bob haller wrote:

CUT ALL SPENDING DRAMATICALLY

I'd prefer a surgical cutting. There is no need to have more employees in
the Department of Agriculture than there are farmers in the whole country. I
can envision the day, not too far off if present trends continue, when there
are more employees in the Department of Labor than there are union members.


Increase taxes on super wealthy a extra 10% a year till the deficit is
gone.

Won't work. Every single study shows that the rich simply decamp when faced
with Draconian tax rates. Last year there was a chap who moved from New York
to Florida and saved - wait for it now - $13,000 PER DAY in state taxes!

You'll also note that Rush Limbaugh now broadcasts from Florida rather than
New York City. I'm pretty sure the availability of hot-dog street vendors
did not figure into his decision.


doing these 2 will balance the budget

go to fair tax national sales tax and stop using taxes to micro manage
citizens lives

On May 27, 7:00*am, bob haller wrote:
Take our postal service, look at YOUR MAIL. Its mostly a junk mail
delivery service

Scrap its current business model.

go to 3 day a week delivery monday wednesday and friday.....

close most local post offices, go to large central ones

install big central mailboxes in most neighborhoods. so the carrier
fills one location serving 50 homes. Provide a door delivery for those
willing to pay extra.

Sell off or close the package delivery part, let fed X handle
packages.

As employees retire make all new ones part time

Have your local grocery store handle most post office duties.

The new agency would be a fraction of its current size still deliver
mail and cost a lot less to operate.

Now such economies could be enacted, and this is just ONE AGENCY.

Imagine the savings if this sort of approach was used on our entire
government

It would have to be used on the entitlement programs too for
it to be effective. Have you looked at where the budget actually
goes? The US postal service cost the govt $8.5B lasy year.
Social Security and Medicare cost $1.2 tril.

Again, I don't disagree that some changes to the postal system
to cut costs would be a good idea. But unless you're willing
to also address the huge entitlement programs, you're never
going to get the budget under control. And taking stands like
yours just encourages the irresponsible Democrats to refuse
to address the core problems. Even Bill Clinton was caught
a few days ago by an open mike saying he hoped the Dems
win in the NY congressional race didn't encourage his party
to use that as excuse to do nothing about Medicare.

Robert Green wrote:

I lean right because I see allegedly disabled people on Judge Judy
looking quite fit describing how they are cheating the Feds, the
states, the cities and their fellow citizens left and right and no
one cares. I have a lot of "lib loon" ideas, but I also believe that
if you can't afford to raise your kids, the state should have the
right to adopt them out from under you if you are a persistent cheat,
lawbreaker, illegal alien, etc. Chronic poverty chains can't be
broken any other way.

Yep. There are studies showing that the people displaced by Hurricane
Katrina who ended up in places like Salt Lake City, Omaha, Des Moines, were
shocked!

"You mean all I gots to do is stand behind dis counter and make Slurpees?
And I gets PAID for it? DAMN, man, dat's cool!"

Conversely, I've had a couple of Houston cops tell me a fairly common lament
was "Whatchu mean I can't be moseyin' in my 'hood with a malt and a toke?"
as the squint tried on the silver bracelets.

Fortunately, aggressive policing, coupled with the propensity of Katrina
evacuees to kill each other with great regularity, has diminished that
problem significantly.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



The Republicans have refused to cut the $20B in subsidies given to oil
companies while looking to make "political vengeance" cuts on anything they
feel is socialism. Whether it's NPR or Planned Parenthood, helping people
isn't high on their agenda.
WHile the Dems go after the oil companies (and others) largely for
political vengance. You will note that both go after those (and the
interests of those) who have the audacity to vote against them.


Otherwise they'd realize there's plenty of good
the such organizations do that has a proven societal benefit and that they'd
be actually killing US jobs, just about the last thing Americans want right
now.
Yet the are more than willing to shut oil production, etc., not only
cutting jobs directly, but also by increasing oil prices which has an
even greater impact on jobs.

Killing them seems to be a higher priority since we're still fighting
two wars that are at least as senseless as Vietnam, and certainly longer
lasting and more expensive. But there may be signs that the Tea Party's
effect is perhaps paradoxical. The Republicans lost a key seat in NY State
and even Rove admits that "don't touch my Medicare" played a role::

http://www.rove.com/articles/318

Actually it was largely because the Dems were able to demonize
instead of talk about the facts. There was to be no change whatsoever
for those over 55. The money was being taken out was about the same. The
Mcare package under Obamacare will take much of the savings from the
Docs. What is being ignored by the Dems, and unable to be articulated by
the GOP is that OC may kill Medicare just as dead. MCare already pays
about 65 cents for every dollar the Evil Insurance companies pay. Docs
are already starting to refuse new MCare patients, doing some of the
same economic calculations as the airlines do to increase yield. (BTW:
MCaid pays even less compared to the EICs. In what may be a harbinger of
things to come, a poll of ER docs said that at least weekly they see one
or more MCaid patients because no docs will accept them.)
MCare is not sustainable, has never been sustainable and
politicians (of both side to be truthful) have been ignoring it to the
point that the system is in endanger of collapsing entirely.


Many believe that happened, in large part, because the Republican candidate
backed the Ryan Medicare "privatization/voucher" plan that smells
suspiciously of Bush's ill-fated attempt to privatize Social Security.

Which again was largely demonized. The Bush plan specifically stated
that (1). it was entirely voluntary (2) only part of it would be
available for investing (3) the rest of the taxes would stay where they
were and there was to be a minimum payment either way.
It was also a good idea for the person. The SS trustees note that
if you look at what most people get, the return on investment is less
than 1%, for minorities and those currently less than 50, there is
actually a negative rate of return.
Compare that with a 7% compounded annual return for the S&P over
ANY 20 year period (including the meltdown)--and that doesn't include
the extra return from dividends.


Apparently the Republicans learned nothing from that fiasco, and so are
trying it all over again to see if they can get it to stick this time. Evem
with Clinton's backing, the Ryan plan appears doomed but I'll bet the
Republicans keep pushing on it until they lose the vote of almost every
senior in the US. People like you and me, that have paid into Medicare and
SS all their lives aren't going to stand for anyone monkeying around with
benefits that we feel we have earned (even if our contribution is small
compared to the benefit amount).

Someone has to or the benefits won't be there.

--
"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

On May 27, 6:30*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message

...

Republicans are going to REFUSE to raise our countries debt limit.

While demading the disassembly of medicare Cutting of SS benefits:
( and lowering the tax rate on the super wealthy familys making over
250 grand from 35% to 25%

I agree excess spending must be cut, but leave my SS medicare etc
ALONE!

The Republicans have refused to cut the $20B in subsidies given to oil
companies while looking to make "political vengeance" cuts on anything they
feel is socialism. *Whether it's NPR or Planned Parenthood, helping people
isn't high on their agenda.

Yeah, like NPR is really an essential program that is helping
people. As for Planned Parenthood, there are plenty of other
agencies offering similar services to those with low incomes.
With a govt on the path to bankruptcy, putting those on the
chopping block seems reasonable.

As for eliminating the oil company tax breaks, you have the
number way off. The actual amount is $4bil, not $20bil. I
have no problem in eliminating that and at the same time they
should be looking at ALL similar tax breaks.

