Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...

Without the Bush tax cuts, we'd have a sluggish economy like now.

Conveniently ignoring that for most of Clinton's time in office the
economy was doing pretty good. Growth averaged 4%, median family
income increased $6,000, unemployment was the lowest in 30 years.
How come a smart fella like you didn't notice any of that?
But the growth was faster in the second half after his tax cut.
Interesting chart, that one. (g).

And 80% of that growth went to the top 1% earners. While middle class income
actually went down.


What about Bush's deficits? The federal debt doubled while he was in
office, most of that time with a Repub Congress, remember? Could it
just be possible that tax cuts at a time of increased spending also
produces deficits? Or is that some kind of tricky liberal
doublespeak and you know better than to believe it even if you can't
say why?
Increased spending being the operative variable though. Don't know
if it would still work, but a bunch of studies in the 80s noted that
if we just kept Fed spending increases to the amount of inflation, the
budget would balance itself in 6-10 years (depending on the
assumptions).

Don't forget Reagan tripling the debt.

On Oct 27, 8:12*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Actually, I'm curious where it is in the Constitution that gives the
Fed the authority and power to manage health care. I sure don't
remember it in there.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

Is there anything in the constitution about the Fed regulating any
business? Yet, it seems so necessary in more than a few cases.

Country


"Bob F" wrote in message

...

Stormin Mormon wrote:
You're going to need all that money to pay for Obamacare. Millions
of
welfare people are relying on you.

Fortunately "Obamacare" will save the Feds $2 trillion over 10 years.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
"JimT" wrote in message
net...


You are arguing economics with a guy that can't figure out how to post
properly.

Just sayin'

Jim

Or how to do much of anything else judging by most of his posts. I'm
waiting for the day when he asks for help tying his shoes.

He claims to be a Christian and several people have asked him to stop top
posting. I don't know why that surprises me.

Jim

On 10/28/2010 11:21 AM, Smitty Two wrote:
In ,
Jeff wrote:

What is
the W legacy other than gross mismanagement?

Jeff

Uh, I can think of a few things. Stupidest president ever, guilty of
treason,


That is what Col. Wilkerson, Colin Powells long time aid said. That Bush
should be tried for treason. Oh wait he said that about the defacto
president, Dick Cheney.

And, I'll add elected twice by fear. Pretty much the same gambit
being used now, Republicans have become the party of the terminally
upset. And terminally fearful.

What I really hate about Repubs is that it is all about the messenger
and not the message. If it is a messenger they love, like Palin, then
they will swallow any nonsense. If they don't like the messenger, then
it is "Barry" or some other slur. Listen to talk radio and you get the
wildest accusations like they were gospel true.

Just when was it that Republicans rejected intelligence as a
requisite? Just when you thought W had set the new low bar, Palin and
now O'Donnel have come along to take the mantle. And the Republican core
love them. They have become incapable of rational thought.

Jeff

elected twice by fraud. Oh wait, those are subsets of what you
said. Never mind.

On 10/28/2010 10:48 AM, Steve B wrote:
"Bob wrote

I hope you enjoy Repulicorp. Corporate rule will be the obvvious result.
That or revolution.

As a Libertarian, I vote for revolution. Armed revolt. Ballot box
tampering already in Nevada and other states for the Dems. It's not only
time to vote the *******s out, it's time to punish them.

Steve


But Steve, if you kill Democrats, they still vote when they're dead.

TDD

"Country" wrote

Is there anything in the constitution about the Fed regulating any
business? Yet, it seems so necessary in more than a few cases.

Country

Reply:

I seem vaguely to recall all sorts of things in the Constitution, like the
federal government staying out of each state's business, and lots of other
things, but case after case has been decided by the Supreme Court that
overrides them, and now almost every state has handed its steering wheel to
the feds. Or, as on some cases, had it ripped from their hands. You CAN do
this, you CAN'T do that. We're in charge of THAT now, because you, as a
mere state, are way too stupid to understand these things that we here in Oz
can.

Well, I may be stupid on some issues, not as educated as some here, but I
can plainly see that our Constitution is now in the dumpster, and the only
thing that is visible are a few of the edges hanging out, which I am sure
the resident tyrants will stuff ASAP, right after they stuff their own
pockets with whatever's left of the money they have stolen from us. And
it's been from legislation created by Congress that the SCOTUS rubber
stamped. I have been a lifelong registered Libertarian, believing that the
US government has very limited powers as outlined by the Constitution, and
that these shyster lawyer slimeballs and politicians have changed all that
over the years. Still, I cling to my original ideology, knowing that I have
to still go along with the current rules although I may not agree with them
one iota.

Oh, wait. I made that comment before, and was called stupid.

Never mind.

Steve

Heart surgery pending?
Read up and prepare.
Learn how to care for a friend.
http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
"JimT" wrote in message
net...


You are arguing economics with a guy that can't figure out how to post
properly.

Just sayin'

Jim

Or how to do much of anything else judging by most of his posts. I'm
waiting for the day when he asks for help tying his shoes.

He claims to be a Christian and several people have asked him to stop top
posting. I don't know why that surprises me.

Jim

If you know anything about religion, you would know that Mormons are not
Christians.

Steve

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
"JimT" wrote in message
net...


You are arguing economics with a guy that can't figure out how to post
properly.

Just sayin'

Jim

Or how to do much of anything else judging by most of his posts. I'm
waiting for the day when he asks for help tying his shoes.

He claims to be a Christian and several people have asked him to stop top
posting. I don't know why that surprises me.

Jim

If you know anything about religion, you would know that Mormons are not
Christians.

Steve


"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" I think it's debatable but
the "Do undo others" thing still applies.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/r...al/christians/

Jim

On 10/28/2010 1:14 PM, JimT wrote:

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
"JimT" wrote in message
net...


You are arguing economics with a guy that can't figure out how to
post properly.

Just sayin'

Jim

Or how to do much of anything else judging by most of his posts. I'm
waiting for the day when he asks for help tying his shoes.

He claims to be a Christian and several people have asked him to stop
top posting. I don't know why that surprises me.

Jim

If you know anything about religion, you would know that Mormons are
not Christians.

Steve


"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" I think it's debatable
but the "Do undo others" thing still applies.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/r...al/christians/


I wonder whether Christians are Christian. All this talk about Jesus
and then doing very un Jesus things. Am I not mistaken that Jesus loved
the same people that the Christian Right despises? I don't see any of
that turn the other cheek or do unto others stuff either. It looks to me
that once you hang all your sins on Jesus you are free to do as you
please. Jesus, what a concept!

Jeff



Jim

"Jeff Thies" wrote in message
...
On 10/28/2010 1:14 PM, JimT wrote:

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
"JimT" wrote in message
net...


You are arguing economics with a guy that can't figure out how to
post properly.

Just sayin'

Jim

Or how to do much of anything else judging by most of his posts. I'm
waiting for the day when he asks for help tying his shoes.

He claims to be a Christian and several people have asked him to stop
top posting. I don't know why that surprises me.

Jim

If you know anything about religion, you would know that Mormons are
not Christians.

Steve


"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" I think it's debatable
but the "Do undo others" thing still applies.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/r...al/christians/


I wonder whether Christians are Christian. All this talk about Jesus and
then doing very un Jesus things. Am I not mistaken that Jesus loved the
same people that the Christian Right despises? I don't see any of that
turn the other cheek or do unto others stuff either. It looks to me that
once you hang all your sins on Jesus you are free to do as you please.
Jesus, what a concept!

Jeff



Opiate of the masses. I think a lot of people are opening their eyes to the
hypocrisy of religion and the Muslim radicals are making some people look
seriously at their own religion.

Jim

I've found that the "Mormons aren't Christians" crowd. Either are
Ex-Mormons with grudges. Or, are people in other churches who are
defending their own beliefs.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Steve B" wrote in message
...


He claims to be a Christian and several people have asked him to
stop top
posting. I don't know why that surprises me.

Jim

If you know anything about religion, you would know that Mormons are
not
Christians.

Steve

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
I've found that the "Mormons aren't Christians" crowd. Either are
Ex-Mormons with grudges. Or, are people in other churches who are
defending their own beliefs.

--


Are there any specific passages in the "Book of Mormon" that outright
contradict the "New Testament"?

Jim

Steve B wrote:
"Bob F" wrote

I hope you enjoy Repulicorp. Corporate rule will be the obvvious
result. That or revolution.

As a Libertarian, I vote for revolution. Armed revolt. Ballot box
tampering already in Nevada and other states for the Dems. It's not
only time to vote the *******s out, it's time to punish them.

Another vote for Republicorp. I hope you enjoy corporate rule.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...

I don't believe that for a second. The Dems (such as Clinton and his
"worked harder than he has for anything ever but can't giv you a tax
cut) are the party of raised taxes.

Would that be the Clinton who delivered a balanced budget, who
actually had an $86 billion surplus his last year in office, that
Clinton? And what happened after that, oh yeah, spending
skyrocketed and taxes were cut, leaving us with a federal debt that
doubled under the Bush administration.
The one whose surplus had already peaked and indeed been cut by 1/2
in one year from the best. Also, the FY 2002 would have been the first
under Bush since 2001 should have been in place by October of 2000.


See any problems in your theory of economics there sparky?
One is that a lot of this was related the fortunate timing of
the Dot Com bubble and the resultant boom). Some was related to easy
money from the Fed. Much was related to the GOP who were able to
(Largely) save him from his baser instincts and stop his big tax
increase during his first year in office. Also note that the economy
REALLY took off following his tax DECREASE in capital gains.

Wonder why Repubs were so worried about run away surpluses then?

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Actually, that behaviour describes Democrats.

Laughably wrong again!

On Oct 28, 11:35*am, "Steve B" wrote:
"Country" wrote

Is there anything in the constitution about the Fed regulating any
business? Yet, it seems so necessary in more than a few cases.

Country

Reply:

I seem vaguely to recall all sorts of things in the Constitution, like the
federal government staying out of each state's business, and lots of other
things, but case after case has been decided by the Supreme Court that
overrides them, and now almost every state has handed its steering wheel to
the feds. *Or, as on some cases, had it ripped from their hands. *You CAN do
this, you CAN'T do that. *We're in charge of THAT now, because you, as a
mere state, are way too stupid to understand these things that we here in Oz
can.

Well, I may be stupid on some issues, not as educated as some here, but I
can plainly see that our Constitution is now in the dumpster, and the only
thing that is visible are a few of the edges hanging out, which I am sure
the resident tyrants will stuff ASAP, right after they stuff their own
pockets with whatever's left of the money they have stolen from us. *And
it's been from legislation created by Congress that the SCOTUS rubber
stamped. *I have been a lifelong registered Libertarian, believing that the
US government has very limited powers as outlined by the Constitution, and
that these shyster lawyer slimeballs and politicians have changed all that
over the years. *Still, I cling to my original ideology, knowing that I have
to still go along with the current rules although I may not agree with them
one iota.

Oh, wait. *I made that comment before, and was called stupid.

Never mind.

Steve

Heart surgery pending?
Read up and prepare.
Learn how to care for a friend.http://cabgbypasssurgery.com


I wouldn't call you stupid and that was a pretty good rant but it's
about 6 years or so too late.

On Oct 28, 11:04*am, "JimT" wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote in message

m...

"JimT" *wrote in message
tnet...

You are arguing economics with a guy that can't figure out how to post
properly.

Just sayin'

Jim

Or how to do much of anything else judging by most of his posts. *I'm
waiting for the day when he asks for help tying his shoes.

He claims to be a Christian and several people have asked him to stop top
posting. I don't know why that surprises me.

Jim


Just curious, you boys are able to argue your case pretty good so why
take this debate into the personal insult flame war? You don't seem to
need it and it takes away from your better points.

Country

"Country" wrote in message
...
On Oct 28, 11:04 am, "JimT" wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote in message

m...

"JimT" wrote in message
tnet...

You are arguing economics with a guy that can't figure out how to post
properly.

Just sayin'

Jim

Or how to do much of anything else judging by most of his posts. I'm
waiting for the day when he asks for help tying his shoes.

He claims to be a Christian and several people have asked him to stop top
posting. I don't know why that surprises me.

Jim


Just curious, you boys are able to argue your case pretty good so why
take this debate into the personal insult flame war? You don't seem to
need it and it takes away from your better points.

Country

===

I wasn't trying to impress you.

Jim

Country wrote:


Carter was elected by that time's teaparty. The teaparty of today
picks candidates that are even worse. But I guess as long as the talk
a good game and gang up on liberal women and step on her head...

