Message Forum


 
go to bottom 
  Post Response
    Prior Page
 Page  

08/22/14 08:43 AM #199    

Carolyn Moore Newberger

This "conversation" has devolved into hateful ranting.  I do not think it should be allowed to continue.

 


08/22/14 10:21 AM #200    

Frederick Ohsol

Phil:  

1959  Federal Income tax max bracket 91%

Federal estate tax max bracket 77%

 

2013 FIT max 44.6%.  FET max40%

According to your definition we grew up under Socialism!

 

Fred Ohsol

 


08/22/14 11:09 AM #201    

 

Maureen Reynolds Clark

Carolyn,

To disagree is not hate speech.   The argumennts posted are from the heart.  They should be discussed not shut down!  


08/22/14 08:02 PM #202    

Joseph Atchison

Well,I Love Peaches,and I Hate what Obama is doing/done to our country. Keep on keeping on Phil. Speech is one Right we still have . So as far as "why can't we all just get along" Harry Truman ,a real president,is credited with the answer. "If you can't take the heat,get out of the kitchen"


08/22/14 08:41 PM #203    

 

Phillip Mathewson

Fredrick,

 

You are right.  Income taxes were much higher them.  But today there are hundreds more taxes on us.  Payroll taxes, Medicare taxes, and many others.  The result is that the average working person pays over 50% of his total income in federal, state, and local taxes.  And in the mean time we are not allowed to drink a large Coke.  I think our freedoms have been severely compromised over that last 50 years.  JMHO of course.


08/22/14 09:55 PM #204    

David L. Carroll

Why do liberals who like to be called progressives refer to conversation they disagee with as hateful?  Name calling is also a standard tactic of those with that political viewpoint.  Namecalling is not a rebutal!!!  There is merit to disagreement, and while I have seen strongly expressed opinions on both sides of the political spectrim expressed in this medium, I have not seen anything close to hateful, unless you are a  person who hates to hear an opinion that you feel hate toward.


08/23/14 08:19 AM #205    

Beatrice Favinger Hayduk

My dear Caarolyn Moore,,  It is what it is.  These messages are very  serious for our survival.  Please wake up please!!!!!!!!!


08/28/14 02:11 AM #206    

Richard Wendling

Hi all!

I was in the middle of composing a letter last night when my iPhone crashed, the screen went black. It was not until Veronica at Verizon reminded me to push simultaneously on both buttons to get the marvel to come to life.
Anyway, I was writing about a show I watched on the NFL channel called, "The Immaculate Reception." If you haven't seen it, please try to find a repeat on NFL. Talk about sitting around the pot-bellied stove and rehashing sports plays from long ago...!

Speaking of which, in 1960 after the seventh game of the World Series in Which Bill Mazeroski hit the winning homer, I cut swimming practice at Grove City College and was cut from the team. Short college swimming career.


08/28/14 01:29 PM #207    

Barry Sullivan

Rick,

The Immaculate Reception and the the Mazeroski home run - two wondeful memoies.

Best,

Barry Sullivan


09/06/14 07:17 AM #208    

Jean Dingman Knapper

Greetings from the beautiful island of Malta.  Tom is working at the American Embassy and I'm enjoying the amenities of the Hilton Hotel.  It's a great life!


09/23/14 08:49 PM #209    

 

Phillip Mathewson

Is there anyone from the class of ‘59 who thinks that passing a tax would change the temperature of the Earth? Me either. Where does our government come up with this inane stuff?


09/24/14 11:20 AM #210    

Charles Wharton

Carbon Tax:  Several friends of the government will set a brokerage for carbon credits and take only a small % fee off the top of each transaction. Some of these fees will be shared with reelection campaigns of those in favor of this tax.  


09/24/14 11:58 AM #211    

Joseph Ott

We got a great education at Mt Lebo...Through hard knocks or formal continuing education we added to our abilities to gather information, analize its meaning and come to conclusions.  In short we learned how to think.

