You didn build that !

BuffaloBFN wrote: eric lavine wrote: it was meant as the time it took Bush to respond to Katrina Then it would be correct to say Fema and Nagin failed, not Bush.

Bush appointed Brown as head of FEMA.
Remember: "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie"
Brown recently criticized Obama for responding too fast to Sandy? What? He is a mormon!

John,

So, under these Acts, I can get a tax free materials and supplies to run my business? Cool! Do you happen to know what portion(s) of the act exempt me from paying tax?

I put almost $1,000 of tires on my truck and paid almost 70 bucks in sales tax.

Last summer, $400 for tires on my trailer I paid sales tax.

Bought a table saw last year.. I paid sales tax.

Last month's $250.00 NAPA bill has sales tax as well.

You mean to tell me, I should not have paid any sales tax on these? I'm surpised my accountant hasnt told me anything about these being tax free?

Wonder if I can get the tax back?

John,
The tax I'm speaking of is the IL State sales tax. Farmers do not pay any on their equipment, tools or supplies.

I buy exactly the same items for my business and I pay 6 3/4% sales tax.

That, coupled with some local farmers averaging $325,000 a YEAR in subsidies, can be hard to swallow.(ok, its only one that I found getting the 325Gs, some are "only' getting 250 thousand.)

Somehow, I just dont "feel the love" from the government.

I will take these a few at a time .

Hansel wrote: OverMyHead wrote: If the private sector can feed the poor for free, why is the government doing it at a cost? So your church is part of the "private sector" now??? They better start paying taxes then. I think that you are confusing "private", i.e. for profit, with "voluntary", or non-profit, sectors of the economy, but whatever this is all beside the point.

A few definitions for you. public vs private sector has more to do with who receives taxes than who pays them.

The Private Sector
private sector

The private sector is usually composed of organizations that are privately owned and not part of the government. These usually includes corporations (both profit and non-profit), partnerships, and charities.

An easier way to think of the private sector is by thinking of organizations that are not owned or operated by the government. For example, retail stores, credit unions, and local businesses will operate in the private sector.
The Public Sector
public sector

The public sector is usually composed of organizations that are owned and operated by the government. This includes federal, provincial, state, or municipal governments, depending on where you live. Privacy legislation usually calls organizations in the public sector a public body or a public authority.

With the whole separation of church and state thing I am going to say my church is private sector.

Hansel wrote: The point is that THERE IS NO MONEY in helping the poor. The private sector is never going to do it. I'm glad that there is a voluntary sector that does, but if they are tax exempt the government isn't taking from them anyway.

Aaarrrggggghhhhhh, now I have to start a new thread, "You didn't donate that". Have you never heard of charitable giving, charities or foundations? they have been around for a few years now. In fact my example of the food for Africa included donated Ingredients and transportation, mostly from local business. Prior to WWII this was the primarily source of assistance to the needy. Business has always given back as a form of good stewardship and a way to thank the community that has supported them. All without tax payer dollars.

Hansel wrote: If you feel so strongly against government "stealing" from you put your money where you mouth is, move to rural Idaho or Alaska, get off the grid, and live free as a bird.

Right back at you, plenty of socialist countries out there to inhabit so as not to screw up this one.

Hansel wrote: Thanks for calling me stupid.

I did not, either you were lying about what you paid or you really screwed up your tax return. I could not prove either. If the truth brings you to the above conclusion well...

Hansel wrote: Those numbers are based on income tax only

From your previous post.

Hansel wrote: Yet, I pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than he does.

Sorry I took this to mean income tax.

Andy.....I watched the movie 2016 tonight. It's now playing On Demand, so a nice Friday night at home with the wife watching the movie. It is truly scary and gives great insight as to what animates Obama.

His father appears to be a a driving force in his life, even though Obama only met him once after his mother and father split. His father was an anti-Colonist in Kenya, and Obama seems to be doing his own version of anti-Colonialsim. He actually returned a bust of Winston Churchill to the British when he got into the White House. I could never understand why he did that. Now I know. I think the movie also shows what a radical activist he really is. If he is re-elected, he is going to have more of a free rein to do what he really wants, and that is the scariest part of all.

Waterdog wrote: A guy panhandled me in the food lion parking lot after work I'm buying more bullets tomorrow.

Do you think you will be able to find him when you come back with more bullets?

JoeinNY wrote: The great returning of the bust... Fiction like the rest of that movie - like the fox Benghazi fiction that has now been completely debunked.   It don't take a lot to find the truth on this stuff - in general trust your common sense people are greedy and sometimes incompetent or arrogant... But rarely evil and able to function in society anyone trying to get you to believe someone else is evil is likely selling something that can't be sold with facts.

Sorry Joe, you are wrong on this one. I am quite aware that Obama and his team called this story "fiction". However, your right about one thing, it doesn't take a lot to find the truth.

I knew I was right because I follow the news very closely and followed this dust up and knew what happened, but, I found an article for you. See link below.

The story is there are (make that....were) two busts of Churchill in the White House. One given to Johnson in '65, and one given to Bush after 9/11. Obama returned the one given in to Bush when he became President in 2009.

Obama tried to wiggle out of this situation by posing in front of the old bust with David Cameron-British Prime Minister and telling the world the bust was still there. But, his peeps had to confess that they did return the newer one. They were apparently "confused". Now why would he return a bust of Churchill to the British, our closest ally in all of the world? What an insult.

So, does the movie have more credence now that I have proven the bust situation fiction isn't fiction at all?

   Read All About It Right Here

john b wrote: Waterdog wrote: A guy panhandled me in the food lion parking lot after work I'm buying more bullets tomorrow. Do you think you will be able to find him when you come back with more bullets?

A fine example of the spin YOU can put on anything.

YES I know I can "put my hands on him" any day I would like.

No d/a, bullets won't be used on a panhandler.
Panhandlers are no threat but the culture that promotes
them and gives them more "rights" than a 9 to 5 guy is
a big threat.

From now on jon b I'll just refur to you as dumb a** (d/a)
you are no more a threat than a panhandler but you can
"push peoples buttons" in your words.

YOU are a computer bully ........ d/a
    

Hansel wrote: Waste is always going to happen.

The only reason for this statement to be true is because people accept it. Have you heard of a little company called Motorola, and something called six sigma? Here is some background.Prior to the mid 80's defects rates were simply accepted by companies who like you said they were "always going to happen". Then Motorola went outside the box and set off to achieve six sigma. It is now a common business practice.

Sigma, s, is a letter in the Greek alphabet used by statisticians to measure the variability in any process. A company's performance is measured by the sigma level of their business processes.
Traditionally companies accepted three or four sigma performance levels as the norm, despite the fact that these processes created between 6,200 and 67,000 problems per million opportunities! The Six Sigma standard of 3.4 problems per million opportunities[1][1] is a response to the increasing expectations of customers and the increased complexity of modern products and processes.
For non-Six Sigma companies, these costs are often extremely high. Companies operating at three or four sigma typically spend between 25 and 40 percent of their revenues fixing problems. This is known as the cost of quality, or more accurately the cost of poor quality. Companies operating at Six Sigma typically spend less than 5 percent of their revenues fixing problems (Figure 1). The dollar cost of this gap can be huge. General Electric estimates that the gap between three or four sigma and Six Sigma was costing them between $8 billion and $12 billion per year.

The problem is the government culture does not look at these problems like a business does, and certainly never will under a leader like Obama who has no business background and surrounds himself with like minded people. Mitt on the other hand is a turnaround guy. He understands leadership, vision, and what it takes to make change and improve efficiency.

Business people "the rich" see the waste in government and know that it is their money that is being wasted. It is part of their contempt for government, because they know the government accepts as "Waste is always going to happen." You are correct that waste is rampant in military spending, but it is the governments processes that allow it. This problem grows worse as the government grows bigger, and giving the government more money enables them to let it go unchecked. That is why I advocate smaller government and cutting spending. Create a program where every government employee is empowered to and rewarded for reducing waste. The first thing that needs to go is baseline budgeting that assumes spending needs to grow each year for every government expenditure. Cutting spending does not have to mean cutting government jobs and services, that is the threat they like to hold over our head to keep the budgets increasing, and allowing them to avoid the harder work of changing and improving the system.

Hansel wrote: Those numbers are based on income tax only, and when you look at things that way Romney certainly does pay more income tax as a percent of total income that most people so I'll give you that. However once you pile on payroll taxes the percentage paid by the average American increases beyond Romney's cut. My general sentiment that Romney pays less as a percentage of his income to the federal government in taxes holds for most people if you care enough to do some research.

