Dallas-Fort Worth TRACON Management Routinely Misclassified Operational Errors and Deviations as Pilot Errors

On Sat, 03 May 2008 17:18:36 -0400, Jennifer Allen
wrote in :


Wow, if you don't favor Obama or Clinton, you are a "racial bigot" or you
hate women. Fascinating application of logic.

My followup article was in response to this one:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...1098b084248a72

When you have taken the time to see the bigoted, misogynistic content
of that article, you will better understand my comment, sweetie.

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sat, 03 May 2008 17:18:36 -0400, Jennifer Allen
wrote in :


Wow, if you don't favor Obama or Clinton, you are a "racial bigot" or you
hate women. Fascinating application of logic.

My followup article was in response to this one:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...1098b084248a72

When you have taken the time to see the bigoted, misogynistic content
of that article,

I did before I wrote my response to your content.

you will better understand my comment, sweetie.

The way you talk to women is quite self-explanatory.

Larry Dighera wrote:

Who benefited from the Bush tax cuts?


Taxpayers.

On Sat, 3 May 2008 17:27:12 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

Who benefited from the Bush tax cuts?


Taxpayers.


I would venture, that you and I, and the vast majority of tax payers
were not among those families earning more than $1 million a year who
benefited most:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html
Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: January 8, 2007

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year
saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in
the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to
a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also
shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004,
the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for
people at the very top continued to decline.

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data,
the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts
reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the
biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the
top 1 percent of income earners. ...

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sat, 3 May 2008 17:27:12 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

Who benefited from the Bush tax cuts?


Taxpayers.


I would venture, that you and I, and the vast majority of tax payers
were not among those families earning more than $1 million a year who
benefited most:

So what? If you study history and economics you will notice that tax cuts
benefit the economy as a whole, as they have since John Kennedy's massive
tax cuts in the 1960s . Obviously if you are paying less to begin with, a
tax *cut* will be less too. If you don't believe that you are paying
enough, the Treasury would be happy to cash your check. In addition, most
of the taxes are paid by a minority of taxpayers as it is. If you want
high taxes a la Europe style tax rates, you also are demanding Europe
style unemployment and Europe style economic malaise, which makes the
current USA situation look like the 1920s.

From your article:

"The report shows that a comparatively small number of very wealthy
households account for a very big share of total tax payments, and their
share increased in the first four years after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts.

The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7 percent of federal
income taxes and 25.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2004. The top 20
percent of income earners paid 67.1 percent of all federal taxes, up from
66.1 percent in 2000, according to the budget office.

By contrast, families in the bottom 40 percent of income earners, those
with incomes below $36,300, typically paid no federal income tax and
received money back from the government. That so-called negative income
tax stemmed mainly from the earned-income tax credit, a program that
benefits low-income parents who are employed.

Put another way: rich families were the undisputed winners from President
Bush’s tax cuts, but people in the bottom half of the earnings scale were
not paying much in taxes anyway."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/wa...=1&oref=slogin

Larry Dighera wrote:

I would venture, that you and I, and the vast majority of tax payers
were not among those families earning more than $1 million a year who
benefited most:


Those that pay the highest taxes received the highest tax cuts.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

I would venture, that you and I, and the vast majority of tax payers
were not among those families earning more than $1 million a year who
benefited most:

duh. The people who pay taxes benefit immediately from tax cuts.
The people who pay the most taxes would logically be expected to
benefit most from tax cuts.

People who don't pay taxes won't see much direct benifit from a tax cut.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On Sat, 03 May 2008 22:24:25 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote in
:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

I would venture, that you and I, and the vast majority of tax payers
were not among those families earning more than $1 million a year who
benefited most:

duh. The people who pay taxes benefit immediately from tax cuts.
The people who pay the most taxes would logically be expected to
benefit most from tax cuts.

People who don't pay taxes won't see much direct benifit from a tax cut.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

Because it's so banal as to be irrelevant, and those who emphasize it
are seen to be spinmasters who are attempting to confuse the rubes
into taking their eye off the pea.

The point is that those most able to pay and who have reaped the most
from the system, the wealthiest 1% of tax payers, reaped a windfall as
a result of Bush's tax cut on dividend income.

Larry Dighera wrote:

Because it's so banal as to be irrelevant, and those who emphasize it
are seen to be spinmasters who are attempting to confuse the rubes
into taking their eye off the pea.


Wrong.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

Because it's so banal as to be irrelevant, and those who emphasize it
are seen to be spinmasters who are attempting to confuse the rubes
into taking their eye off the pea.

The point is that those most able to pay and who have reaped the most
from the system, the wealthiest 1% of tax payers, reaped a windfall as
a result of Bush's tax cut on dividend income.

It's your langauge that is that of a spinmaster, with inflammatory emotional
wording ("windfall", "rubes", "spinmaster").

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)