And while life has been good to us and in many ways and also given us some speed bumps along the way;  do we really need more government and taxes ?  The question is not can or should we pay them, it is do we need them in the first place.

What do you think ?


09/24/14 03:09 PM #212    

Joseph Atchison

Well, I'd gladly pay an Impeachment tax were it not already too late for that.

 


09/24/14 04:41 PM #213    

 

Phillip Mathewson

We (average working people) pay over 50% of our income in Federal, State, and Local taxes.  That is way too much!  Our government is too big and it is very corrupt.  Remember when PA wanted to increase the gasoline tax 3 cents a gallon to repave the Squirrel Hill tunnels.  It wa to be a temptorary tax for a year and then when the paving was done it would be removed.  Did PA ever remove that tax?  The answer is NO.  They found somewhere else to spend tht money.  That's the way all governments work.  In my opinion the only way our countruy is going to survive is if we decrease the size of goverhmnt, reduce taxes, and reduce regulations.  I'm pretty sure I'm right.  I'll use the Roman Empire as my perfect historic example.


09/24/14 07:37 PM #214    

 

Phillip Mathewson

In case you missed Obama's speech today here is a short synopsis of what he said:

Islam good.
Israel and America not so good.
ISIS terrorists bad....
Climate change really really bad.

 

Isn't that a sad state of affairs for our country?  I think it is.


09/24/14 08:57 PM #215    

 

Donald Dewees

Phillip Mathewson asked in #209 if anyone thinks that passing a tax would change the temperature of the earth.  Yes, I do.  Taxes have incentive effects – they raise the price of the thing that is taxed and generally people respond by consuming less.  Taxing the carbon content of fossil fuels will raise their cost relative to other sources of energy and lead to reduced fossil fuel consumption and less CO2 emissions.  There is lots of empirical economics literature demonstrating this effect of taxes.  British Columbia adopted a carbon tax in 2008 and a recent study found that it had significantly reduced CO2 emissions in that Canadian province.  See:  http://www.sustainableprosperity.ca/article3685 .  So, if you accept that our emissions of CO2 contribute to global warming then taxes on CO2 emissions would reduce the emission rate and reduce the rate of warming.  One province – tiny effect; major emitting countries – substantial effects.  This is not inane – it is the result of careful study.

BC had the wisdom to design their tax to be revenue neutral.  All revenues from the carbon tax go into a fund that is returned to taxpayers through reductions in their income tax.  No increased tax burden, no increase in government spending, reduced pollution.


09/25/14 11:39 AM #216    

 

Phillip Mathewson

Taxing carbon emmissions will definately increase the price of fuel.  But it will also reduce our standard of living.  We are a long way off from living on wind mills and solar cells.  If one is a religious person then he must wonder why God put all those carbon fuels here if he didn't intend for us to use them.


09/27/14 10:37 AM #217    

 

Donald Dewees

Pollution control costs money so paying for it will reduce our material standard of living.  The question is whether the benefits are worth the cost.  Pittsburgh had terrible air pollution in the first half of the 20th century and after WWII Pittsburgh and Allegheny County passed smoke control ordinances that greatly reduced the pollution by the time we were in high school.  I have never heard anyone say that cleaning up Pittsburgh’s air was not worth the cost.  We can debate whether a particular global warming policy is worth the cost but that is different from saying we should not spend anything.

I am not persuaded that the presence of fossil fuels means that God wants us to use them recklessly.  We have asbestos in abundance and our use of it for insulation and building materials caused agonizing deaths for thousands of workers from asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma.  Asbestos is now heavily regulated or banned in most countries.  An occupational health disaster does not seem like the plan of a benevolent divinity; neither does environmental destruction.  Maybe abundant resources are a test, a temptation.  Christian scriptures invite us to use our natural resources in a responsible and sustainable manner like the wise virgins, rather than using them irresponsibly and winding up in the dark like the foolish virgins.