Jamin. Joe always tells me that the FICA programs (payroll taxes)are not entitlements but savings and insurance plans, based on that I don't think it is fair to count them as taxes paid in a different argument. Also if we are counting other taxes we would have to look at what Romney pays in his investments. A stock holder is a percent owner of a corporation. the corporation does it business (often paying taxes along the way on fuel costs. phone bills...... Then it figures its profits, which are taxed at the corporate rate, only then it can determines and distribute its earnings to stockholders which is profits minus the taxes paid. Certainly we must attribute to Romney the percentage of all those taxes he has paid as a part owner of the corporation. The federal corporate tax rate alone is 15 to 30% so the federal taxes alone raise his federal tax burden from 13% to at minimum of 28% on his investment income.Get it? The rich are paying taxes every time they turn around, there is no free lunch for them as you would have us believe.

Waterdog wrote: john b wrote: Waterdog wrote: A guy panhandled me in the food lion parking lot after work I'm buying more bullets tomorrow. Do you think you will be able to find him when you come back with more bullets? A fine example of the spin YOU can put on anything. YES I know I can "put my hands on him" any day I would like. No d/a, bullets won't be used on a panhandler. Panhandlers are no threat but the culture that promotes them and gives them more "rights" than a 9 to 5 guy is a big threat. From now on jon b I'll just refur to you as dumb a** (d/a) you are no more a threat than a panhandler but you can "push peoples buttons" in your words. YOU are a computer bully ........ d/a

I'm sorry I misunderstood. If not the panhandler, Who do you intend to so shoot with the bullets?
Sincerely,
The D/A Digboy!

OverMyHead wrote: john b wrote: There is something that all of you seem to be missing in your praise for Staples and like companies. Overall, companies like Staples cause massive job losses and replace the jobs of thousands who previously owned office supply businesses with low paying clerk and part time shelf stocking jobs without benefits. The products that Staples sells do not create a new market or a bigger demand for the products, it is only replacing a supply chain that had been in place since the beginning of office product sales. John, Are we then not counting Obama's 4 million green jobs he claimed to create because they replace jobs in the oil and coal industries? That might explain how the country saw 2 million fewer jobs overall after Obama "created" 4 million. I am fine either way so long as we apply the rules the same to both sides. Staples would be the jobs of the future, not buggy whip jobs. I also wonder how many jobs are created or saved when every business in the country directly or indirectly sees reduced costs foroffice supplies?

You are right. Jobs are nearly always lost in a move toward efficiency. I am just pointing out that companies like Staples and all of the big box stores make fewer jobs available, and the jobs they offer are frequently low paying with no benefits. The benefit of these efficiencies is enjoyed by the very few wealthy enough to invest in the capitol and hedge funds that create them. Those people hide money off shore and pay minimal taxes in place of the taxes the people displaced by this model.In addition, many without physical presence in the state where a product is purchased through their online catalog pay no taxes. I don't know of many who buy high end consumer products such as a new IMac or IBook, IPad, or IPhone through a retail location. The states and towns have lost billions through this practice. Jobs that serve to produce green energy benefit us for many reasons. Economically it reduces the hundreds of billions of dollars we send to our "friends" in the middle east. That money is invested here instead. As for technology, a wise man once said, we don't use as many bayonets and horses now either.
Sincerely,
D/A Digboy!

[/QUOTE]
OK, a simple question, you should be able to answer it.
What are you going to do with the bullets?
Sincerely,
D/A Digboy.[/QUOTE]

1)     Practice - It takes practice to keep my expert marksman cert
2)     Hunt
3)     Defend myself and family IF I need to – Everyday panhandlers    ect … are becoming embolden with the growing gap between the haves and have-nots
4)     Defend the 2nd amendment – because YOU won’t
5)     Become a criminal the day my gun becomes illegal.   
6)     Ect…
7)     Ect..
8)     Ect…


Back to the topic

          I believe this election is VERY important as My country is teetering on the edge of a very slippery slope   ( parable d/a)

"How do you defend the constitution without any authority to do so?"

       you don't know me or my security clearance statius and have no need to know. your just an internet bully.

   you are a d/a I am a free man not convicted of a felony
in the greatest country in the world and I have an oblagation to vote.

   

peter1234 wrote: john you really are just an internet bully .

You may also end up with the longest tag line on the site.