Carter was elected as a moral rebuke to Nixon.

As for stepping on a liberal woman's head, no one wants to touch that stuff
with their hands.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:



That's an interesting point about Iraq. Remember how all that oil
revenue was going to make the war as cheap as a trip to Wendy's? And
the war was going to be over in 6-8 months, according to the lunatic
Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld a lunatic?

The Iraq War started March 20th, 2003. Bush announced "Mission Accomplished"
on May 1st of that year. (There was even a banner on the ship - seeing is
believing.).

I agree that Rumsfeld was wrong. The war from start to "Mission
Accomplished" was less than two months.

As for oil being cheep, these things take time. The full provisions of
Obamacare don't kick in until 2014 - same with the oil.

Just give it more time. Maybe a bail-out for the oil industry would help?

DGDevin wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...

I'm not sure which planet you inhabit. But, where I am, the Dems have
spent several trillion dollars, and enacted all manner of legislation
that really killed the economy.


The federal debt doubled under Bush 43, the CBO said a couple of
years ago that the cost of the war in Iraq would be well over two
trillion once the interest on that debt was paid. Can you quote
yourself vigorously protesting that deficit spending at the time?

Oh, and in case you missed it, the economy crashed when that Bush
fella was still in charge, and the signs of what was coming had been
apparent (at least to some people) for quite some time. Your
depiction that it all happened only when the Dems took over is
delusion.

The Dems took over Congress in January 2006.

Bob F wrote:
HeyBub wrote:


He actually did quite well. For the first six years we had
unemployment below 5%, the DJIA above 14,000, almost no inflation, 25
consecutive quarters of economic growth, and so on. All this in spite
of two wars, Katrina, and 9/11.


Don't forget the lowest job growth since WW II.

It's kinda hard to add new jobs when unemployment is around 4%. Everybody
HAS a job.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:



The Iraq War started March 20th, 2003. Bush announced "Mission Accomplished"
on May 1st of that year. (There was even a banner on the ship - seeing is
believing.).
Actually the MA sign was put up by the carrier he landed on long
before he got there because THEY had completed their mission and were
nearing home.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

Kurt Ullman wrote:
You do of course, realize that every county where there were
problems was one where the county government (and thus the election
boards) were majority Democrat in makeup. You do, of course, realize
that the system used in 2000 was exactly the same one (right down to
the butterfly ballots) that had been used in early elections in which
there were problems? You do, of course, realize that while the gross
numbers of errors were larger in 2000 because of the greater number
of people voting, the %age of bad votes was roughly the same.
So for Fl to be fraud, the GOP would have had to sucker
Dem-majority Election Boards into adopting this system a couple
elections ahead of time. Damn those sneaky *******s.
If anything the case can be made that the Dems tried to steal the
election but screwed it up. Personally, I am willing to write it off
that in the past, it was close enough since the races weren't. This
time, the margin of error bit them.

It's been fixed. Florida voters were found to be incapable of punching holes
in a bit of cardboard, so they've now been given computers.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:



It's been fixed. Florida voters were found to be incapable of punching holes
in a bit of cardboard, so they've now been given computers.

If anyone is interested, the California Supreme Court decision that let
the recall resulting in Ahnold's election go ahead gave an absolutely
fascinating review of the various methods of voting and their margins of
error.
Both the name of the case and my copy of the decision have been
lost to the sands of time.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"CK Lumbernickle" wrote:




Frank said that in Sept of 2003. Kathy Harris was the credited by Bush
for
being the architect of the American Dream Down Payment in Dec 2003.

Yet Franks apparently voted for it.

And, you want to blame who? Just Franks? The fact remains, there wasn't a
problem until this passed.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"CK Lumbernickle" wrote:


By Fannie & Freddie, you mean the American Dream Down Payment Act of
2003?
The previous administration pushed the envelope with their brainstorm.
It
was working rather well, until American Dream Down Payment Act of 2003.
Tell us again who controlled everything then.

You mean the one that was passedby voice vote by both the House and
Senate? Hard to put that one solely on Mr. Bush when everybody agreed to
it.

Who said anything about putting it "solely on Mr. Bush?" Since you
mentioned Bush, he is the only one who signed it into law. And, which party
was the majority in both Houses?

