New DSLR lenses from Nikon

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...


We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook, not
humanity.

Yes.....I am very uncomfortable when politicians have their hands in my
pockets........Just because Robin Hood gave money to the poor, that
doesn't prevent me from calling him a thief.

Are you saying you receive no benefit from being a member of our society?
Please clarify.


--
Peter

Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's still
not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government it is
oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being great. - We
passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi, we are fast
heading to 60% and above.

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...


We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook, not
humanity.

Yes.....I am very uncomfortable when politicians have their hands in my
pockets........Just because Robin Hood gave money to the poor, that
doesn't prevent me from calling him a thief.

Are you saying you receive no benefit from being a member of our society?
Please clarify.


--
Peter

Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's still
not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government it is
oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being great. -
We passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi, we are fast
heading to 60% and above.


So you want the benefits without paying for them. I get it, you should only
pay for the direct benefits you think you need. Not to help society as a
whole.

Just start with a few common costs. Since you know how much to spend, why
don't you fill in the blanks.

Military: = ?
Education = ?
Domestic security protection = ?
Road maintenance = ?
Court system = ?
Helping our genuinely indigent to survive = ?

Come on Billy boy, you have investments. What is the cost of the government
helping to maintain the integrity of your money.

If you expect the benefits of living in our society without paying for them,
you are a worse thief than Robin Hood.

--
Peter

C J Campbell wrote:
On 2010-02-11 23:39:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:

[replying to C J's posting because Bill has been in my killfile for a
long time. And obviously for very good reasons, see below]

"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
C J Campbell wrote:
And wouldn't Bill Gates love a sales tax......

He happens to be living in Bellevue, WA, USA, which happens to have
about 8% sales tax (plus probably a few percent slapped on by King
County and the city of Bellevue).

He wouldn't spend any
more than he does now, but his investments would make billions of
dollars every year, and it would all be tax free., Talk about a
regressive tax system.....

???
What does income tax have to do with the difference between sales tax
and VAT? Are you tossing red herrings around again?

jue

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...


We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook, not
humanity.

Yes.....I am very uncomfortable when politicians have their hands in my
pockets........Just because Robin Hood gave money to the poor, that
doesn't prevent me from calling him a thief.

Are you saying you receive no benefit from being a member of our
society?
Please clarify.


--
Peter

Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's
still not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government it
is oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being
great. - We passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi, we
are fast heading to 60% and above.


So you want the benefits without paying for them. I get it, you should
only pay for the direct benefits you think you need. Not to help society
as a whole.

Just start with a few common costs. Since you know how much to spend, why
don't you fill in the blanks.

Military: = ?
Education = ?
Domestic security protection = ?
Road maintenance = ?
Court system = ?
Helping our genuinely indigent to survive = ?

Come on Billy boy, you have investments. What is the cost of the
government helping to maintain the integrity of your money.

If you expect the benefits of living in our society without paying for
them, you are a worse thief than Robin Hood.

--
Peter

Well, the problem (as I see it) seems to be in the definition of, "Benefits"
If you live in a padded cell, and the government does (literally) everything
for you, then Peter would say life is perfect, and we owe everything to our
government. Bill would say we are all slaves to our government and they are
of no more use to us that any slave driver is to his property.

In the above example, I think the government's use should fall somewhere
less than 20% of our gross effort, and you seem to think that it should fall
somewhere over 50% of our gross effort.

So, the lines are drawn, and all we have to do is argue over where they
should be.

My argument for my position on the matter is that the more I do for myself,
the more freedom I enjoy. You position is the more the government does for
us, the easier life will be for the most people. I don't count living in a
padded cell as, "life". I want a little more than just breathing. But, to
each his own.......

"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:
On 2010-02-11 23:39:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:

[replying to C J's posting because Bill has been in my killfile for a
long time. And obviously for very good reasons, see below]

"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
C J Campbell wrote:
And wouldn't Bill Gates love a sales tax......

He happens to be living in Bellevue, WA, USA, which happens to have
about 8% sales tax (plus probably a few percent slapped on by King
County and the city of Bellevue).

He wouldn't spend any
more than he does now, but his investments would make billions of
dollars every year, and it would all be tax free., Talk about a
regressive tax system.....

???
What does income tax have to do with the difference between sales tax
and VAT? Are you tossing red herrings around again?

jue

I am talking about the new "progressive" idea of replacing the income tax
with a national sales tax. The super rich would make out like bandits, since
they have the bulk of their money invested, and spend only a small fraction
of their incomes. But people like me, who are retired, and spend everything
we get on our living expenses would be paying for all the costs of the
society.

George Kerby wrote:



On 2/13/10 1:46 PM, in article , "Ray
Fischer" wrote:

Peter wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
Peter wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
C J Campbell wrote:

You know, I don't know where people get this caricature of Bill Gates
being a greedy, selfish moneybags.

To some degree nearly every corporate CEO is a greedy, selfish
moneybag. It's nearly a job requirement.

You obviously refuse to recognize the responsibility of a CEO, regardless
of
the size of the corporation.

Correct.

When you open up in the morning and realize
that x number of people are looking to you for guidance and depend on your
skills to prevent starvation, or to promote a reasonable life style, you
should recognize that you have an awesome responsibility. Sure, some are
greedy turds, but they are in the minority.

I have seen far too many CEO's laying off $60,000/yr workers so that
they can continue to take home $20,000,000/yr. To think that a
typical CEO has the interests of employees as a priority is naive.
If they cared about employees or the company then they'd be getting
$1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees producing
products to sell.

Your comments make it obvious that you know absolutely nothing about
business. A good CEO holds the interests the company first.

LOL! Is that what they tell you?