10/02/14 08:01 PM #218    

 

Phillip Mathewson

IMO, the onlly economic save for our country is smaller government, lower taxes, and less government intrusion in our livews.  I think it is as simple as tht.  How we get there?  I don't know.  But if we don't our country is doomed to total collapse.  This, unfortunately, is what we are leaving our children and grand children.  I'm not proud of that.


10/03/14 08:07 AM #219    

Phil Gottschall

                Can we all agree on three philosophical concepts?  I. There is evil in the world; II. It is not true that nothing is accomplished by violence; and III.  All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

     I and II have long been asserted by many, including our President.  On III, most of us recognize that organizations of all kinds have varying degrees of power and have been corrupted BUT only governments have absolute power – see Red China, North Korea and the ISIS caliphate.

     Generally, no one says we should do nothing about pollution and health hazards.  The differences are about what makes sense.  Basic cost v. benefit analyses show why richer societies are solving problems while the LDC’s are exacerbating them.  Moreover, the reference to the first half of the century minimizes the effect of WWII.  War pushed production of steel and ships beyond 100% capacity by deferring maintenance and repairs.  Accordingly, “dirty” industry got dirtier.  No one faults the government for its orders requiring asbestos products for naval vessels, vehicles and the increased production by steel mills.

     By 1950, Pittsburgh was a much cleaner city.  The steel industry had modernized its plants and helped get political support to eliminate coal fired locomotives in Pittsburgh and essentially banned the use of coal fired heating of homes.  Sadly, by the 1970’s, various “zeros” - zero population growth, zero pollution absolutism, etc. - were the rage.  GASP (a local environmental/political group) said the steel industry should leave the U.S. and let the LDC’s make steel and have the pollution.  Meanwhile, the U.S. government sued J&L because water discharged from an Ohio mill, while much cleaner than the intake river water, was not 100% pure water.  Other purists pushed to restrict the use of asbestos and then its elimination.  I and millions of others had used asbestos products in the 50’s in accordance with industry standards without adverse consequences.  The explosion of asbestos litigation established:  1. properly applied and handled, the risks had been dramatically lessened; 2. many of the actual injuries dated from the 1940’s and stemmed from shipbuilding; 3. the cases were rife with abuse and outright fraud.  Multimillionaire lawyers and various judges were jailed or disciplined.

     I believe industry is not evil and a hundred years from now the predicted environmental disaster (which has been on hold for the last 15-20 years) may become another non-event.  We have already avoided the “scientifically” predicted disaster of peak oil, famines caused by population growth, and the global freeze predicted in the 70’s when Pittsburgh’s rivers froze for the first time in centuries.  Usually, if problems develop, industry corrects them with better results than government mandates.  Long before the Clean Air Act, I helped to install the precipators at the J&L plant in Aliquippa.  In the 70’s, I negotiated a consent decree in the Ohio water case against J&L.  It did not require the demanded 100% pure water.  The more than $10,000,000 capital expenditure required by the decree had, as a practical matter, no impact on the quality of the river water.  While it was a political victory for Nixon and the environmentalists, it was an additional cost for an industry suffering from foreign competition.  

   Not surprisingly, when I visited a steel mill in China in 1985, it was still blackening the skies and river and was using asbestos. However, the Aliquippa mill is gone and the Ohio mill is in limbo.  GASP got what it wanted.  The steelworkers and shareholders suffered and world pollution increased. 


10/03/14 07:46 PM #220    

 

Phillip Mathewson

AMEN to all Phil!


10/05/14 08:10 PM #221    

 

Phillip Mathewson

Phil,

 

I wish there were more people in our coiuntry with your thinking ability.


10/08/14 07:06 PM #222    

 

Phillip Mathewson

Our Earth is now in a global cooling cycle.

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6040/20130911/global-cooling-arctic-ice-cap-60-photo.htm


11/05/14 09:38 AM #223    

 

Phillip Mathewson

What a GREAT day it is today with the election news!  My faith in our country ha been restored and now we can get on with re-building our country into what our founding fathers intended it to be.  Sometimes things in life just go right!  The people have spoken!


go to top 
  Post Response
    Prior Page
 Page  



agape