Exactly what part of the previous administration don't you understand? I
will try to explain it in more simpler terms.

Tell us again who controlled everything then?

So what if Franks voted for it, that's ONE vote. Good grief you people get
sillier by the minute.

In article ,
"CK Lumbernickle" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"CK Lumbernickle" wrote:




Frank said that in Sept of 2003. Kathy Harris was the credited by Bush
for
being the architect of the American Dream Down Payment in Dec 2003.

Yet Franks apparently voted for it.

And, you want to blame who? Just Franks? The fact remains, there wasn't a
problem until this passed.

And the fact remains it wasn;t remotely only a GOP thing. This was a
great and glorious thing for both Parties as can be shown by the near
unanimous votes. Now, you, or the Dems, can not use this to tar Bush
with.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

Bob F wrote the following:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

Took my truck in for oil change, today. The mechanic said that
business is so slow. The economy is really awful.

"I laid off my son, today" he says. Doesn't have enough work to pay
him.

So, how are all you Democrats enjoying life, these days? Was this the
change you were hoping for? Anyone out there going to vote for more of
this change? I hope not.


We're smart enough to know that many years of repubs trashing the American
economy can't be undone in 2 years. At least it isn't going bad anywhere near
like it was when Bush left office.

The reason the mechanic laid off his son probably had nothing to do with
any political party.
The owner's son was probably the least productive employee, as many are
who are related to the employer.


--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

HeyBub wrote:
Country wrote:


Carter was elected by that time's teaparty. The teaparty of today
picks candidates that are even worse. But I guess as long as the talk
a good game and gang up on liberal women and step on her head...

Carter was elected as a moral rebuke to Nixon.

As for stepping on a liberal woman's head, no one wants to touch
that stuff with their hands.

You right wingers really are disgusting.

HeyBub wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:



That's an interesting point about Iraq. Remember how all that oil
revenue was going to make the war as cheap as a trip to Wendy's? And
the war was going to be over in 6-8 months, according to the lunatic
Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld a lunatic?

The Iraq War started March 20th, 2003. Bush announced "Mission
Accomplished" on May 1st of that year. (There was even a banner on
the ship - seeing is believing.).

I agree that Rumsfeld was wrong. The war from start to "Mission
Accomplished" was less than two months.

Mission Accomplished - what a laugh!

How many thousands of americans died after "Mission Accomplished"?

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:



The Iraq War started March 20th, 2003. Bush announced "Mission
Accomplished" on May 1st of that year. (There was even a banner on
the ship - seeing is believing.).
Actually the MA sign was put up by the carrier he landed on long
before he got there because THEY had completed their mission and were
nearing home.

Printed by the white house printing office.

willshak wrote:
Bob F wrote the following:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

Took my truck in for oil change, today. The mechanic said that
business is so slow. The economy is really awful.

"I laid off my son, today" he says. Doesn't have enough work to pay
him.

So, how are all you Democrats enjoying life, these days? Was this
the change you were hoping for? Anyone out there going to vote for
more of this change? I hope not.


We're smart enough to know that many years of repubs trashing the
American economy can't be undone in 2 years. At least it isn't going
bad anywhere near like it was when Bush left office.

The reason the mechanic laid off his son probably had nothing to do
with any political party.
The owner's son was probably the least productive employee, as many
are who are related to the employer.

Kinda like those big inheritance kids.

HeyBub wrote:
Bob F wrote:
HeyBub wrote:


He actually did quite well. For the first six years we had
unemployment below 5%, the DJIA above 14,000, almost no inflation,
25 consecutive quarters of economic growth, and so on. All this in
spite of two wars, Katrina, and 9/11.


Don't forget the lowest job growth since WW II.

It's kinda hard to add new jobs when unemployment is around 4%.
Everybody HAS a job.

Job growth was WAY below the population growth.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"CK Lumbernickle" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"CK Lumbernickle" wrote:




Frank said that in Sept of 2003. Kathy Harris was the credited by
Bush
for
being the architect of the American Dream Down Payment in Dec 2003.

Yet Franks apparently voted for it.

And, you want to blame who? Just Franks? The fact remains, there wasn't
a
problem until this passed.

And the fact remains it wasn;t remotely only a GOP thing. This was a
great and glorious thing for both Parties as can be shown by the near
unanimous votes. Now, you, or the Dems, can not use this to tar Bush
with.

Actually, I prematurely agreed with you Franks voted for it. Mistake on my
part, he did _ not_ vote for it.

Bush signed it, Republicans ruled both houses.

In article ,
"CK Lumbernickle" wrote:

And the fact remains it wasn;t remotely only a GOP thing. This was a
great and glorious thing for both Parties as can be shown by the near
unanimous votes. Now, you, or the Dems, can not use this to tar Bush
with.

Actually, I prematurely agreed with you Franks voted for it. Mistake on my
part, he did _ not_ vote for it.
Since the vote was passed without objection and there was no
recorded vote, you know that how? If he had objected, under House rules,
they would have then taken an actual vote. The no recorded vote was the
reason that I was interested in the committee votes to see how he voted
there. Did you have any luck finding those.



--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

Bob F wrote the following:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

You're going to need all that money to pay for Obamacare. Millions of
welfare people are relying on you.


Fortunately "Obamacare" will save the Feds $2 trillion over 10 years.


Who cares what it will save the feds? What will it save me?



So, how are all you Democrats enjoying life, these days? Was this
the
change you were hoping for? Anyone out there going to vote for more
of
this change? I hope not.

Pretty good. Business is booming. Had my best month ever last month.
Just hired another worker. Kicked in another $100 to the Democratic
Senatorial Campaign Committee. Just spent $1200 on a couple of sticks
of
antique furniture for my new office. Let's keep the recovery on track.






--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

Bob F wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I don't believe that for a second. The Dems (such as Clinton and his
"worked harder than he has for anything ever but can't giv you a tax
cut) are the party of raised taxes.

You don't believe it, but it is true.

Under Obama, there was a middle class tax cut. It is there in your
paycheck - less taxes taken out. More recently, Democrats proposed
extending the Bush cuts for the middle class, but not the rich.
Republicans blocked it.

The Republicans have NOT blocked ANY tax bill.

There has not BEEN a tax bill. Not one with committee hearings, not one for
mark-up, not one for floor debate, not one open for amendments. No tax bill
on the Bush tax cuts, no tax bill on capital gains, no tax bill on the AMT,
no tax bill on the inheritance tax. Zippo.

The authority for moving tax bills rests exclusively with the majority
party. So far, the Democrats have done nothing in this regard.

There HAS been posturing on both sides - sort of preparing the battle-space.
But as far as action, either in favor or in opposition, nothing.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"CK Lumbernickle" wrote:

And the fact remains it wasn;t remotely only a GOP thing. This was a
great and glorious thing for both Parties as can be shown by the near
unanimous votes. Now, you, or the Dems, can not use this to tar Bush
with.

Actually, I prematurely agreed with you Franks voted for it. Mistake on
my
part, he did _ not_ vote for it.
Since the vote was passed without objection and there was no
recorded vote, you know that how? If he had objected, under House rules,
they would have then taken an actual vote. The no recorded vote was the
reason that I was interested in the committee votes to see how he voted
there. Did you have any luck finding those.

You're asking me how, and yet _you_ claim he voted for it. LOL, it isn't
luck. Hint: Try Google Books.

Let's take the hypothetical road for which you want to walk. _If_ Franks
did vote for it, you want Bush off the hook. So, you must be willing to let
any Democratic POTUS off the hook, if one Republican voted their way. Is
this really the road you want to travel? I didn't think so!

Democrats do things I don't exactly agree with, but we'll save those for
the political forums. Think the Home Repair readers are about fed up with
our nonsense.

Oren wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:23:53 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Democrats, in general, believe that the size of the pie is fixed and
want it re-sliced into more equal pieces. Republicans, all, believe
that tax cuts can eliminate poverty, soothe bee-bites, and cure
cancer.

Both groups exaggerate a little.


What I think you said, Democrats have only one pie for the entire
world. The pieces get smaller and smaller.

Republicans want to teach me how to bake a pie, share them and even
give to charity.

Obama says I have to "ride in the back" of his car. Rosa Parks would
be ashamed of him for that comment.

Give the president credit where credit is due.

In the treatement of his adversaries, riding in the back is better than
being thrown under the wheels.

That's a plus - and demonstrates a mellowing.