Every now and then I make a nice vege-fruit drink by juicing. After
looking at all the resulting pulp I'm wondering if it's better for my
guts to eat all that fruit & veges than to drink the juice. Perhaps
juice is more about a nice drink than good health.

James wrote:
> Every now and then I make a nice vege-fruit drink by juicing. After
> looking at all the resulting pulp I'm wondering if it's better for my
> guts to eat all that fruit & veges than to drink the juice. Perhaps
> juice is more about a nice drink than good health.


As with all questions of health, a lot depends on the individual. Are
you someone who needs more fiber in their diet? Then make sure you get
the pulp. Are you someone who needs more concentrated calories and
vitamins? Then the pulp isn't necessary.


--Lia

James wrote:
> Every now and then I make a nice vege-fruit drink by juicing. After
> looking at all the resulting pulp I'm wondering if it's better for my
> guts to eat all that fruit & veges than to drink the juice. Perhaps
> juice is more about a nice drink than good health.

There are pluses and minuses to juicing. I consider is a nice drink
and healthy. You can drink more juice from vegetables than you can
eat. In other words the juice from 5# of carrots is easy to drink
while eating 5# of raw carrots takes longer. You don't have to throw
all the pulp away. You can cook it and eat it too.

When you make tea, you don't usually regret towing the tea bag away
because you have gotten the essence of the product with the tea. I
feel the same with juicing vegetables unless I want the pulp for bulk
at times.

James wrote:
> Every now and then I make a nice vege-fruit drink by juicing. After
> looking at all the resulting pulp I'm wondering if it's better for my
> guts to eat all that fruit & veges than to drink the juice. Perhaps
> juice is more about a nice drink than good health.


Yes, absolutely. The fiber and much of the nutrients is left behind in the
meat.

On Jul 30, 6:12*am, James > wrote:
> Every now and then I make a nice vege-fruit drink by juicing. *After
> looking at all the resulting pulp I'm wondering if it's better for my
> guts to eat all that fruit & veges than to drink the juice. *Perhaps
> juice is more about a nice drink than good health.


I'm a pretty avid juicer. But, more often than not, I just throw the
fruits and vegetables in the blender, so I retain the pulp. My
favorite concoction for the blender:

1 banana
1 carrot
1 apple
1 cup orange juice
Fresh ginger

If I have strawberries around, I like to throw them into the blender
with a few things too!

Myrl Jeffcoat

James > wrote:

> Every now and then I make a nice vege-fruit drink by juicing.
> After looking at all the resulting pulp I'm wondering if it's better
> for my guts to eat all that fruit & veges than to drink the juice.

Doesnt really make any difference.

The main difference is with your jaws/teeth, not your guts.

> Perhaps juice is more about a nice drink than good health.

It is if you would otherwise eat the same fruit/veg. Many wouldnt tho.

"Rod Speed" > wrote:

>> Every now and then I make a nice vege-fruit drink by juicing.
>> After looking at all the resulting pulp I'm wondering if it's better
>> for my guts to eat all that fruit & veges than to drink the juice.
>
> Doesnt really make any difference.
>
> The main difference is with your jaws/teeth, not your guts.

Drinking only the juice will leave out a lot of the fiber you would get with the
fruit itself, so there is a considerable difference.

On Jul 30, 6:12*am, James > wrote:
> Every now and then I make a nice vege-fruit drink by juicing. *After
> looking at all the resulting pulp I'm wondering if it's better for my
> guts to eat all that fruit & veges than to drink the juice. *Perhaps
> juice is more about a nice drink than good health.

James, I have both a standard juicer and also a Vitamix. The standard
juicer takes out all the pulp, and it is great for some juices like
carrots. But, I love making juice drinks and smoothies in the Vitamix
because it just basically liquifies the whole darn kit and kaboodle,
and you get all the fibre and all in a delicious tasting, but thicker,
"juice."

Dave

"Dave" > wrote...

> I have both a standard juicer and also a Vitamix. The standard
juicer takes out all the pulp, and it is great for some juices like
carrots. But, I love making juice drinks and smoothies in the Vitamix
because it just basically liquifies the whole darn kit and kaboodle,
and you get all the fibre and all in a delicious tasting, but thicker,
"juice."

I don't think you need a special "Vitamix" for that. Use a conventional blender
or food processor to "puree" your fruit/veg.

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:26:16 -0700, "JR Weiss"
> wrote:

>Drinking only the juice will leave out a lot of the fiber you would get with the
>fruit itself, so there is a considerable difference.

Personally, I juice because I can't eat enough vegetables, but the
juice is in addition to the vegetables that I do eat. In brief, you
don't have to stop eating fruits and vegetables just because you also
juice. You need the fiber, too.

****
Brute
"Vote McBama!"

JR Weiss > wrote:
> "Rod Speed" > wrote:
>
>>> Every now and then I make a nice vege-fruit drink by juicing.
>>> After looking at all the resulting pulp I'm wondering if it's better
>>> for my guts to eat all that fruit & veges than to drink the juice.
>>
>> Doesnt really make any difference.
>>
>> The main difference is with your jaws/teeth, not your guts.

> Drinking only the juice will leave out a lot of the fiber you would
> get with the fruit itself, so there is a considerable difference.

Yeah, I was thinking about those who just blend the fruit and veg
and drink the entire result. It looks like he did mean juicing them
since he said that. I didnt read his original carefully enough.

On Jul 30, 4:13*pm, Abe > wrote:
> >On Jul 30, 6:12*am, James > wrote:
> >> Every now and then I make a nice vege-fruit drink by juicing. *After
> >> looking at all the resulting pulp I'm wondering if it's better for my
> >> guts to eat all that fruit & veges than to drink the juice. *Perhaps
> >> juice is more about a nice drink than good health.
>
> >James, I have both a standard juicer and also a Vitamix. The standard
> >juicer takes out all the pulp, and it is great for some juices like
> >carrots. But, I love making juice drinks and smoothies in the Vitamix
> >because it just basically liquifies the whole darn kit and kaboodle,
> >and you get all the fibre and all in a delicious tasting, but thicker,
> >"juice."
>
> >Dave
>
> Really? The vitamix doesn't expel the pulp?

Hi Abe,

Just like someone else said below my post, the Vitamix is sort of the
"King of Blenders," as it uses a chain saw motor and you can take
literally anything and liquefy it. I'm not kidding -- the wood paddle
that the thing came with got dropped inside when it was making a
smoothie and you couldn't tell the wood from the strawberry juice.

Dave

> James wrote:
>> Every now and then I make a nice vege-fruit drink by juicing. After
>> looking at all the resulting pulp I'm wondering if it's better for my
>> guts to eat all that fruit & veges than to drink the juice. Perhaps
>> juice is more about a nice drink than good health.

i'd eat the whole piece of produce unless you're trying to treat some
sort of illness. ex: juice cabbage to treat stomach ulcers. you'll get
a lot more of the active ingredient you want that way.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:43:33 GMT, "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"
> wrote:

>i'd eat the whole piece of produce unless you're trying to treat some
>sort of illness. ex: juice cabbage to treat stomach ulcers. you'll get
>a lot more of the active ingredient you want that way.

Yikes. Have you actually tasted fresh cabbage juice? That is some
rough stuff. I had a raspy voice for an hour.

It has to be diluted with some other juice or water or something.

Brute
"Vote McBama"

--
----------------------
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice
cannot sleep forever."--Thomas Jefferson

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide
everything." -- Josef V. Stalin

www.myspace.com/bodybuildinggranny

heavy on the country music. if you don't like country, scroll down for
some surprises.

"Brute" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:43:33 GMT, "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"
> > wrote:
>
>>i'd eat the whole piece of produce unless you're trying to treat some
>>sort of illness. ex: juice cabbage to treat stomach ulcers. you'll get
>>a lot more of the active ingredient you want that way.
>
> Yikes. Have you actually tasted fresh cabbage juice? That is some
> rough stuff. I had a raspy voice for an hour.
>
> It has to be diluted with some other juice or water or something.
>
well then, do that.

> "Vote McBama"
aint that the truth. two absolutely worthless choices.

>"Vote McBama"

aint that the truth. two absolutely worthless choices.

AllEmailDeletedImmediately

No matter how disappointed people may be with McCain, the two still
differ greatly on the basics. It's McCain for me, as would be just
about any Republican over just about any Democrat.

Marsha/Ohio

"Marsha" > wrote in message ...
>
> >"Vote McBama"
>
> aint that the truth. two absolutely worthless choices.
>
> AllEmailDeletedImmediately
>
> No matter how disappointed people may be with McCain, the two still differ
> greatly on the basics. It's McCain for me, as would be just about any
> Republican over just about any Democrat.
>
> Marsha/Ohio

republicrat/demlican. doesn't matter. what really matters is congress.
you only think they differ on the basics. our presidents are not elected,
they're selected. the powers that be have selected whom we get to choose,
and they make sure to select only those who will toe their line. this is
why you will never have a viable third party candidate. what happened
under bush, would have happened under a dem president, or an indy, or
anyone else. they get their orders and they follow them or they die. and
the american sheople get the illusion of selection.

AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:

>"Marsha" > wrote in message ...
>
>
>>>"Vote McBama"
>>>
>>>
>>aint that the truth. two absolutely worthless choices.
>>
>>AllEmailDeletedImmediately
>>
>>No matter how disappointed people may be with McCain, the two still differ
>>greatly on the basics. It's McCain for me, as would be just about any
>>Republican over just about any Democrat.
>>
>>Marsha/Ohio
>>
>>

You are obviously very pleased with the results of Bush leadership.
McBush is a clone, just older & less trustworthy (have you paid any
attention to McBush's flipflops?).

>
>republicrat/demlican. doesn't matter. what really matters is congress.
>you only think they differ on the basics.
>

and in the next election - the Supreme Court will be determined /
controlled for many years by whomever is elected.

> what happened
>under bush, would have happened under a dem president, or an indy, or
>anyone else.
>


In denial or just naive?


Hint - invading Iraq was GW's choice.

Hint - raiding the surplus to enrich the top 10% at the cost of everyone
else was GW's leadership via a Republican controlled Congress.



Most all the current problems can be traced to these two blunders.

clams_casino wrote:

>> "Marsha" > wrote in message
>>> No matter how disappointed people may be with McCain, the two still
>>> differ greatly on the basics. It's McCain for me, as would be just
>>> about any Republican over just about any Democrat.
>>>
>>> Marsha/Ohio
>>>
> You are obviously very pleased with the results of Bush leadership.
> McBush is a clone, just older & less trustworthy (have you paid any
> attention to McBush's flipflops?).

In general, yes, I am pleased. Have you paid any attention to Obama's
flipflops? He said just what he needed in order to gain the nomination
and is now changing his mind so fast, the hardliner Dems are disappointed.

Marsha/Ohio

"Marsha" > wrote in message ...
> clams_casino wrote:
>
>>> "Marsha" > wrote in message
>>>> No matter how disappointed people may be with McCain, the two still
>>>> differ greatly on the basics. It's McCain for me, as would be just
>>>> about any Republican over just about any Democrat.
>>>>
>>>> Marsha/Ohio
>>>>
>> You are obviously very pleased with the results of Bush leadership.
>> McBush is a clone, just older & less trustworthy (have you paid any
>> attention to McBush's flipflops?).
>
> In general, yes, I am pleased. Have you paid any attention to Obama's
> flipflops? He said just what he needed in order to gain the nomination
> and is now changing his mind so fast, the hardliner Dems are disappointed.
>
> Marsha/Ohio

and he's always "correcting" himself. sos (no, not help)

Marsha wrote:

> clams_casino wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> You are obviously very pleased with the results of Bush leadership.
>
>
> In general, yes, I am pleased.
>
> Marsha/Ohio
>
Glad to hear someone is pleased with GW.



July 31 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. economy may have slipped into a
recession in the last three months of 2007 as consumer spending slowed
more than previously estimated and the housing slump worsened, revised
government figures indicated."

Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. probably lost jobs in July for a seventh
consecutive month and the unemployment rate rose, increasing the risk
the economic slowdown will worsen, economists said before a government
report today. "


Or is this depressing economy all due to Clinton?

and McBush promises more of the same?

clams_casino wrote:
> Glad to hear someone is pleased with GW.

> July 31 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. economy may have slipped into a
> recession in the last three months of 2007 as consumer spending slowed
> more than previously estimated and the housing slump worsened, revised
> government figures indicated."
>
> Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. probably lost jobs in July for a seventh
> consecutive month and the unemployment rate rose, increasing the risk
> the economic slowdown will worsen, economists said before a government
> report today. "
>
>
> Or is this depressing economy all due to Clinton?
>
> and McBush promises more of the same?

The economy cycles. We can't stay in an upward trend forever, no matter
who's in the oval office. And creating higher taxes for rich people,
who actually earn their money and use it to create jobs, and then giving
it willy nilly to those who won't educate themselves (won't, not can't)
so they can find a job is not the way to go. This is what Obama, or any
Democrat, will try to do if elected. I'm also really tired of the
bandaid approach to the poor, instead of giving them a fishing pole and
a way to get an honest leg up in life. Do you want to hear a sad story?
We have public housing that's being torn down and rebuilt. The local
paper interviewed one of the tenants, a single mom living with her four
kids, two over 21. She bragged that her mother was one of the first
residents. Three generations of people in the same public housing.
What's wrong with this picture?

Marsha/Ohio

Marsha wrote:

> clams_casino wrote:
>
>> Glad to hear someone is pleased with GW.
>
>
>> July 31 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. economy may have slipped into a
>> recession in the last three months of 2007 as consumer spending
>> slowed more than previously estimated and the housing slump worsened,
>> revised government figures indicated."
>>
>> Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. probably lost jobs in July for a
>> seventh consecutive month and the unemployment rate rose, increasing
>> the risk the economic slowdown will worsen, economists said before a
>> government report today. "
>>
>>
>> Or is this depressing economy all due to Clinton?
>>
>> and McBush promises more of the same?
>
>
> The economy cycles. We can't stay in an upward trend forever, no
> matter who's in the oval office.


With McBush, it's likely we will stay in the same pathetic economy that
we've had for the past 6 years - an ever sinking dollar, creeping
inflation, more deaths in Iraq, a sagging stock market, etc

> And creating higher taxes for rich people, who actually earn their
> money and use it to create jobs


That's a joke. It was widely shown that GW's initial tax rebates
(which primarily went to the wealthy) ended up primarily for paying down
debt - NOT business expansion / investment..



> , and then giving it willy nilly to those who won't educate themselves
> (won't, not can't) so they can find a job is not the way to go. This
> is what Obama, or any Democrat, will try to do if elected. I'm also
> really tired of the bandaid approach to the poor, instead of giving
> them a fishing pole and a way to get an honest leg up in life. Do you
> want to hear a sad story? We have public housing that's being torn
> down and rebuilt. The local paper interviewed one of the tenants, a
> single mom living with her four kids, two over 21. She bragged that
> her mother was one of the first residents. Three generations of
> people in the same public housing. What's wrong with this picture?
>
> Marsha/Ohio
>
Fully agree - there is little difference between welfare for the poor
and welfare for the rich. However, for every $M you find going to the
poor, there is a $B going to the rich. GW has been all about providing
welfare for the rich - at the expense of the majority. Personally, I
think it's time for the pendulum to reverse.


So the bottom line ends up that if you feel the president has nothing to
do with the economy, they why are you so strongly in favor of McBush?

If nothing else, you really need to consider the upcoming Supreme
Court appointments. Actually, that's really the most critical aspect of
the next election.

On Aug 1, 7:46*pm, Marsha > wrote:
> clams_casino wrote:
> > Glad to hear someone is pleased with GW.
> > July 31 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. economy may have slipped into a
> > recession in the last three months of 2007 as consumer spending slowed
> > more than previously estimated and the housing slump worsened, revised
> > government figures indicated."
>
> > Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. probably lost jobs in July for a seventh
> > consecutive month and the unemployment rate rose, increasing the risk
> > the economic slowdown will worsen, economists said before a government
> > report today. "
>
> > Or is this depressing economy all due to Clinton?
>
> > and McBush promises more of the same?
>
> The economy cycles. *We can't stay in an upward trend forever, no matter
> who's in the oval office. *And creating higher taxes for rich people,
> who actually earn their money and use it to create jobs, and then giving
> it willy nilly to those who won't educate themselves (won't, not can't)
> so they can find a job is not the way to go. *This is what Obama, or any
> Democrat, will try to do if elected. *I'm also really tired of the
> bandaid approach to the poor, instead of giving them a fishing pole and
> a way to get an honest leg up in life. *Do you want to hear a sad story?
> * We have public housing that's being torn down and rebuilt. *The local
> paper interviewed one of the tenants, a single mom living with her four
> kids, two over 21. *She bragged that her mother was one of the first
> residents. *Three generations of people in the same public housing.
> What's wrong with this picture?
>
> Marsha/Ohio- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Funny, I'm a college-educated business owner, and my personal economy
is
ALWAYS better when a democrat is in the Oval Office. I cried the day
Clinton
left and Shrub mentioned the word "recession" in his inaugural
address.
Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone? Crippling national debt, anyone? The
sooner we throw out the big-gubmint, tax-spend village idiot in
Washington,
the better off we'll all be.

clams_casino wrote:
> Marsha wrote:

>> clams_casino wrote:
>> July 31 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. economy may have slipped into a
>>> recession in the last three months of 2007 as consumer spending
>>> slowed more than previously estimated and the housing slump worsened,
>>> revised government figures indicated."
>>>
>>> Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. probably lost jobs in July for a
>>> seventh consecutive month and the unemployment rate rose, increasing
>>> the risk the economic slowdown will worsen, economists said before a
>>> government report today. "
>>> Or is this depressing economy all due to Clinton?
>>>
>>
>> The economy cycles. We can't stay in an upward trend forever, no
>> matter who's in the oval office.
>
>
> With McBush, it's likely we will stay in the same pathetic economy that
> we've had for the past 6 years - an ever sinking dollar, creeping
> inflation, more deaths in Iraq, a sagging stock market, etc

I don't think so.

>> And creating higher taxes for rich people, who actually earn their
>> money and use it to create jobs
>

> That's a joke. It was widely shown that GW's initial tax rebates
> (which primarily went to the wealthy) ended up primarily for paying down
> debt - NOT business expansion / investment..
>

So how do you feel about Nancy Pelosi jumping on the tax rebate bandwagon?

>
>> , and then giving it willy nilly to those who won't educate themselves
>> (won't, not can't) so they can find a job is not the way to go. This
>> is what Obama, or any Democrat, will try to do if elected. I'm also
>> really tired of the bandaid approach to the poor, instead of giving
>> them a fishing pole and a way to get an honest leg up in life. Do you
>> want to hear a sad story? We have public housing that's being torn
>> down and rebuilt. The local paper interviewed one of the tenants, a
>> single mom living with her four kids, two over 21. She bragged that
>> her mother was one of the first residents. Three generations of
>> people in the same public housing. What's wrong with this picture?
>>
>> Marsha/Ohio
>>
> Fully agree - there is little difference between welfare for the poor
> and welfare for the rich. However, for every $M you find going to the
> poor, there is a $B going to the rich. GW has been all about providing
> welfare for the rich - at the expense of the majority. Personally, I
> think it's time for the pendulum to reverse.

There should be more control and accountability on corporate welfare,
just as there should be more control on welfare for the poor.

>
>
> So the bottom line ends up that if you feel the president has nothing to
> do with the economy, they why are you so strongly in favor of McBush?

I don't think a president has "nothing" to do with the economy, but some
things can be delayed or swayed to turn in the right direction, given
enough time and given a House and Congress who are on board. BTW,
Congress' approval rating is lower than the President's.

>
> If nothing else, you really need to consider the upcoming Supreme
> Court appointments. Actually, that's really the most critical aspect of
> the next election.

A Republican majority can always "Bork" any nominee they don't like,
just like the Dems have done and continue to do. There are so many
nominees for judges still out there that the Dems are holding up, it's
not funny. Games, always games - by both sides.

Marsha/Ohio

Marsha wrote:

> And creating higher taxes for rich people, who actually earn their
> money and use it to create jobs, and then giving it willy nilly to
> those who won't educate themselves (won't, not can't) so they can find
> a job is not the way to go.
>

You are obviously under the misnomer that the wealthy (on the average)
pay more in taxes than the average / poor (on the average). (A
misleading claim widely spread by the lies of Rush, Glen Beck, FoxNews,
etc).

While the wealthy do pay more gross taxes, it's because they have most
of the wealth. The top 1% pay something like 40% of all income taxes,
but they also control 20% of all the wealth in the US. On the other
hand, they also pay a much lower portion of other taxes as a percentage
of their income.

After the other taxes (social security, sales, property, excise taxes
for gas, liquor & cigarettes, etc) are factored, studies have shown that
most all pay approximately 29-32% of their gross income in taxes where
the wealthy are actually on the lower end. (Ever hear Warren Buffet
comment how his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in
taxes than he?)

Bottom line is that the current tax code is pretty much in balance with
respect to being a flat tax - most all pay a similar amount of total
taxes as a percentage of their total income. The key here is TOTAL
taxes as a percentage of TOTAL income. GW pushed the percentage in
favor of the top. It's time to reverse that pendulum and not focus
ONLY on income taxes as Republicans like to do.

clams_casino > wrote
> Marsha wrote

>> And creating higher taxes for rich people, who actually earn their
>> money and use it to create jobs, and then giving it willy nilly to
>> those who won't educate themselves (won't, not can't) so they can
>> find a job is not the way to go.

> You are obviously under the misnomer

You need a dictionary.

> that the wealthy (on the average) pay more in taxes than the average / poor (on the average).

They do.

> (A misleading claim widely spread by the lies of Rush, Glen Beck, FoxNews, etc).

Nope, a fact, actually.

> While the wealthy do pay more gross taxes, it's because they have most of the wealth.

So they pay more tax, stupid.

> The top 1% pay something like 40% of all income taxes,

So they pay more tax, stupid.

> but they also control 20% of all the wealth in the US.

Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.

> On the other hand, they also pay a much lower portion of other taxes as a percentage of their income.

Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.

> After the other taxes (social security, sales, property, excise taxes for gas, liquor & cigarettes, etc) are factored,
> studies have shown that most all pay approximately 29-32% of their gross income in taxes

LIke hell they do.

> where the wealthy are actually on the lower end.

Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.

> (Ever hear Warren Buffet comment how his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he?)

Irrelevant to the FACT that she pays less tax, stupid.

And the poor that are on benefits or social security etc actually
pay only a small part of their total handout in taxes too.

> Bottom line is that the current tax code is pretty much in balance with respect to being a flat tax

Like hell it is.

> - most all pay a similar amount of total taxes as a percentage of their total income.

Another pig ignorant lie,

> The key here is TOTAL taxes as a percentage of TOTAL income.

Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.

> GW pushed the percentage in favor of the top.

Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more taxes, stupid.

> It's time to reverse that pendulum and not focus ONLY on income taxes as Republicans like to do.

Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.

Rod Speed wrote:
> clams_casino > wrote
>> Marsha wrote
>
>>> And creating higher taxes for rich people, who actually earn their
>>> money and use it to create jobs, and then giving it willy nilly to
>>> those who won't educate themselves (won't, not can't) so they can
>>> find a job is not the way to go.
>
>> You are obviously under the misnomer
>
> You need a dictionary.
>
>> that the wealthy (on the average) pay more in taxes than the average / poor (on the average).
>
> They do.
>
>> (A misleading claim widely spread by the lies of Rush, Glen Beck, FoxNews, etc).
>
> Nope, a fact, actually.
>
>> While the wealthy do pay more gross taxes, it's because they have most of the wealth.
>
> So they pay more tax, stupid.
>
>> The top 1% pay something like 40% of all income taxes,
>
> So they pay more tax, stupid.
>
>> but they also control 20% of all the wealth in the US.
>
> Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
>
>> On the other hand, they also pay a much lower portion of other taxes as a percentage of their income.
>
> Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
>
>> After the other taxes (social security, sales, property, excise taxes for gas, liquor & cigarettes, etc) are factored,
>> studies have shown that most all pay approximately 29-32% of their gross income in taxes
>
> LIke hell they do.
>
>> where the wealthy are actually on the lower end.
>
> Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
>
>> (Ever hear Warren Buffet comment how his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he?)
>
> Irrelevant to the FACT that she pays less tax, stupid.
>
> And the poor that are on benefits or social security etc actually
> pay only a small part of their total handout in taxes too.
>
>> Bottom line is that the current tax code is pretty much in balance with respect to being a flat tax
>
> Like hell it is.
>
>> - most all pay a similar amount of total taxes as a percentage of their total income.
>
> Another pig ignorant lie,
>
>> The key here is TOTAL taxes as a percentage of TOTAL income.
>
> Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
>
>> GW pushed the percentage in favor of the top.
>
> Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more taxes, stupid.
>
>> It's time to reverse that pendulum and not focus ONLY on income taxes as Republicans like to do.
>
> Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
>
>
What would a welfare leech know about taxes?

William Souden wrote:

> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> clams_casino > wrote
>>
>>> You are obviously under the misnomer
>>
>>
>> You need a dictionary.
>

Agreed, I used that word completely incorrectly.


Thanks for the reply - Rod. Having you disagree adds complete validity
to the reply.

clams_casino > wrote
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> clams_casino > wrote

>>> You are obviously under the misnomer

>> You need a dictionary.

> Agreed, I used that word completely incorrectly.

> Thanks for the reply - Rod. Having you disagree adds complete validity to the reply.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Rod Speed wrote:
> clams_casino > wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> clams_casino > wrote
>
>>>> You are obviously under the misnomer
>
>>> You need a dictionary.
>
>> Agreed, I used that word completely incorrectly.
>
>> Thanks for the reply - Rod. Having you disagree adds complete validity to the reply.
>
> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>
Another fact frilled reply from welfare boy.
You know you really got to him when you get the flushing bot.

William Souden
sales fool/ race track bum

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:23:46 -0400, clams_casino
> wrote:



>
>With McBush, it's likely we will stay in the same pathetic economy that
>we've had for the past 6 years - an ever sinking dollar, creeping
>inflation, more deaths in Iraq, a sagging stock market, etc

Where have you been for the last six years.
Bush inherited a recession from Clinton and 9/11 because of Clinton
not taking Osoma when offered.
The stock market grew for five of those six years
Unemployment dropped, due to tax cuts.


>It was widely shown that GW's initial tax rebates
>(which primarily went to the wealthy) ended up primarily for paying down
>debt - NOT business expansion / investment..

Widely known? I haven't heard that, where did you get your
information. Cite please.


> GW has been all about providing
>welfare for the rich - at the expense of the majority.

The tax cuts to the wealthy created jobs, so the poor didn't need
welfare.
But I agree, too much of my money that I worked for is going to other
people.


>
>So the bottom line ends up that if you feel the president has nothing to
>do with the economy,
He has very little with the economy. And that is widely known!!!!!!!!
>
>If nothing else, you really need to consider the upcoming Supreme
>Court appointments. Actually, that's really the most critical aspect of
>the next election.
And that is why I'm for Mc Cain.

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:24:06 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:


>Funny, I'm a college-educated business owner, and my personal economy
>is
>ALWAYS better when a democrat is in the Oval Office. I cried the day
>Clinton
>left and Shrub mentioned the word "recession" in his inaugural
>address.
>Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone? Crippling national debt, anyone? The
>sooner we throw out the big-gubmint, tax-spend village idiot in
>Washington,
>the better off we'll all be.

You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
And there was a recession when Clinton left, two quartets of negative
growth, which we have not had under Bush
And yes, Bush is a big spender,(which ****ed me off) , but Oboma will
spend more, and tax more. So if you think that Government can spend
your money more wisely then you can, vote Dem.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:02:26 -0400, clams_casino
> wrote:


>Bottom line is that the current tax code is pretty much in balance with
>respect to being a flat tax - most all pay a similar amount of total
>taxes as a percentage of their total income. The key here is TOTAL
>taxes as a percentage of TOTAL income. GW pushed the percentage in
>favor of the top. It's time to reverse that pendulum and not focus
>ONLY on income taxes as Republicans like to do.
>
Just where do you get this information.
The poor with the section 8 housing, free health care, welfare
payments,child credits & rebates pay a negative percentage of their
income.

Pan wrote:

>O
>
>
>Where have you been for the last six years.
>Bush inherited a recession from Clinton
>

Huh? From what I recall, the 2001 recession started when business &
investors flocked to bonds & CDs while reducing business expansion upon
his election - fear of GW leadership.

and 9/11 because of Clinton

>not taking Osoma when offered.
>
>

What did that have to do with the Iraq invasion?

>The stock market grew for five of those six years
>Unemployment dropped, due to tax cuts.
>
>
>
>

Hello - the stock market indices are essentially where they were when GW
was appointed office. Hoe's your Roth? Making any profits?

>>It was widely shown that GW's initial tax rebates
>>(which primarily went to the wealthy) ended up primarily for paying down
>>debt - NOT business expansion / investment..
>>
>>
>
>Widely known? I haven't heard that, where did you get your
>information. Cite please.
>
>

http://www.nber.org/papers/w8672 is one of many.

>
>
>
>>GW has been all about providing
>>welfare for the rich - at the expense of the majority.
>>
>>
>
>The tax cuts to the wealthy created jobs, so the poor didn't need
>welfare.
>
>
>

What jobs? The housing industry was the most significant part of the
job growth over the past six years and that had more to do with the Fed
lowering borrowing rates in a desperate attempt to bail out GW's poor
leadership.

>
>
>>So the bottom line ends up that if you feel the president has nothing to
>>do with the economy,
>>
>>
>He has very little with the economy. And that is widely known!!!!!!!!
>
>

Huh? The president has everything to due with the economy. He sets
the stage - business & investors react accordingly. Granted, it's
mostly perception, but when the outlook looks poor, savvy investors
invest less, individuals spend less, business es don't expand. Under
Clinton, most thought the party would never end - the economy grew
accordingly. Under GW, it's been doom & gloom - poor expectations, etc.


>>If nothing else, you really need to consider the upcoming Supreme
>>Court appointments. Actually, that's really the most critical aspect of
>>the next election.
>>
>>
>And that is why I'm for Mc Cain.
>
>

If more government intervention is your hope (reduced freedoms, women as
chattel, etc), a continuing declining dollar / inflation and more
international isolation is desired, I can see where McBush is your man..

Pan wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:24:06 -0700 (PDT),
>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Funny, I'm a college-educated business owner, and my personal economy
>>is
>>ALWAYS better when a democrat is in the Oval Office. I cried the day
>>Clinton
>>left and Shrub mentioned the word "recession" in his inaugural
>>address.
>>Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone? Crippling national debt, anyone? The
>>sooner we throw out the big-gubmint, tax-spend village idiot in
>>Washington,
>>the better off we'll all be.
>>
>>
>
>You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>
>

Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly unlikely you are
better off today vs. 10 years ago.

>And there was a recession when Clinton left, two quartets of negative
>growth, which we have not had under Bush
>
>

Do you make up all your facts?


>And yes, Bush is a big spender,(which ****ed me off) , but Oboma will
>spend more, and tax more. So if you think that Government can spend
>your money more wisely then you can, vote Dem.
>
>


While I'd like to see reduced government spending (and borrowing), it'll
likely be spent more wisely with Obama than GW has or McBush promises.

Key will be to revive the US dollar & change the attitude / perception
from doom & gloom to hope / prosperity. Improved international
relations can play a significant factor. ****ing off allies has not
been effective.

Pan wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:02:26 -0400, clams_casino
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Bottom line is that the current tax code is pretty much in balance with
>>respect to being a flat tax - most all pay a similar amount of total
>>taxes as a percentage of their total income. The key here is TOTAL
>>taxes as a percentage of TOTAL income. GW pushed the percentage in
>>favor of the top. It's time to reverse that pendulum and not focus
>>ONLY on income taxes as Republicans like to do.
>>
>>
>>
>Just where do you get this information.
>The poor with the section 8 housing, free health care, welfare
>payments,child credits & rebates pay a negative percentage of their
>income.
>
>

which is a very small portion of the total, essentially balanced out by
the relatively few wealthy who pay little no no income taxes.


Personally, I get much more welfare than those you are describing
through the significant subsidies I (and many others) enjoy through
generous deductions of mortgage interest, property taxes and a very
generous, essentially tax free medical coverage. I do pay a
significant amount of taxes, but without these generous subsidies, I'd
never have been able to afford my more-than-adequate home which has
appreciated significantly in value over the years (in site of the recent
crash), where the proceeds are .... tax free.

clams_casino > wrote:
> Pan wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:02:26 -0400, clams_casino
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Bottom line is that the current tax code is pretty much in balance
>>> with respect to being a flat tax - most all pay a similar amount of
>>> total taxes as a percentage of their total income. The key here is
>>> TOTAL taxes as a percentage of TOTAL income. GW pushed the
>>> percentage in favor of the top. It's time to reverse that
>>> pendulum and not focus ONLY on income taxes as Republicans like to
>>> do.
>> Just where do you get this information.
>> The poor with the section 8 housing, free health care, welfare
>> payments,child credits & rebates pay a negative percentage of their
>> income.

> which is a very small portion of the total,

Wrong, as always.

> essentially balanced out by the relatively few wealthy who pay little no no income taxes.

Wrong, as always.

> Personally, I get much more welfare than those you are describing
> through the significant subsidies I (and many others) enjoy through
> generous deductions of mortgage interest, property taxes and a very
> generous, essentially tax free medical coverage. I do pay a
> significant amount of taxes, but without these generous subsidies, I'd
> never have been able to afford my more-than-adequate home which has
> appreciated significantly in value over the years (in site of the
> recent crash), where the proceeds are .... tax free.

Irrelevant to that stupid claim you made about most all paying the same flat tax.

Thats a bare faced pig ignorant lie.

In article >,
Pan > wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:23:46 -0400, clams_casino
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >With McBush, it's likely we will stay in the same pathetic economy that
> >we've had for the past 6 years - an ever sinking dollar, creeping
> >inflation, more deaths in Iraq, a sagging stock market, etc
>
> Where have you been for the last six years.
> Bush inherited a recession from Clinton and 9/11 because of Clinton
> not taking Osoma when offered.

*You* *People* didn't believe for one microsecond that Osama was a
threat and you lost forever the moral right to criticize when you first
uttered the words "wag the dog".

..max

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

On Aug 2, 1:35*pm, Pan > wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:24:06 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
> >Funny, I'm a college-educated business owner, and my personal economy
> >is
> >ALWAYS better when a democrat is in the Oval Office. I cried the day
> >Clinton
> >left and Shrub mentioned the word "recession" in his inaugural
> >address.
> >Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone? Crippling national debt, anyone? The
> >sooner we throw out the big-gubmint, tax-spend village idiot in
> >Washington,
> >the better off we'll all be.
>
> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
> And there was a recession when Clinton left, two quartets of negative
> growth, which we have not had under Bush
> And yes, Bush is a big spender,(which ****ed me off) , but Oboma will
> spend more, and tax more. So if you think that Government can spend
> your money more wisely then you can, vote Dem.

NO. My taxes were lower under Clinton. Two "quartets"? Did you mean
"quarters"? Moron. And no, there were NO quarters of negative growth
under
Clinton, at least not for those of us who actually produce a product.
I made
more money undre Clinton, so obviously my clients did
as well. There was NO RECESSION when Clinton left, and there
was
no hint AT ALL that one might be coming until doofus shrub-boy
mentioned it
in his inaugural. The gubmint had a SURPLUS!

Any yes, I KNOW the Democrats can spend INFINITELY more
wisely than the Repugnants so I will vote DEM, since the Libertarians
(which I actually am) can never win. Libertarians require people to be
self-reliant, so they will NEVER win. Most people don't want to
actually
take responsibility for their own lives. The Repugnants have ruined
this
country, as they always do. Only stupid people vote for them, and,
unfortunately, most people are stunning stupid, as you are, obviously.
You
seem to think the Repugs can spend my money more wisely than I can.
MORON!!!
Plonk.