From: owner-onlyjoni-digest@smoe.org (onlyJMDL Digest) To: onlyjoni-digest@smoe.org Subject: onlyJMDL Digest V2012 #278 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: owner-onlyjoni-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-onlyjoni-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk Website:http://www.jonimitchell.com Unsubscribe:mailto:onlyjoni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe onlyJMDL Digest Friday, August 31 2012 Volume 2012 : Number 278 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Joni 101 [jlhommedieu@insight.rr.com] Re: shiny toys [Jussi Pukkila ] RE: "For" songs [Stewart.Simon@sunlife.com] RE: JMDL Digest V2012 #1253 [Art Toegemann ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:41:19 -0400 From: jlhommedieu@insight.rr.com Subject: Joni 101 More like Joni 310-majors only "Note: If you are not majoring in Joni Mitchell you will automatically be dropped from this class." Sent from my iPhone ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:39:59 +0300 From: Jussi Pukkila Subject: Re: shiny toys i must have missed the original post - where can i hear the cover of Shiny Toys? thanks - --jussi ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:58:30 -0400 From: Stewart.Simon@sunlife.com Subject: RE: "For" songs Hi Robert, Its a pretty obscure partial song that was never released. The lyrics to the song were sung by Joni at the end of a medley of Rainy Night House, Blue Boy, and Willy in a May 22, 1969 concert at the Troubadour. The thinking is that it was a song in progress that she never finished. The lyrics are here.....maybe Mr Muller can add some more color. http://jonimitchell.com/music/song.cfm?id=297 From: "Robert Sartorius" To: , Cc: , Date: 08/30/2012 04:30 PM Subject: RE: "For" songs Stewart replied to Bob's popquiz "Song For Sharon For The Roses For Love or Money Looking out for Love For Free Toughest Omission: The Windfall (Everything for Nothing) :-)" I have not heard of "looking out for love". Help ? I do recall that Joni is fond of Fur Elise. I have heard that she was an admirer of the composer. Today, I listened to Joni in the car - first time in a month. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. I love her work as much as the foreign singers who translate it before covering it. Re Everything for Nothing, it does suggest that Joni might have just a little bit of the fiscal conservative running in her blood. Isn't a person on the receiving end of largesse supposed to have at least a little bit of gratitude? Or is the right response, for example, and by way of analogy, to the person making a million dollars a year who has contributed $29,000 per year to Medicare Part A via his payroll taxes and now reaches age 65 really "thank (er, f__k) you, you don't need no stinkin' Medicare Part A. And, by the way, you have not been paying your fair share." Kind of like Joni's maid (A Man Needs a Maid, if you know what I mean). Bobsart - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary , confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail message immediately. - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 02:34:22 +0000 From: Art Toegemann Subject: RE: JMDL Digest V2012 #1253 Instead of skipping from here on, Bob the actual actuary should not post such content, below, here. Art Toegemann > Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:48:32 -0400 > From: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org > To: joni-digest@smoe.org > Subject: JMDL Digest V2012 #1253 > > > JMDL Digest Thursday, August 30 2012 Volume 2012 : Number 1253 > > > > ========== > > TOPICS and authors in this Digest: > -------- > Tax burden, was "For" songs, njc now ["Jim L'Hommedieu" > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:48:10 -0400 > From: "Jim L'Hommedieu" > Subject: Tax burden, was "For" songs, njc now > > Thanks for this tutorial. I read it carefully and learned some > interesting stuff. I like the NJC stuff as much as the JC. > > Jim L'Hommedieu > > From: "Robert Sartorius" > > Bobsart said in part, > Now for some (additional) non-joni content (if you don't want any, skip from > here on). > > PS - in addition, the top 50% (who pay all of the federal income taxes), by > virtue thereof also pay for roughly 75% of Medicare Part B. (For those of > you who do not know it, Part B is financed roughly 25% via premiums, and 75% > via general revenues - which means FIT plus borrowing - which, by the way, > will be paid off by the children of the rich). In addition, the higher > earners among the top 50%, when they retire, will get to pay higher Part B > premiums (ranging from 35% to 80% of the cost of the Part B program) as a > thank you for having over-contributed toward the Part B program over many > years, so that the people who have contributed nothing over the years to > Part B (because they paid no FIT) can get their part B benefits with > premiums that cover only 25% of the cost of the Part B insurance. I don't > really mind the taxes and the extra premiums - I just mind the attitude that > says "FU - you don't pay enough (er - "your fair share")". > > PPS - means testing for Part A is part of the new Republican financing > solution for saving Medicare Part A (and yes, I oppose it), so don't all you > fiscal liberals and Democrats go all rogue on me over this issue (I happen > to be an independent). Besides, I'm an actuary, and actually understand this > stuff. There are fairer ways to fix this (all of which will cost extra > money, and will require limiting plaintiffs' bar, while we're at it), but > not enough space to go into it here. > > PPPS - it is a sophistry to suggest that certain low income earners are > paying for rich retirees' Medicare Part A with their payroll taxes. What the > low earners are doing is making a token contribution to a system that they > will benefit from by multiples of what they have put into it when they turn > 65, at which time the large majority (80+%) of their Medicare benefits will > be paid for by rich people. If you prefer, think of 100% of the Medicare > benefits for the rich retirees as being paid for by the rich workers, which > still leaves plenty of the rich workers' taxes left over to pay for poor > retirees. This, while the puny taxes paid by low wage earners make a > relatively small dent in the benefits being paid to low income retirees. > - ------------------------------ > > ------------------------------ > > End of JMDL Digest V2012 #1253 > ****************************** > > ------- > To post messages to the list, sendtojoni@smoe.org. > Unsubscribe by clicking here: > mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe > ------- ------------------------------ End of onlyJMDL Digest V2012 #278 ********************************* ------- Post messages to the list by clicking here:mailto:joni@smoe.org Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:onlyjoni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe