote:

> "Brian" <drmorrisnospam@comcast.net> wrote
> 
> > How do you figure that?
> >
> > The wealthy don't have more children than the poor and often
> > send them to private schools. That's half of the budget of
> > most communities.
> >
> > The bottom 50% pay 5% of federal income tax.
> >
> > The benefits of Social Security are weighted toward the lower income.
> > Someone earning $80,000 doesn't draw 4 times what someone
> > making $20,000 does even though they pay 4 times as much
> > into the system.
> 
> 
> "Into the system", Brian says.  That's an important conception:  if you're a
> taxpayer, all the different federal taxes you pay come out of the same
> pocket;  if you're the federal government, all your tax receipts go into the
> same pot.
> 
> Now,  Brian trots out the tired old class-warfare talking point....


The irony meter pegs.