In a public
company, he is accountable to the board, who represents the interests of the
owners.

ROFL! The board represent the shareholders?!? And you really believe that?

When was the last time a board member got fired by the shareholders?
When was the last time shareholders picked a board member? Or CEO?

You need to quit before you embarrass yourself any further. You never have
even seen a proxy vote form, have you, FishHead Rot?!?

The usual kerby stupidity and screeching. No substance.

--
Ray Fischer

Peter wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Peter wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message


I have seen far too many CEO's laying off $60,000/yr workers so that
they can continue to take home $20,000,000/yr. To think that a
typical CEO has the interests of employees as a priority is naive.
If they cared about employees or the company then they'd be getting
$1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees producing
products to sell.

How about some examples: You are making accusations of clear violations of
rhe SEC Regulations.

What regulations? What violation? It's no violation to lay off
hundreds of people. It's no violation to get $20,000,000/year.

Your comments make it obvious that you know absolutely nothing about
business. A good CEO holds the interests the company first.

LOL! Is that what they tell you?

They? Suggest you get over your bitter pill and learn something about the
reality of business before you open your mouth.

Says the rightard who cannot actually refute what I write.

In a public
company, he is accountable to the board, who represents the interests of
the
owners.

ROFL! The board represent the shareholders?!? And you really believe
that?

And just how do you think a director becomes a director.

By being selected by the board.

He/she is elected
by vot of the shareholders.

You may be that stupid, or not, but don't assume that I am that
stupid. We both know that the vast majority of such elections
are decided when the board recommends someone for the position.

When was the last time a board member got fired by the shareholders?
When was the last time shareholders picked a board member? Or CEO?

Read this and learn.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles.../04/082704.asp

You must be pretty stupid. You didn't even notice that that doesn't
answer either of my questions.

To maintain and grow a healthy company. A good manager recognizes
that the workers are the lifeblood of the company.

If any of your beliefs were true then we wouldn't see corporations
spending so much to hire and train workers only to fire them a few
years later and then repeat the process again.

My statements are based upon personal observation and experience.

You statements are based on naive worship of corporations.

Sure, there are some good CEOs, but there aren't many.

More than you would admit.

Less than you would admit.

Wow! You certainly are a fountain of
misinformation.

I'm not a part of your cult of stupidity. When the incomes of CEOs
explode and the incomes of workers actually fall then it's clear who
is scamming whom.

--
Ray Fischer

Bill Graham wrote:

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...


We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook, not
humanity.

Yes.....I am very uncomfortable when politicians have their hands in my
pockets........Just because Robin Hood gave money to the poor, that
doesn't prevent me from calling him a thief.

Are you saying you receive no benefit from being a member of our society?
Please clarify.


--
Peter

Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's still
not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government it is
oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being great. - We
passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi, we are fast
heading to 60% and above.

What a stinking hypocrite. Graham feeds at the government trough but
doesn't want to pay for it.

--
Ray Fischer

On 2/13/10 5:02 PM, in article , "Ray
Fischer" wrote:

George Kerby wrote:



On 2/13/10 1:46 PM, in article , "Ray
Fischer" wrote:

Peter wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
Peter wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
C J Campbell wrote:

You know, I don't know where people get this caricature of Bill Gates
being a greedy, selfish moneybags.

To some degree nearly every corporate CEO is a greedy, selfish
moneybag. It's nearly a job requirement.

You obviously refuse to recognize the responsibility of a CEO, regardless
of
the size of the corporation.

Correct.

When you open up in the morning and realize
that x number of people are looking to you for guidance and depend on
your
skills to prevent starvation, or to promote a reasonable life style, you
should recognize that you have an awesome responsibility. Sure, some are
greedy turds, but they are in the minority.

I have seen far too many CEO's laying off $60,000/yr workers so that
they can continue to take home $20,000,000/yr. To think that a
typical CEO has the interests of employees as a priority is naive.
If they cared about employees or the company then they'd be getting
$1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees producing
products to sell.

Your comments make it obvious that you know absolutely nothing about
business. A good CEO holds the interests the company first.

LOL! Is that what they tell you?

In a public
company, he is accountable to the board, who represents the interests of
the
owners.

ROFL! The board represent the shareholders?!? And you really believe that?

When was the last time a board member got fired by the shareholders?
When was the last time shareholders picked a board member? Or CEO?

You need to quit before you embarrass yourself any further. You never have
even seen a proxy vote form, have you, FishHead Rot?!?

The usual kerby stupidity and screeching. No substance.

The usual crabbing retort from the FishHead. No comprehension.

Proving beyond a doubt that you never have own a share of a publicly held
business. You would be embarrassed - if you were capable of such a thing.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:06:24 -0800, Jürgen Exner
wrote:

C J Campbell wrote:
On 2010-02-11 23:39:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:

[replying to C J's posting because Bill has been in my killfile for a
long time. And obviously for very good reasons, see below]

"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
C J Campbell wrote:
And wouldn't Bill Gates love a sales tax......

He happens to be living in Bellevue, WA, USA, which happens to have
about 8% sales tax (plus probably a few percent slapped on by King
County and the city of Bellevue).

He wouldn't spend any
more than he does now, but his investments would make billions of
dollars every year, and it would all be tax free., Talk about a
regressive tax system.....

???
What does income tax have to do with the difference between sales tax
and VAT? Are you tossing red herrings around again?

He's referring to the "FairTax" movement. It replaces the income tax
with a consumption tax on retail sales (essentially, a "sales tax")
with a rebate to taxpayers with incomes below a certain level. There
are some advantages to the proposal, but it stands little chance of
advancing.

There's more to it than I've outlined above.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida