"B & J" expounded:

As far as I'm concerned, the inheritance tax helps keep wealth from being
concentrated in a few families.

Please, stop trying to imply that wealth belongs only to Republicans.
And do check into the Kennedy's handling of Rose Kennedy's estate.
You'll find they didn't pay their estate taxes - they claimed she was
a resident of Florida - which is odd, as she spent all of her time in
the compound in Hyannis. This state (MA) is loaded with wealthy
Democrats. Making such broad statements about the wealthy doesn't
prove your argument, it makes you look like you're ignoring reality.
Hollyweird, too.....those neurotic make-believers that so many hold up
as political icons are largely wealthy Democrats.
--
Ann, gardening in Zone 6a
South of Boston, Massachusetts
e-mail address is not checked
******************************

1996 was a decade ago, you math-impaired moron. I don't doubt the
turnout is far lower where you are. Your personality probably keeps
them away.

Cereus-validus....... wrote:
Those figures were for the presidential elections only, Charlie Brown, and
even those have gone down considerably since a decade ago.


"William Brown" wrote in message
news:fAVZe.6607$GK2.3355@lakeread07...

Cereus-validus....... wrote:

Hey there Gomerella,

I not only vote, I'm an election judge too. I am speaking from first hand
experience.

For many hours we often sit and wait with nothing to do because the
average number of registered voters who actually vote is only around
thirty percent on a good day, even less for the primaries and
non-presidential elections. By far the majority who DO vote are senior
citizens. Never seen teenages or "young adults" (18-21) vote.

What the Japanese and Europeans say is absolutely true: "Americans ARE
lazy and stoopid!!!"

Thats how we have gotten into this mess with having no competent
leadership. It was a long time in coming.

I don't know where you are a poll worker, but national statistics from the
census bureau reported 60 percent of eligible voters voted in 1996; 58
percent in 2000. They didn't yet have 2004 figures but I seem to recall
from the news coverage (that may not be credible) that it was slightly
higher than in prior years.

Of course, one must also consider that only about 70 percent of us bother
to register, and that probably includes a sizeable stable of the deceased
who show up on election day.


"Belzon Bioya" wrote in message
...


"Cereus-validus......." wrote in message
.com...


Well, most Amerikanskys don't even vote at all.

So what, I did.

If you vote you have a right to and should criticize. If you don't vote,
don't bitch.




Like it or not, we are all stuck with this doofus as president even if
he doesn't measure up as your personal savior.

I don't look to the president to be a personal savior. I think that's the
problem with the person I responded to and many republicans. They think
Bush is their personal savior and this thing is a game for them to win.
It



"Belzon Bioya" wrote in message
...


"Ann" wrote in message
news:8v89j19bl7p2r1c1pro1j8otl5ncdku82d@4ax. com...


"Belzon Bioya" expounded:



Evidently we are still lacking in them because things aren't going
smoothly
in Texas. I guess you really aren't interested in anything that makes
your
president or his party look incompetant, corrupt, or facile.

What makes him my president any more than yours?

You got upset when someone criticized him.

I didn't vote for him. He's an embarassment and I don't consider him my
president.

Local turn out averages over 70% - depending on the issues on the ballot.
And this is a me, my, mine town. Wish we could get that kind of turn out for
town meetings.

C

On 9/27/05 9:57 AM, in article 0dc_e.6690$GK2.5511@lakeread07, "William
Brown" wrote:

1996 was a decade ago, you math-impaired moron. I don't doubt the
turnout is far lower where you are. Your personality probably keeps
them away.

Cereus-validus....... wrote:
Those figures were for the presidential elections only, Charlie Brown, and
even those have gone down considerably since a decade ago.


"William Brown" wrote in message
news:fAVZe.6607$GK2.3355@lakeread07...

Cereus-validus....... wrote:

Hey there Gomerella,

I not only vote, I'm an election judge too. I am speaking from first hand
experience.

For many hours we often sit and wait with nothing to do because the
average number of registered voters who actually vote is only around
thirty percent on a good day, even less for the primaries and
non-presidential elections. By far the majority who DO vote are senior
citizens. Never seen teenages or "young adults" (18-21) vote.

What the Japanese and Europeans say is absolutely true: "Americans ARE
lazy and stoopid!!!"

Thats how we have gotten into this mess with having no competent
leadership. It was a long time in coming.

I don't know where you are a poll worker, but national statistics from the
census bureau reported 60 percent of eligible voters voted in 1996; 58
percent in 2000. They didn't yet have 2004 figures but I seem to recall
from the news coverage (that may not be credible) that it was slightly
higher than in prior years.

Of course, one must also consider that only about 70 percent of us bother
to register, and that probably includes a sizeable stable of the deceased
who show up on election day.


"Belzon Bioya" wrote in message
...


"Cereus-validus......." wrote in message
...


Well, most Amerikanskys don't even vote at all.

So what, I did.

If you vote you have a right to and should criticize. If you don't vote,
don't bitch.




Like it or not, we are all stuck with this doofus as president even if
he doesn't measure up as your personal savior.

I don't look to the president to be a personal savior. I think that's the
problem with the person I responded to and many republicans. They think
Bush is their personal savior and this thing is a game for them to win.
It



"Belzon Bioya" wrote in message
...


"Ann" wrote in message
...


"Belzon Bioya" expounded:



Evidently we are still lacking in them because things aren't going
smoothly
in Texas. I guess you really aren't interested in anything that makes
your
president or his party look incompetant, corrupt, or facile.

What makes him my president any more than yours?

You got upset when someone criticized him.

I didn't vote for him. He's an embarassment and I don't consider him my
president.

Ann,
Don't get me started on the gas bag or the rest of his family. Or Mr. Kerry.
I have a long and healthy distain for the pair.
Cheryl


On 9/26/05 6:20 PM, in article ,
"Ann" wrote:

Cheryl Isaak expounded:

Funny, I swung from mostly "liberal/Democrat" to Republican as I saw the
inside working of Mass. Dems. They may say they are on the little guys side,
but you sure as hell better not expect them to mean it.

Cheryl, my Mainiac husband thought I was wrong about liberal
Democrats, because he didn't understand the real meaning of the term
until he moved down here to Massachusetts. They're the rich ones in
this state - and they cost us all a fortune.

And I don't consider myself "rich" but having settled several estates now, I
think the estate taxes, both federal and the state, to be grossly unfair to
any "middle class" estate. First, taxes have been paid on that
income/house/stock/bond already, and will be paid again by the legatee. To
whack 30% or more just for dying is plain wrong. A more sensible approach
would be to end more the ways to avoid taxes - tax free funds for example.

I get a kick out of people saying Republicans are rich. Ya. No rich
Democrats. Hmmm......I guess no one told Kennedy that. Or Kerry. Or
oh so many others. Kennedy had a neat way of avoiding estate taxes,
his mother, Rose, was a Florida resident. Uh-huh. Right. His family
definitely paid their fair share of inheritance taxes.

And I think it is time for the average Republican to take back our party.

There is no Republican party to take back in Massachusetts, they've
given up. And the Democratic party doesn't resemble what it is in
other parts of the country.

On 9/26/05 10:55 PM, in article Mw2_e.19471$Ix4.415@okepread03, "B & J"
wrote:

"Cheryl Isaak" wrote in message
...
snip
Funny, I swung from mostly "liberal/Democrat" to Republican as I saw the
inside working of Mass. Dems. They may say they are on the little guys
side,
but you sure as hell better not expect them to mean it.

And I don't consider myself "rich" but having settled several estates now,
I
think the estate taxes, both federal and the state, to be grossly unfair
to
any "middle class" estate. First, taxes have been paid on that
income/house/stock/bond already, and will be paid again by the legatee. To
whack 30% or more just for dying is plain wrong. A more sensible approach
would be to end more the ways to avoid taxes - tax free funds for example.

And I think it is time for the average Republican to take back our party.

Cheryl

BYW, Cheryl, what wealth bracket do you consider middle class?
Do you mean income?

It doesn't make sense to me that the wealthy amass more wealth in families
by unrestricted inheritance. You speak of the wealth in the Democratic
Party, but it's an unfortunate fact of life that money buys elections and
only the wealthy run for political office or are owned by wealthy interests.
Check on how much it cost Michael Bloomberg per vote to buy the mayorship of
New York City. Only the super-wealthy can afford to run for public office.
It is one of the reasons I distrust any politician that claims to be for the
"little guy".

There is no question in my mind that the wealthy "own" the Republican Party
and manipulate the rest of their constituents with hot button issues. I know
few "average" Republicans. Most of them are doing very well financially or
are at the very least comfortable.
My folks have been Republicans and active ones since the 60's. We weren't
quite dirt poor, but there were days I went to bed hungry if one of them
wasn't working that week. The only reason I am comfortable now is that
education was a priority and I was smart enough to get scholarships and
majored in something I could get a decent paycheck after graduation.

As far as I'm concerned, the inheritance tax helps keep wealth from being
concentrated in a few families. I could care less if any of my relatives
gets a dime from my estate when I die. Both my wife and I have set up
scholarships as part of our will, and anything that's left goes to
relatives. They all have the same option I had of working, saving, and
investing that I had. I don't think inheriting wealth is a necessity for a
fruitful life. In fact, that is how the dubyas in this world happen. He
hasn't the foggiest idea about the problems that beset "normal" people,
while he does know and react to the problems of the wealthy.

JPS


I do care if my children get to inherit the house or any wealth I may have
accumulated. My father in law died a few years back - we got whacked 40% of
the sale price by the state of New Jersey because we weren't residents and
technically neither was he at the time of his death.


NOW - I wouldn't mind a fairer tax system and the complete elimination of
all the ways the super rich get to hide income from the tax man.

Cheryl

I have to agree with the Republican-identified posters here, although they
haven't given any rationale as to why they remain Republicans either. The
public face of Democrats is now made up of people equally wealthy as the
public face of Republicans. The difference is that at LEAST the Democrat
wealthy politicians pay lip-service to the needs and concerns of the working
poor and middle-class - a group ignored both politically and policy-wise by
BOTH parties. Yet many liberals continue to vote for Democrats in the belief
that constant pressure could eventually force them to act on their own words
in support of the working class. But there is definitely no reason
whatsoever that I can fathom for lower to middle-class citizens to vote for
Republicans whose only solution to the problems of the poor and the middle
class is to vote for tax reductions for the wealthy and corporations in the
time-proven mistaken belief that somehow that returned wealth is going to
trickle-down to other folks lower on the totem-pole. (Yes, even Reagan's own
advisors privately admitted this, and now publicly). No, time has proven
that the wealthy DON'T invest in American factories or start-ups - which is
why the massive tax refunds of 2001 have not resulted in any appreciable
gain in employment, other than forcing the Bush Administration to change the
way that unemployment is counted so as not to look quite so bad. The
wealthy now invest most heavily in corporations who move off-shore and/or
outsource jobs to third-world nations which have no labor laws whatsoever,
or in government securities, which don't result in increased employment or
wealth-generation either. The reality is that both parties are currently
failing to protect the interests of 80% of the population of the country.
And THAT is the real source of voter apathy in this nation. People get
excited about voting based on whether or not a politician opposes abortion
or homosexuality, rather than "minor" issues such as decent wages, the
health care crisis, or how to fix education in our country - (and let's not
even talk about whatever "No child left behind" was supposed to do).

In article , "presley"
wrote:

I have to agree with the Republican-identified posters here, although they
haven't given any rationale as to why they remain Republicans either. The
public face of Democrats is now made up of people equally wealthy as the
public face of Republicans. The difference is that at LEAST the Democrat
wealthy politicians pay lip-service to the needs and concerns of the working
poor and middle-class - a group ignored both politically and policy-wise by
BOTH parties. Yet many liberals continue to vote for Democrats in the belief
that constant pressure could eventually force them to act on their own words
in support of the working class. But there is definitely no reason
whatsoever that I can fathom for lower to middle-class citizens to vote for
Republicans whose only solution to the problems of the poor and the middle
class is to vote for tax reductions for the wealthy and corporations in the
time-proven mistaken belief that somehow that returned wealth is going to
trickle-down to other folks lower on the totem-pole. (Yes, even Reagan's own
advisors privately admitted this, and now publicly). No, time has proven
that the wealthy DON'T invest in American factories or start-ups - which is
why the massive tax refunds of 2001 have not resulted in any appreciable
gain in employment, other than forcing the Bush Administration to change the
way that unemployment is counted so as not to look quite so bad. The
wealthy now invest most heavily in corporations who move off-shore and/or
outsource jobs to third-world nations which have no labor laws whatsoever,
or in government securities, which don't result in increased employment or
wealth-generation either. The reality is that both parties are currently
failing to protect the interests of 80% of the population of the country.
And THAT is the real source of voter apathy in this nation. People get
excited about voting based on whether or not a politician opposes abortion
or homosexuality, rather than "minor" issues such as decent wages, the
health care crisis, or how to fix education in our country - (and let's not
even talk about whatever "No child left behind" was supposed to do).

I wish you were wrong.

-paggers
--
Get your Paghat the Ratgirl T-Shirt he
http://www.paghat.com/giftshop.html
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to
liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot." -Thomas Jefferson

Cheryl Isaak expounded:

Local turn out averages over 70% - depending on the issues on the ballot.
And this is a me, my, mine town. Wish we could get that kind of turn out for
town meetings.

There was an election nearby in Brockton - they had a whopping 15%
voter turnout. Sad.
--
Ann, gardening in Zone 6a
South of Boston, Massachusetts
e-mail address is not checked
******************************

On 9/27/05 6:01 PM, in article ,
"Ann" wrote:

Cheryl Isaak expounded:

Local turn out averages over 70% - depending on the issues on the ballot.
And this is a me, my, mine town. Wish we could get that kind of turn out for
town meetings.

There was an election nearby in Brockton - they had a whopping 15%
voter turnout. Sad.

That does stink! I know (here) Presidential and federal level get the
highest turn out, followed by state level. The town ones get really low -
around 20%. But I am there every time.

Cheryl

"Ann" wrote in message
...
"B & J" expounded:

As far as I'm concerned, the inheritance tax helps keep wealth from being
concentrated in a few families.

Please, stop trying to imply that wealth belongs only to Republicans.

I didn't say there were no wealthy Democrats, Ann. I did state that money
buys elections. Somehow the "poor" overtaxed Republicans always seem to come
up with far more money to buy elections than their Democratic counterparts.
If they don't have more money, is it because their more motivated? Actually
I find it rather pleasant to find a few Democrats wealthy enough to buy
elections. I certainly wish the party had more.

And do check into the Kennedy's handling of Rose Kennedy's estate.
You'll find they didn't pay their estate taxes - they claimed she was
a resident of Florida - which is odd, as she spent all of her time in
the compound in Hyannis. snip

What wealth saving laws did they use to manage this? BTW, what about Senate
Majority leader Frist from Tennessee and his selling stock in a family owned
business two weeks before it plunged in value? Is the same thing going to
happen to him as Martha? Do you want to make any bets? :-) The said they
went after Martha because she lied to investigators. Do you think he might
be doing any lying?

Hollyweird, too.....those neurotic make-believers that so many hold up
as political icons are largely wealthy Democrats.

You forgot to add "Ahnuld" to this Hollywood mix, or is it only the
Democrats who are neurotic and not egotistical Republicans? If I remember
correctly, the Republicans were talking a short time ago about ammending the
Constituion so that "Ahnuld" could run for president.

--
JPS
--
Ann, gardening in Zone 6a
South of Boston, Massachusetts
e-mail address is not checked
******************************

"B & J" expounded:

Hollyweird, too.....those neurotic make-believers that so many hold up
as political icons are largely wealthy Democrats.

You forgot to add "Ahnuld" to this Hollywood mix, or is it only the
Democrats who are neurotic and not egotistical Republicans? If I remember
correctly, the Republicans were talking a short time ago about ammending the
Constituion so that "Ahnuld" could run for president.

I didn't forget anything, John, but you can't seem to see the point of
what I'm saying, so it's not worth continuing.

--
Ann, gardening in Zone 6a
South of Boston, Massachusetts
e-mail address is not checked
******************************

Cheryl Isaak said:

Local turn out averages over 70% - depending on the issues on the ballot.

We had a school election where the turnout was 1.8%. (That's not a typo,
it was under 2%!)

The local weekly printed the names of everyone who had voted on one
tabloid-sized page with a box in the middle for an editorial.

Primary elections (which is, essentially, where all the local officials are
determined) are lucky to get 20%, IIRC.

--
Pat in Plymouth MI ('someplace.net' is comcast)

Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(attributed to Don Marti)

On 9/28/05 12:48 AM, in article ngp_e.19555$Ix4.14986@okepread03, "B & J"
wrote:

"Ann" wrote in message
...
"B & J" expounded:

As far as I'm concerned, the inheritance tax helps keep wealth from being
concentrated in a few families.

Please, stop trying to imply that wealth belongs only to Republicans.

I didn't say there were no wealthy Democrats, Ann. I did state that money
buys elections. Somehow the "poor" overtaxed Republicans always seem to come
up with far more money to buy elections than their Democratic counterparts.
If they don't have more money, is it because their more motivated? Actually
I find it rather pleasant to find a few Democrats wealthy enough to buy
elections. I certainly wish the party had more.

Since money "buys" elections, lets find a better way to campaign. And put a
real limit on campaign spending and enforce it.


And do check into the Kennedy's handling of Rose Kennedy's estate.
You'll find they didn't pay their estate taxes - they claimed she was
a resident of Florida - which is odd, as she spent all of her time in
the compound in Hyannis. snip

What wealth saving laws did they use to manage this?
Merely the best tax lawyers they could find.

BTW, what about Senate
Majority leader Frist from Tennessee and his selling stock in a family owned
business two weeks before it plunged in value? Is the same thing going to
happen to him as Martha? Do you want to make any bets? :-) The said they
went after Martha because she lied to investigators. Do you think he might
be doing any lying?

I hope like hell they do go after him

Hollyweird, too.....those neurotic make-believers that so many hold up
as political icons are largely wealthy Democrats.

You forgot to add "Ahnuld" to this Hollywood mix, or is it only the
Democrats who are neurotic and not egotistical Republicans? If I remember
correctly, the Republicans were talking a short time ago about ammending the
Constituion so that "Ahnuld" could run for president.

It's not a new thing, nor a "Republican" thing. In the 20's or 30's, there
was grass root effort to allow naturalized citizens to hold the presidency.
Never got very far, just like Arnie's.

Cheryl

On 9/28/05 5:59 AM, in article , "Pat
Kiewicz" wrote:

Cheryl Isaak said:

Local turn out averages over 70% - depending on the issues on the ballot.

We had a school election where the turnout was 1.8%. (That's not a typo,
it was under 2%!)

The local weekly printed the names of everyone who had voted on one
tabloid-sized page with a box in the middle for an editorial.

Primary elections (which is, essentially, where all the local officials are
determined) are lucky to get 20%, IIRC.


I like! Unfortunately, none of the local papers are big enough to do that.

Cheryl

Bob V wrote:


Hmm, it's a little small for a whale, isn't it?



Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing.

He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, three Brazilian soldiers were
killed..."

"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as
the President sits, head in hands.

..
..
..

Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"