Now, let's say the govt does raise the taxes on the US oil
companies by $4bil. Have you studied economics? What
does microeconomics 101 tell you will happen? Answer:
Just like any other increased cost that is imposed on all
competitors in a free market, the cost gets passed on
in the form of higher prices. So, those poor people who
you seek to help by giving them NPR to listen to, will
wind up paying more for gas at the pump.



*Otherwise they'd realize there's plenty of good
the such organizations do that has a proven societal benefit and that they'd
be actually killing US jobs, just about the last thing Americans want right
now. *

Yeah, we really need those jobs at NPR and PPH.


Killing them seems to be a higher priority since we're still fighting
two wars that are at least as senseless as Vietnam, and certainly longer
lasting and more expensive. *But there may be signs that the Tea Party's
effect is perhaps paradoxical. *The Republicans lost a key seat in NY State
and even Rove admits that "don't touch my Medicare" played a role::

http://www.rove.com/articles/318

And keeping Medicare off the table of budget cuts is a good thing?
The country is going bankrupt and it's at the point where it's a
national
security threat. Unless the entitlement spending, which accounts
for two thirds of all spending is on the table, you're never going to
solve the deficits.

Here's another thought. You bitch about the Republicans proposing
to reduce spending on NPR and PPH. What was the Democrats
proposal to reduce spending? Answer: there was no plan at all.
The demagoged the budget to death and we wound up cutting a
totally bloated budget by a whopping .1% (point 1 %). This while
the country adds another $1.7tril to the national debt this year.






Tuesday's special election in New York's 26th district, where Democrat
Kathy Hochul defeated Republican Jane Corwin for a vacant congressional
seat. This is not just any congressional district, but one carried by George
W. Bush and John McCain in the last two presidential elections, and one
represented for 58 years by a Republican.

Many believe that happened, in large part, because the Republican candidate
backed the Ryan Medicare "privatization/voucher" plan that smells
suspiciously of Bush's ill-fated attempt to privatize Social Security.
Apparently the Republicans learned nothing from that fiasco, and so are
trying it all over again to see if they can get it to stick this time. *Evem
with Clinton's backing, the Ryan plan appears doomed but I'll bet the
Republicans keep pushing on it until they lose the vote of almost every
senior in the US. *People like you and me, that have paid into Medicare and
SS all their lives aren't going to stand for anyone monkeying around with
benefits that we feel we have earned (even if our contribution is small
compared to the benefit amount).

You're a real patriot, aren't you. The country is going broke. You
lament
about "helping people". Yet, like a pig, you won't give up any part
of
your piece of pie, regardless of the consequences. Sad, but that
is exactly what is going on and consequently, we just keep inching
towards an unimaginable catastrophe that will change not only the
USA, but the world.

My conclusion? Guys like you and Obama are OK with that happening
because they will use it as another way to try to redistribute wealth,
engage in class warfare, and change the USA forever into a true
socialist state.






End the 3 wars, close all military bases in peaceful places in the
world, like japan and germany. Offer to leave the bbases operating if
the host countries pay the operating expenses.

You're right on the money.

Actually, he's way off the money. You can do that. You could cut
defense by 10 or 20%. Keep in mind that the Democrats only
cut .1%, (point 1%) out of the entire budget, so cuts of 10, 20%
would be huge. Having done that, we'd then have a budget
deficit of $1.55 tril instead of $1.7 tril. See the problem now?





We pay an AWFUL lot to be the "protector" of far too many countries. *The
$20B we sent to Pakistan clearly was money thrown down the drain. *And it's
just the tip of the iceberg. *Like a burned out football player, we keep
trying to recapture the peak of our glory when we saved the world from
Hitler and Tojo. *Now we're turning into a country people need protection
from.

Let Israel and Europe worry about AfRaqIstan (and pay the lion's share of
the war's cost). *THEY are the ones within range of Iran's missiles, not us.

It think that faulty logic was proven on 9/11.


Very true. *The huge debt we've run up is not from NPR or Planned
Parenthood, it's from spending trillions doing security work for free for
other countries in the name of "democracy."

Obviously you're clueless as to where the budget actually goes.




*It nauseates me to think that
one of our closest allies is Saudi Arabia. *It's no democracy and worse,
still, the WTC plotters were almost all Saudis. *What does being the world's
beat cop and enforcer for Saudi Arabia and Israel get us? *Worse than
nothing. *Hatred, resentment and bankruptcy seem to be the reward for
risking our soldier's lives and our treasure abroad.

leaves bases in bad areas like s korea'

I wouldn't even do that. *Those are really local problems and from what I
have learned of the Asian mind set, they're not very happy with our meddling
in their business from 3000 miles away. *

I'd like to see a source that shows the South Koreans are unhappy
with the USA and want us to leave.




They are at least as unhappy as we
were when the Sovs decided to base missiles in Cuba. *No one wants a remote
foreign power meddling in their local affairs. *Those are the kind of
incidents that start world wars.

No, it';s loons like you that believe if the US withdrew all it's
forces from South Korea it would not be an open invitation
to Kim Il Jong to attempt to solve his failing country by
invading South Korea.




I sadly believe that "the powers that be" mistakenly believe the era of
world wars is over, just like they mistakenly believed that the stock market
couldn't crash. *There are lot of things moving into the same sorts of
positions that existed before both world wars. *Financial collapse,
festering territory and trade disputes and political instabilities all over
the globe. *Never say never.

And in the face of that, you want to turn tail and run. Yes, YOU are
repeating the mistakes of WWII.



We keep giving aid to Israel and our staunch support of them seems to have
emboldened them to create more and more settlements in disputed zones. *It
allows them to respond to the killing of a relatively small number of
civilians in rocket attacks by a small number of terrorist by a blitzkrieg
attack that was out of proportion to the provocation, drawing worldwide
condemnation.

What do you think would have happened to Mexico by now if terrorists
were launching rockets into Arizona, blowing up busses and
restaurants,
and Mexico refused to even acknowledge the right of the USA to exist?




Finally Obama drew a line in the sand and said that Israel HAS to do better
or they risk losing serious support from their most powerful ally. *Us.
That speech and Arab Spring are making the Israelis very jittery, as they
should be. *They're using a strategy of "separate but equal" that our legal
system discredited a long, long time ago. *They are a seriously divided
nation on the road to something bad, perhaps very, very soon. *No matter how
many divisions they can field, the Muslims surrounding them outnumber them
by a fantastic ratio.

Let's hope that Obama's bizarre attempted sell out of Israel helps
wake up the Jews in the USA, costs hims a swing state or two
like FL, and makes him a one term president.



Wars eventually turn into numbers games and what seems to be happening is
that Arab leaders are trying to prop up their tottering dictatorships by
trying to refocus the ire of the mobs on Israel. *Apparently Syria's already
started playing that game.
--
Bobby G.

Here's a clue. They didn't just start playing that game. They have
played it all along as even a casual observer would know.

On May 27, 6:23*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"JimT" wrote in message

stuff snipped

I try to resist putting people in categories just because they voted for
someone. I voted Rep in the primaries and Dem in the general 2008. I'm
now a registered Rep but only because I tend to lean to the right and
has nothing to do with moral issues. It's the choices I have to make
from a limited field of candidates. I'm all for gay rights, a woman's
right to choose, legalization of 420, and cutting back on military
spending. Oh yeah, I'm agnostic too. :-)

I lean right


Those three words are by far the stupidist that you have ever posted
here.

On 5/27/2011 3:23 AM, Robert Green wrote:

I lean right because I see allegedly disabled people on Judge Judy looking
quite fit...

Ah, so you base your political views on what you see on a TV show. Our
country is doomed. Our education system has failed.

Does that make me a Republican or a Democrat or Social Futurist?

Neither.

On 5/27/2011 4:00 AM, bob haller wrote:

snip

The new agency would be a fraction of its current size still deliver
mail and cost a lot less to operate.

Some good ideas, but it would have no effect on the deficit because the
postal service is a self-sufficient operation. They occasionally borrow
money when increases in postage rates lag their expenditures, but then
repay it when revenue increases.

It might bring down postage costs if they made some of those cuts. They
could do M W F to half the residences, T, TH, Sat to the other half.
Ironically it's businesses that send out ads and bills that don't want
this type of service cuts. Delaying the receipt of a bill by one day
could mean a delay of three days in the payment reaching the company if
the recipient pays with a check and leaves the envelope for the
mailperson to pick up.

The key to deficit reduction is to increase revenue. Sadly, there are
not a lot of cuts left to be made that will not have negative long-term
consequences. Tax rates are now at historic lows. If we want to continue
down the road to becoming a third world country we can continue to
decrease revenue and defund infrastructure and education. Meanwhile
countries in Europe and Asia are going the other direction. We had a
good run.

In article ,
SMS wrote:



The key to deficit reduction is to increase revenue. Sadly, there are
not a lot of cuts left to be made that will not have negative long-term
consequences. Tax rates are now at historic lows. If we want to continue
down the road to becoming a third world country we can continue to
decrease revenue and defund infrastructure and education. Meanwhile
countries in Europe and Asia are going the other direction. We had a
good run.


Actually the keys to deficit reduction are (1) getting the economy
back on track with "revenue increases" are guaranteed not to do and (2)
stop or curtail the INCREASES in spending. During most of the Great
Expansion over the last 20 years or so, revenues grew around 2-3% per
year. At the same time, spending grew around 4% per year. Studies have
shown in the past (don't know for sure if we have passed the point of no
return on this) that if we merely kept spending increases to inflation,
we would have balanced the budget in between 10 and 15 years, depending
on the economic growth assumptions.

--
"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

On 5/27/2011 4:11 AM, harry wrote:
On May 26, 9:12 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 5/26/2011 2:58 PM, Country wrote:





On May 26, 10:32 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 5/26/2011 9:48 AM, Country wrote:

On May 26, 9:37 am, Suga Moto wrote:
Republican:
Someone who supports the rights of the unborn, but won't fund stem cell
research that could help the millions who are already here. The first
one to protest abortion rights, and the first one willing to take a
life through capital punishment. Someone who espouses personal freedom,
and then tries to pass constitutional amendments to restrict it.
Someone threatened by government surplus but unfazed by goverment
deficits. Someone who is pro-business but anti-citizen. Someone who
wants to take away the helping hand, after he's made it to safety.
Someone who holds a cross in one hand and tries to burn it with the
other.

You forgot that they are the party that hates Gays but cruises for
boys in Men's Restrooms at the Airport. LOL.

Could you please post a link to somewhere that lists those assertions
of yours as being part of the Republican platform. I'm not a Republican
and if you claimed the same thing about Democrats, I'd want to see proof
of that too. I have friends in both parties and never heard any
of them claim that. :-)

TDD

LOL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig

-C-

Nice, a pervert who happens to be a Republican, I'll bet there are a lot
more Democrats who play the skin flute. I still don't see anything
that proves that's a political platform of the party. I could probably
make reference to Barney Frank but he/she/it is obvious. ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Welsh descent Duf. He can't help it.

Conversation in a pup:

Yea, the Welsh, they either whores or football players.

Oi! Me Mum's Welsh!

Oh yea? What position does she play?

TDD

On 5/27/2011 4:20 AM, The Ghost in The Machine wrote:
THAT IS ONE F**KED UP POINT OF VIEW.
IF YOU BURDEN YOUR LIFE WITH SUCH THOUGHTS, IT IS NO WONDER WHY YOUR
WORLD IS SO DISCOMBOBULATED.

POLICING IS A SOLUTION, BUT NEVER THE ANSWER.
WITH SELF EDUCATION, RESTRAINT AND HUMANE CITIZENSHIP THERE IS LITTLE
NEED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT......OR A POLICE STATE....TYRANNY IS SAVAGERY
IN CLASSY CLOTHING.
OMNIPOTENCE AND HARMONY AMONG HUMANS, NEEDS NO ALTERATION.

GOING HALF COCKED WITH POWER, LEADS TO HALF ASSED RESULTS.

IN YOUNGER DAYS ANY MAN OR WOMAN TROLLING FOR AN EROTIC ADVENTURE MET
OBSTACLES, SOME VIOLENT, SOME LEGAL, SOME TASTEFUL.....IT'S A SHAME
THAT HUMANS CAN SEEM TO PERVERT THE ONE GOOD THING THEY ALL HAVE IN
COMMON.....THE LOVE YOU ALL CRAVE.

POLITICS IS JUST MANS WAY OF SAYING..I DONT KNOW ****!
BOOWAHAHAHAHAHA

PATECUM
TGITM

Why don't you be a little more irritating and top post too? ^_^

TDD

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

Conversation in a pup:

Yea, the Welsh, they either whores or football players.

Oi! Me Mum's Welsh!

Oh yea? What position does she play?

TDD

They must be a very tiny race for two of them to fit in a puppy. (-:

Pretty funny, though . . .

--
Bobby G.

On May 27, 9:22*am, SMS wrote:
On 5/27/2011 4:00 AM, bob haller wrote:

snip

The new agency would be a fraction of its current size still deliver
mail and cost a lot less to operate.

Some good ideas, but it would have no effect on the deficit because the
postal service is a self-sufficient operation. They occasionally borrow
money when increases in postage rates lag their expenditures, but then
repay it when revenue increases.

It might bring down postage costs if they made some of those cuts. They
could do M W F to half the residences, T, TH, Sat to the other half.
Ironically it's businesses that send out ads and bills that don't want
this type of service cuts. Delaying the receipt of a bill by one day
could mean a delay of three days in the payment reaching the company if
the recipient pays with a check and leaves the envelope for the
mailperson to pick up.

The key to deficit reduction is to increase revenue. Sadly, there are
not a lot of cuts left to be made that will not have negative long-term
consequences. Tax rates are now at historic lows.

Please show us a credible reference that shows that the total tax
burden on Americans is anywhere near historic lows. That means
including federal income tax, state income tax, local income tax,
social security taxes, unemployment taxes,
sales taxes, real estate taxes, personal property taxes, etc.

Let's just look at the federal pictu

Here is tax revenue every 5 years going back to 1980,
together with govt spending, in trillions:

1980 .517 .591
1985 .734 .946
1988 .909 1.06
1990 1.0 1.25
1995 1.35 1.52
2000 2.0 1.79
2005 2.2 2.47
2010 2.2 3.46


I included 1988 to smash the myth that the Reagan tax cuts
created deficits. In fact, those cuts lead to a 40% INCREASE
in govt revenue.

And in the right hand collumn is the real problem, which is
out of control SPENDING. While revenue in this miserable
economy in 2010 is 10% higher than it was 5 years ago,
spending has increased by a whopping 40%. BTW,
those numbers are in constant dollars, so inflation is
factored out.

As a famous senator once said, you're entitled to your own
opinions, but not your own facts.

The problem isn't that we are taxed too little. The real problem
is that the govt spends too much. Sadly, some people just
don't get it.




If we want to continue
down the road to becoming a third world country we can continue to
decrease revenue and defund infrastructure and education. Meanwhile
countries in Europe and Asia are going the other direction. We had a
good run.

On May 27, 2:13*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 5/26/2011 4:34 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:









On May 26, 8:32 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 5/26/2011 9:48 AM, Country wrote:

On May 26, 9:37 am, Suga Moto * *wrote:
Republican:
Someone who supports the rights of the unborn, but won't fund stem cell
research that could help the millions who are already here. The first
one to protest abortion rights, and the first one willing to take a
life through capital punishment. Someone who espouses personal freedom,
and then tries to pass constitutional amendments to restrict it.
Someone threatened by government surplus but unfazed by goverment
deficits. Someone who is pro-business but anti-citizen. Someone who
wants to take away the helping hand, after he's made it to safety.
Someone who holds a cross in one hand and tries to burn it with the
other.

You forgot that they are the party that hates Gays but cruises for
boys in Men's Restrooms at the Airport. LOL.

Could you please post a link to somewhere that lists those assertions
of yours as being part of the Republican platform. I'm not a Republican
and if you claimed the same thing about Democrats, I'd want to see proof
of that too. I have friends in both parties and never heard any
of them claim that. :-)

TDD

Have they been in a deep hole? *The info is available on every medium,
from Fox (urp) to PBS (mild burb)

HB

You can't name one source that claims the Republican Party platform is
to hate gays and to cruse for boys in the men's room at airports. :-)

TDD

Yes I can.

-C-

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
Take our postal service, look at YOUR MAIL. Its mostly a junk mail
delivery service

Scrap its current business model.

go to 3 day a week delivery monday wednesday and friday.....

close most local post offices, go to large central ones

install big central mailboxes in most neighborhoods. so the carrier
fills one location serving 50 homes. Provide a door delivery for those
willing to pay extra.

Sell off or close the package delivery part, let fed X handle
packages.

As employees retire make all new ones part time

Have your local grocery store handle most post office duties.

The new agency would be a fraction of its current size still deliver
mail and cost a lot less to operate.

Now such economies could be enacted, and this is just ONE AGENCY.

Imagine the savings if this sort of approach was used on our entire
government

Take one look at what FedX or UPS charges for delivering envelope sizes.
When you do, you won't spew nonsense. No way would they continue to charge
the ridiculous low rates the PO office charges, they would bring them up to
their rate. Hate to say it, but it's too damn cheap to mail letters.

Do you really believe a grocery store (for profit) would handle mail more
efficiently than the PO?

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

The Republicans have refused to cut the $20B in subsidies given to oil
companies while looking to make "political vengeance" cuts on anything
they
feel is socialism. Whether it's NPR or Planned Parenthood, helping
people
isn't high on their agenda.

While the Dems go after the oil companies (and others) largely for
political vengeance. You will note that both go after those (and the
interests of those) who have the audacity to vote against them.

Thanks for reminding me. (-: It's true. It's why no permanent progress
can be made. But IIRC, the Dems pointed to the tax breaks that Big Oil is
getting (during one of the most profitable periods ever for them) *after*
the Republicans made a point to began targeting the much smaller social
programs that irk them so mightily. IIRC, NPR and Planned Parenthood
really amounted to chump change compared to the $20B to Pakistan and $20B
for Big Oil and God Only Knows What to the "Whore on Terror." .

We're playing "you put our programs on life support and we'll put yours in
the morgue!" Why SHOULD we subsidize Big Oil when it's raking in cash and
practicing near perfect tax avoidance? I thought Congress was elected by
the people for the people and not for the sake of Big Business. I would be
a lot more certain of NPR and Planned Parenthood actually providing US jobs
than I would the oil industry. As we saw from the BP, there are a lot of
foreign interests involved in oil drilling. That oil belongs to you and me
and nearly everyone reading this. I bristle when I see some of the sweet,
sweet deals Big Oil has carved out for itself and how brazenly some in
Congress support this looting of the US Treasury, which I am sure they share
with their captive politicians in campaign contributions. .

Otherwise they'd realize there's plenty of good
the such organizations do that has a proven societal benefit and that
they'd
be actually killing US jobs, just about the last thing Americans want
right
now.

Yet the are more than willing to shut oil production, etc., not only
cutting jobs directly, but also by increasing oil prices which has an
even greater impact on jobs.

I'm a little confused here. The Congressional Research Office has exposed
the myth that oil prices will rise if we terminate $20 billion of corporate
welfa

http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/201...gas-prices.pdf

They say: The magnitude of the revenue effects of these tax changes might
be important in evaluating their effects on the oil industry. The five
provisions, taken together, are expected to raise approximately $1.2 billion
in 2012. For the calendar year 2010, the revenues of the five largest oil
companies were approximately $1.5 trillion with additional revenues accruing
to the non-majors. The net incomes, after tax, of these five companies
totaled over $76 billion with additional earnings accruing to the
non-majors. The total expected tax revenues are only 5% of the earnings of
the five largest firms in the industry and a smaller percentage of the total
industry. Even if the changes in taxes did impact domestic, or overseas
exploration and development activity, that does not necessarily imply that
less oil would be available in the U.S. market. More might be imported, with
little or no effect on gasoline prices.

"Little or no effect." Despite the URL have DEM in it, the CRS is an
impartial agency. I am surprised you've bought into the oil companies'
arguments because in the long run they boil down to "we'll cut out noses off
to spite our faces" to illustrate their displeasure with the end of free
government money.

But are we talking about shutting oil production, at least in the Gulf,
which has been mostly for safety reasons? Or are we talking about the
belief that drilling activity will be curtailed by ending government oil
company welfare?

We still don't understand exactly what happened after the big BP spill and
what the long term effects will be. We still don't know how well or poorly
MMS and its successor have done inspecting the existing oil rigs in an
effort to prevent further outrageously costly spills. That's just prudence.

Now if you're implying that without the subsidies that gasoline prices will
skyrocket then I have my doubts. Why? It's FUD that's too convenient for
the oil companies and an assertion that needs to be tested and not just
assumed to be true. Dire warnings always come after gravy trains are
derailed but that doesn't make them true, as the Congressional Research
Office report strongly implies.

If push came to shove, the Feds could rebate that money to the people in the
form of a reduced gasoline tax. After all, IT'S OUR FREAKING OIL - the
citizens of the USA. But reading the newspapers you'd think Shell, Exxon,
BP, believe they own the oil and have forgotten that we citizen-owners are
nice enough to give them fairly princely sums to get it out for us.

Would it be the end of the world to remove the subsidies for say two years
to evaluate the changes that might happen in the oil exploration industry?
That seems to be a fact-based test rather than a conjecture based
assumption. With the oil companies posting record profits, there's little
risk of bankrupting them.

Some of these oil subsidies are naked giveaways, with the problems they were
meant to address long ago solved. Sen. Shaheen's site:

http://shaheen.senate.gov/news/press...0-fe154e2c2dd1

says:

"The Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act (S. 940) would end $21 billion in
projected taxpayer subsidies for the five largest integrated oil companies
by eliminating six separate tax handouts. Thanks to these subsidies, the
world's most profitable company, Exxon Mobil, paid no income tax in 2009 . .
.. I've heard some people who are in favor of these giveaways say that we
need them so the oil companies keep prices low. But the non-partisan
Congressional Research Service last week issued a report that said rolling
back these tax handouts won't raise gas prices. With prices so high, they
said, oil companies will do all they can to maximize production from all
existing wells, and the oil supply will remain unchanged. A barrel of oil is
selling for far more than it costs an oil company to produce it. These
subsidies are doing nothing to make gasoline cheaper."

--
Bobby G.

On 5/27/2011 9:22 AM, Robert Green wrote:
"The Daring wrote in message
...

Conversation in a pup:

Yea, the Welsh, they either whores or football players.

Oi! Me Mum's Welsh!

Oh yea? What position does she play?

TDD

They must be a very tiny race for two of them to fit in a puppy. (-:

Pretty funny, though . . .

--
Bobby G.



Premature postification and proofread failure. It happens to us as we
get older. ^_^

TDD

On 5/27/2011 10:10 AM, Country wrote:
On May 27, 2:13 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 5/26/2011 4:34 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:









On May 26, 8:32 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 5/26/2011 9:48 AM, Country wrote:

On May 26, 9:37 am, Suga Moto wrote:
Republican:
Someone who supports the rights of the unborn, but won't fund stem cell
research that could help the millions who are already here. The first
one to protest abortion rights, and the first one willing to take a
life through capital punishment. Someone who espouses personal freedom,
and then tries to pass constitutional amendments to restrict it.
Someone threatened by government surplus but unfazed by goverment
deficits. Someone who is pro-business but anti-citizen. Someone who
wants to take away the helping hand, after he's made it to safety.
Someone who holds a cross in one hand and tries to burn it with the
other.

You forgot that they are the party that hates Gays but cruises for
boys in Men's Restrooms at the Airport. LOL.

Could you please post a link to somewhere that lists those assertions
of yours as being part of the Republican platform. I'm not a Republican
and if you claimed the same thing about Democrats, I'd want to see proof
of that too. I have friends in both parties and never heard any
of them claim that. :-)

TDD

Have they been in a deep hole? The info is available on every medium,
from Fox (urp) to PBS (mild burb)

HB

You can't name one source that claims the Republican Party platform is
to hate gays and to cruse for boys in the men's room at airports. :-)

TDD

Yes I can.

-C-

Where is it, bring it! :-)

TDD

On May 27, 6:30*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
*"Robert Green" wrote:

The Republicans have refused to cut the $20B in subsidies given to oil
companies while looking to make "political vengeance" cuts on anything
they
feel is socialism. *Whether it's NPR or Planned Parenthood, helping
people
isn't high on their agenda.
* * While the Dems go after the oil companies (and others) largely for
political vengeance. You will note that both go after those (and the
interests of those) who have the audacity to vote against them.

Thanks for reminding me. *(-: *It's true. *It's why no permanent progress
can be made. *But IIRC, the Dems pointed to the tax breaks that Big Oil is
getting (during one of the most profitable periods ever for them) *after*
the Republicans made a point to began targeting the much smaller social
programs that irk them so mightily. *IIRC, NPR and Planned Parenthood
really amounted to chump change compared to the $20B to Pakistan and $20B
for Big Oil and God Only Knows What to the "Whore on Terror." .

There you go again. You throw out numbers that have no relevance
and came from God knows where. I pointed out earlier that the tax
breaks
to the oil indusry have been widely discussed recently and everyone
from
the Dems in Congress, to Obama and the Republicans have been using
a number of $4Bil a year. And that, I believe was to the ENTIRE oil
industry,
not just big oil.

Then we have Pakistan. Where did this $20B in US aid to Pakistan come
from? And what time period does it cover? From what I can see it
would
have to go back and cover a decade for it to reach that amount. Do
you
use arbitrary numbers and time periods when you tally the cost of the
lib programs?

And one more time, back to the oil industry tax breaks. I have no
problem
in getting rid of them. But at the same time, we should be looking at
ALL
the similar tax breaks given to all kinds of companies. GE, who's CEO
Imelt is one of Obama's economic advisers, paid no corporate income
tax at all. How about looking at that.

Plus, from economics 101, when you increase the taxes on all players
in an industry, that cost is passed on to consumers in the form of
higher prices for products. It's no different than an increase in the
cost of materials, labor, capital, etc. So, what you and the Dems
are trying to do is get more money into the US govt to **** away
and have it come out of people's pockets at the pump.





We're playing "you put our programs on life support and we'll put yours in
the morgue!" *Why SHOULD we subsidize Big Oil when it's raking in cash and
practicing near perfect tax avoidance? *

Even with that near perfect tax avoidance, they are paying taxes at
close
to a 50% rate. That isn't enough for you?




I thought Congress was elected by
the people for the people and not for the sake of Big Business. *I would be
a lot more certain of NPR and Planned Parenthood actually providing US jobs
than I would the oil industry.

That figures. There is a difference. The oil industry PRODUCES real
goods. What exactly is it that NPR produces that is so essential
in a time when the US govt is going broke?



*As we saw from the BP, there are a lot of
foreign interests involved in oil drilling. *

No **** Sherlock.



That oil belongs to you and me
and nearly everyone reading this.

No, it belongs to those who put their capital on the line, built the
businesses, paid for the leases, searched for and found the oil.




*I bristle when I see some of the sweet,
sweet deals Big Oil has carved out for itself and how brazenly some in
Congress support this looting of the US Treasury, which I am sure they share
with their captive politicians in campaign contributions. *.



*Otherwise they'd realize there's plenty of good
the such organizations do that has a proven societal benefit and that
they'd
be actually killing US jobs, just about the last thing Americans want
right
now.

Yeah, I'm real concerned about some buffoon at NPR losing their job.





* *Yet the are more than willing to shut oil production, etc., not only
cutting jobs directly, but also by increasing oil prices which has an
even greater impact on jobs.

I'm a little confused here. *The Congressional Research Office has exposed
the myth that oil prices will rise if we terminate $20 billion of corporate
welfa

http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/201...gas-prices.pdf

They say: *The magnitude of the revenue effects of these tax changes might
be important in evaluating their effects on the oil industry. The five
provisions, taken together, are expected to raise approximately $1.2 billion
in 2012. For the calendar year 2010, the revenues of the five largest oil
companies were approximately $1.5 trillion with additional revenues accruing
to the non-majors. The net incomes, after tax, of these five companies
totaled over $76 billion with additional earnings accruing to the
non-majors. The total expected tax revenues are only 5% of the earnings of
the five largest firms in the industry and a smaller percentage of the total
industry. Even if the changes in taxes did impact domestic, or overseas
exploration and development activity, that does not necessarily imply that
less oil would be available in the U.S. market. More might be imported, with
little or no effect on gasoline prices.

What do you expect the Dems to say? And even they did not say
what you claim, which is that it's a myth that ending the tax
breaks would raise gas prices. Tell us this. Did you ever
study economics. When and where. And explain to us why
if all companies in an industry have to pay higher taxes they
don't just pass it along as they would an increase in the cost
of materials, energy, labor, etc.





"Little or no effect." *Despite the URL have DEM in it, the CRS is an
impartial agency. *I am surprised you've bought into the oil companies'
arguments because in the long run they boil down to "we'll cut out noses off
to spite our faces" to illustrate their displeasure with the end of free
government money.

It's not an oil industry argument, it's an economic fact. It's like
arguing that V=IR is a myth.




But are we talking about shutting oil production, at least in the Gulf,
which has been mostly for safety reasons? *Or are we talking about the
belief that drilling activity will be curtailed by ending government oil
company welfare?

The libs for the most part would shut down as much of the oil
industry as possible. I've seen it over decades





We still don't understand exactly what happened after the big BP spill and
what the long term effects will be. *We still don't know how well or poorly
MMS and its successor have done inspecting the existing oil rigs in an
effort to prevent further outrageously costly spills. *That's just prudence.

We still don't know exactly what happened to the Air France Airbus 340
that
crashed off Brazil 2 years ago. But all those planes are still
flying.






Now if you're implying that without the subsidies that gasoline prices will
skyrocket then I have my doubts. *Why? *It's FUD that's too convenient for
the oil companies and an assertion that needs to be tested and not just
assumed to be true.

Take a course in microeconomics 101 and you'll no longer have
doubts. And no one claimed that gas prices will skyrocket. That
$4Bil in increased costs that gets passed on would amount to
such a small increase, that it would be unnoticed. That is very
different from saying the effect does not exist.






*Dire warnings always come after gravy trains are
derailed but that doesn't make them true, as the Congressional Research
Office report strongly implies.

Many times they come BEFORE the gravy train is derailed. Here's
one right now. The US is on the road to going broke and the Dems
have shown they would rather demagogue about it and do nothing
rather than deal with it by reducing out of control spending.




If push came to shove, the Feds could rebate that money to the people in the
form of a reduced gasoline tax.

Remarkable how all kinds of ideas for more govt intrusion into areas
where
it's not needed pop iinto the heads of loon libs. You clearly don't
even
have a grasp of what the oil industry tax breaks amount to related to
the size of the industry, the volume of products sold, etc.



*After all, IT'S OUR FREAKING OIL - the
citizens of the USA. *

Spoken like Karl Marx




But reading the newspapers you'd think Shell, Exxon,
BP, believe they own the oil and have forgotten that we citizen-owners are
nice enough to give them fairly princely sums to get it out for us.

More loon lib lies repeated. Following the same logic, we
the people own your house. Get out!



Would it be the end of the world to remove the subsidies for say two years
to evaluate the changes that might happen in the oil exploration industry?
That seems to be a fact-based test rather than a conjecture based
assumption. *With the oil companies posting record profits, there's little
risk of bankrupting them.

No problem eliminating them outright. The amount is a joke compared
to
the size of the industry. But at the same time, why just focus on
the oil
industry. Do the same analysis of all industries.






Some of these oil subsidies are naked giveaways, with the problems they were
meant to address long ago solved. *Sen. Shaheen's site:

http://shaheen.senate.gov/news/press...e8-3d7f-474a-9....

says:

"The Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act (S. 940) would end $21 billion in
projected taxpayer subsidies for the five largest integrated oil companies
by eliminating six separate tax handouts. * Thanks to these subsidies, the
world's most profitable company, Exxon Mobil, paid no income tax in 2009 .. .

And there we have it folks. The favorite lib tactic. Crank up a
$4bil number
into a $21 demagogue number by choosing an arbitrary and unstated
future period. And Exxon Mobil being a multinational company, paid
income taxes as required in various parts of the world. That total
tax burden is near 50% of income. When you have all the facts, it
starts to look a bit different.

Also, why target Exxon Mobil? GE paid no US income tax and Obama
made their CEO one of his economic advisers.

On 5/27/2011 7:43 PM, wrote:
On May 27, 6:30 pm, "Robert wrote:
"Kurt wrote in message
"Robert wrote:

The Republicans have refused to cut the $20B in subsidies given to oil
companies while looking to make "political vengeance" cuts on anything
they
feel is socialism. Whether it's NPR or Planned Parenthood, helping
people
isn't high on their agenda.
While the Dems go after the oil companies (and others) largely for
political vengeance. You will note that both go after those (and the
interests of those) who have the audacity to vote against them.

Thanks for reminding me. (-: It's true. It's why no permanent progress
can be made. But IIRC, the Dems pointed to the tax breaks that Big Oil is
getting (during one of the most profitable periods ever for them) *after*
the Republicans made a point to began targeting the much smaller social
programs that irk them so mightily. IIRC, NPR and Planned Parenthood
really amounted to chump change compared to the $20B to Pakistan and $20B
for Big Oil and God Only Knows What to the "Whore on Terror." .

There you go again. You throw out numbers that have no relevance
and came from God knows where. I pointed out earlier that the tax
breaks
to the oil indusry have been widely discussed recently and everyone
from
the Dems in Congress, to Obama and the Republicans have been using
a number of $4Bil a year. And that, I believe was to the ENTIRE oil
industry,
not just big oil.

Then we have Pakistan. Where did this $20B in US aid to Pakistan come
from? And what time period does it cover? From what I can see it
would
have to go back and cover a decade for it to reach that amount. Do
you
use arbitrary numbers and time periods when you tally the cost of the
lib programs?

And one more time, back to the oil industry tax breaks. I have no
problem
in getting rid of them. But at the same time, we should be looking at
ALL
the similar tax breaks given to all kinds of companies. GE, who's CEO
Imelt is one of Obama's economic advisers, paid no corporate income
tax at all. How about looking at that.

Plus, from economics 101, when you increase the taxes on all players
in an industry, that cost is passed on to consumers in the form of
higher prices for products. It's no different than an increase in the
cost of materials, labor, capital, etc. So, what you and the Dems
are trying to do is get more money into the US govt to **** away
and have it come out of people's pockets at the pump.





We're playing "you put our programs on life support and we'll put yours in
the morgue!" Why SHOULD we subsidize Big Oil when it's raking in cash and
practicing near perfect tax avoidance?

Even with that near perfect tax avoidance, they are paying taxes at
close
to a 50% rate. That isn't enough for you?




I thought Congress was elected by
the people for the people and not for the sake of Big Business. I would be
a lot more certain of NPR and Planned Parenthood actually providing US jobs
than I would the oil industry.

That figures. There is a difference. The oil industry PRODUCES real
goods. What exactly is it that NPR produces that is so essential
in a time when the US govt is going broke?



As we saw from the BP, there are a lot of
foreign interests involved in oil drilling.

No **** Sherlock.



That oil belongs to you and me
and nearly everyone reading this.

No, it belongs to those who put their capital on the line, built the
businesses, paid for the leases, searched for and found the oil.




I bristle when I see some of the sweet,
sweet deals Big Oil has carved out for itself and how brazenly some in
Congress support this looting of the US Treasury, which I am sure they share
with their captive politicians in campaign contributions. .



Otherwise they'd realize there's plenty of good
the such organizations do that has a proven societal benefit and that
they'd
be actually killing US jobs, just about the last thing Americans want
right
now.

Yeah, I'm real concerned about some buffoon at NPR losing their job.





Yet the are more than willing to shut oil production, etc., not only
cutting jobs directly, but also by increasing oil prices which has an
even greater impact on jobs.

I'm a little confused here. The Congressional Research Office has exposed
the myth that oil prices will rise if we terminate $20 billion of corporate
welfa

http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/201...gas-prices.pdf

They say:The magnitude of the revenue effects of these tax changes might
be important in evaluating their effects on the oil industry. The five
provisions, taken together, are expected to raise approximately $1.2 billion
in 2012. For the calendar year 2010, the revenues of the five largest oil
companies were approximately $1.5 trillion with additional revenues accruing
to the non-majors. The net incomes, after tax, of these five companies
totaled over $76 billion with additional earnings accruing to the
non-majors. The total expected tax revenues are only 5% of the earnings of
the five largest firms in the industry and a smaller percentage of the total
industry. Even if the changes in taxes did impact domestic, or overseas
exploration and development activity, that does not necessarily imply that
less oil would be available in the U.S. market. More might be imported, with
little or no effect on gasoline prices.

What do you expect the Dems to say? And even they did not say
what you claim, which is that it's a myth that ending the tax
breaks would raise gas prices. Tell us this. Did you ever
study economics. When and where. And explain to us why
if all companies in an industry have to pay higher taxes they
don't just pass it along as they would an increase in the cost
of materials, energy, labor, etc.





"Little or no effect." Despite the URL have DEM in it, the CRS is an
impartial agency. I am surprised you've bought into the oil companies'
arguments because in the long run they boil down to "we'll cut out noses off
to spite our faces" to illustrate their displeasure with the end of free
government money.

It's not an oil industry argument, it's an economic fact. It's like
arguing that V=IR is a myth.




But are we talking about shutting oil production, at least in the Gulf,
which has been mostly for safety reasons? Or are we talking about the
belief that drilling activity will be curtailed by ending government oil
company welfare?

The libs for the most part would shut down as much of the oil
industry as possible. I've seen it over decades





We still don't understand exactly what happened after the big BP spill and
what the long term effects will be. We still don't know how well or poorly
MMS and its successor have done inspecting the existing oil rigs in an
effort to prevent further outrageously costly spills. That's just prudence.

We still don't know exactly what happened to the Air France Airbus 340
that
crashed off Brazil 2 years ago. But all those planes are still
flying.






Now if you're implying that without the subsidies that gasoline prices will
skyrocket then I have my doubts. Why? It's FUD that's too convenient for
the oil companies and an assertion that needs to be tested and not just
assumed to be true.

Take a course in microeconomics 101 and you'll no longer have
doubts. And no one claimed that gas prices will skyrocket. That
$4Bil in increased costs that gets passed on would amount to
such a small increase, that it would be unnoticed. That is very
different from saying the effect does not exist.






Dire warnings always come after gravy trains are
derailed but that doesn't make them true, as the Congressional Research
Office report strongly implies.

Many times they come BEFORE the gravy train is derailed. Here's
one right now. The US is on the road to going broke and the Dems
have shown they would rather demagogue about it and do nothing
rather than deal with it by reducing out of control spending.




If push came to shove, the Feds could rebate that money to the people in the
form of a reduced gasoline tax.

Remarkable how all kinds of ideas for more govt intrusion into areas
where
it's not needed pop iinto the heads of loon libs. You clearly don't
even
have a grasp of what the oil industry tax breaks amount to related to
the size of the industry, the volume of products sold, etc.



After all, IT'S OUR FREAKING OIL - the
citizens of the USA.

Spoken like Karl Marx




But reading the newspapers you'd think Shell, Exxon,
BP, believe they own the oil and have forgotten that we citizen-owners are
nice enough to give them fairly princely sums to get it out for us.

More loon lib lies repeated. Following the same logic, we
the people own your house. Get out!



Would it be the end of the world to remove the subsidies for say two years
to evaluate the changes that might happen in the oil exploration industry?
That seems to be a fact-based test rather than a conjecture based
assumption. With the oil companies posting record profits, there's little
risk of bankrupting them.

No problem eliminating them outright. The amount is a joke compared
to
the size of the industry. But at the same time, why just focus on
the oil
industry. Do the same analysis of all industries.






Some of these oil subsidies are naked giveaways, with the problems they were
meant to address long ago solved. Sen. Shaheen's site:

http://shaheen.senate.gov/news/press...e8-3d7f-474a-9...

says:

"The Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act (S. 940) would end $21 billion in
projected taxpayer subsidies for the five largest integrated oil companies
by eliminating six separate tax handouts. Thanks to these subsidies, the
world's most profitable company, Exxon Mobil, paid no income tax in 2009 . .

And there we have it folks. The favorite lib tactic. Crank up a
$4bil number
into a $21 demagogue number by choosing an arbitrary and unstated
future period. And Exxon Mobil being a multinational company, paid
income taxes as required in various parts of the world. That total
tax burden is near 50% of income. When you have all the facts, it
starts to look a bit different.

Also, why target Exxon Mobil? GE paid no US income tax and Obama
made their CEO one of his economic advisers.


GE paid the biggest bribe. ^_^

TDD

On 5/27/2011 7:57 AM, Bob wrote:
On May 27, 9:22 am, wrote:
On 5/27/2011 4:00 AM, bob haller wrote:

snip

The new agency would be a fraction of its current size still deliver
mail and cost a lot less to operate.

Some good ideas, but it would have no effect on the deficit because the
postal service is a self-sufficient operation. They occasionally borrow
money when increases in postage rates lag their expenditures, but then
repay it when revenue increases.

It might bring down postage costs if they made some of those cuts. They
could do M W F to half the residences, T, TH, Sat to the other half.
Ironically it's businesses that send out ads and bills that don't want
this type of service cuts. Delaying the receipt of a bill by one day
could mean a delay of three days in the payment reaching the company if
the recipient pays with a check and leaves the envelope for the
mailperson to pick up.

The key to deficit reduction is to increase revenue. Sadly, there are
not a lot of cuts left to be made that will not have negative long-term
consequences. Tax rates are now at historic lows.

Please show us a credible reference that shows that the total tax
burden on Americans is anywhere near historic lows. That means
including federal income tax, state income tax, local income tax,
social security taxes, unemployment taxes,
sales taxes, real estate taxes, personal property taxes, etc.

Let's just look at the federal pictu

Here is tax revenue every 5 years going back to 1980,
together with govt spending, in trillions:

1980 .517 .591
1985 .734 .946
1988 .909 1.06
1990 1.0 1.25
1995 1.35 1.52
2000 2.0 1.79
2005 2.2 2.47
2010 2.2 3.46


I included 1988 to smash the myth that the Reagan tax cuts
created deficits. In fact, those cuts lead to a 40% INCREASE
in govt revenue.

You don't understand the difference between correlation and causation.
You don't understand that without those cuts revenue would have
increased to a far greater extent. The inflation-adjusted growth in
income tax receipts was 9.41% from 1981-1991 and 10.41% from 1982-1992,
the lowest growth of any of the 10-year spans from 1940 to 2007 (however
lower growth occurred from 1998-2008 (5.77%) and 199-2009 (-19.36%), as
a result of the Bush tax cuts and the recession.

Reaganomics was the beginning of the decline of the United States. Too
many people bought into the trickle down myth. History will judge Reagan
harshly.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



Thanks for reminding me. (-: It's true. It's why no permanent progress
can be made. But IIRC, the Dems pointed to the tax breaks that Big Oil is
getting (during one of the most profitable periods ever for them) *after*
the Republicans made a point to began targeting the much smaller social
programs that irk them so mightily. IIRC, NPR and Planned Parenthood
really amounted to chump change compared to the $20B to Pakistan and $20B
for Big Oil and God Only Knows What to the "Whore on Terror." .
I have heard that number tossed around but I can't find anything
near that in the list of "tax expenditures" which is how the Looking
Glass WOrld known as Washington, DC terms deductions. Interesting list.
If you look at it, you have to go to #17 to get to the first solely
corporate piece of welfare. The loss there is only about 1/5th of the
loss to just the cap gains deductions for selling your home.


Yet the are more than willing to shut oil production, etc., not only
cutting jobs directly, but also by increasing oil prices which has an
even greater impact on jobs.

I'm a little confused here. The Congressional Research Office has exposed
the myth that oil prices will rise if we terminate $20 billion of corporate
welfa

http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/201...gas-prices.pdf
Never (meant) to say that. Thus the specifics on oil PRODUCTION as in
calling vast amounts of territory off limits, etc., etc.

--
"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

On Fri, 27 May 2011 12:03:19 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2011 20:44:56 -0500, JimT wrote:

Didn't you just tell someone to FOAD for talking about politics in a
home repair newsgroup?

Jim,

I actually called a troll a "piece of fecal matter".

FOAD = "Feed Our Adorable Dolphins"

A small ground frog that lives in Barney Frank's back yard?

On Fri, 27 May 2011 06:30:57 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
Republicans are going to REFUSE to raise our countries debt limit.

While demading the disassembly of medicare Cutting of SS benefits:
( and lowering the tax rate on the super wealthy familys making over
250 grand from 35% to 25%

I agree excess spending must be cut, but leave my SS medicare etc
ALONE!

The Republicans have refused to cut the $20B in subsidies given to oil
companies

Almost all oil "subsidies" are nothing more than deductions for costs
incurred, just like any other business.

while looking to make "political vengeance" cuts on anything they
feel is socialism.

Socialism *should* be stomped out with a "vengeance". It does no one any good
to rob peter.

Whether it's NPR or Planned Parenthood, helping people
isn't high on their agenda.

Nor should it be. Neither do anything that is a legitimate function of the
federal government.

Otherwise they'd realize there's plenty of good
the such organizations do

Irrelevant. There is a lot of harm they do, also.

that has a proven societal benefit

Utter nonsense.

and that they'd be actually killing US jobs,

NPR and PP jobs, yes, I hope so.

just about the last thing Americans want right
now.

You're full of ****, but everyone knows that.

Killing them seems to be a higher priority since we're still fighting
two wars that are at least as senseless as Vietnam, and certainly longer
lasting and more expensive.

You've forgotten about Obama's wars? He owns them now and has started his one
brand spankin' new one.

But there may be signs that the Tea Party's
effect is perhaps paradoxical. The Republicans lost a key seat in NY State
and even Rove admits that "don't touch my Medicare" played a role::

DOn't touch it and no one will have it. That's a fact!

Democratic talking points snipped

On Thu, 26 May 2011 23:48:02 -0500, "ChairMan" nospam@nospam wrote:

In ,
spewed forth:
On Thu, 26 May 2011 14:51:05 -0700 (PDT), Higgs Boson
wrote:

On May 26, 1:12 pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 5/26/2011 2:58 PM, Country wrote:









On May 26, 10:32 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 5/26/2011 9:48 AM, Country wrote:

On May 26, 9:37 am, Suga Moto wrote:
Republican:
Someone who supports the rights of the unborn, but won't fund
stem cell research that could help the millions who are already
here. The first one to protest abortion rights, and the first
one willing to take a life through capital punishment. Someone
who espouses personal freedom, and then tries to pass
constitutional amendments to restrict it. Someone threatened by
government surplus but unfazed by goverment deficits. Someone
who is pro-business but anti-citizen. Someone who wants to take
away the helping hand, after he's made it to safety. Someone
who holds a cross in one hand and tries to burn it with the
other.

You forgot that they are the party that hates Gays but cruises
for boys in Men's Restrooms at the Airport. LOL.

Could you please post a link to somewhere that lists those
assertions of yours as being part of the Republican platform. I'm
not a Republican and if you claimed the same thing about
Democrats, I'd want to see proof of that too. I have friends in
both parties and never heard any
of them claim that. :-)

TDD

LOL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig

-C-

Nice, a pervert who happens to be a Republican, I'll bet there are
a lot more Democrats who play the skin flute. I still don't see
anything
that proves that's a political platform of the party. I could
probably make reference to Barney Frank

Who happens to be just about the smartest person in Congress,
acknowledged as such by his peers of both Parties

LOL! I almost ****ed my pants!

Depends?

No one would depend on any lefty. They are funny, though.

On May 27, 9:59*pm, SMS wrote:
On 5/27/2011 7:57 AM, Bob wrote:





On May 27, 9:22 am, *wrote:
On 5/27/2011 4:00 AM, bob haller wrote:

snip

The new agency would be a fraction of its current size still deliver
mail and cost a lot less to operate.

Some good ideas, but it would have no effect on the deficit because the
postal service is a self-sufficient operation. They occasionally borrow
money when increases in postage rates lag their expenditures, but then
repay it when revenue increases.

It might bring down postage costs if they made some of those cuts. They
could do M W F to half the residences, T, TH, Sat to the other half.
Ironically it's businesses that send out ads and bills that don't want
this type of service cuts. Delaying the receipt of a bill by one day
could mean a delay of three days in the payment reaching the company if
the recipient pays with a check and leaves the envelope for the
mailperson to pick up.

The key to deficit reduction is to increase revenue. Sadly, there are
not a lot of cuts left to be made that will not have negative long-term
consequences. Tax rates are now at historic lows.

Please show us a credible reference that shows that the total tax
burden on Americans is anywhere near historic lows. *That means
including federal income tax, state income tax, local income tax,
social security taxes, unemployment taxes,
sales taxes, real estate taxes, personal property taxes, etc.

Let's just look at the federal pictu

Here is tax revenue every 5 years going back to 1980,
together with govt spending, in trillions:

1980 *.517 * *.591
1985 *.734 * *.946
1988 *.909 * *1.06
1990 *1.0 * * *1.25
1995 *1.35 * *1.52
2000 *2.0 * * *1.79
2005 *2.2 * * *2.47
2010 *2.2 * * *3.46

I included 1988 to smash the myth that the Reagan tax cuts
created deficits. * In fact, those cuts lead to a 40% INCREASE
in govt revenue.

You don't understand the difference between correlation and causation.
You don't understand that without those cuts revenue would have
increased to a far greater extent.

When Reagan took office the economy was in shambles.
Perhaps you missed the era of stagflation, ie high inflation, high
unemployment and low economic growth. There is no doubt in any
reasonable persons mind that cutting taxes created an unprecedented
economic boom. That in turn lead to a 40% increase in federal
revenue and a revitalization of the American economy. Had taxes
been left at 70%, you would have had 8 years of low economic
growth, high unemployment, and far less tax revenue.

The same thing happened in the early 60's when JFK cut taxes.
Back then there were reasonable Democrats who understood
economics. Sadly, today that is long gone. Today, like you,
they believe in a static model, where if a tax at a rate of 35%
brings in X revenue, then raising it to 70% will bring in 2X.
That fallacy has been demonstrated time and time again
by states raising a variety of taxes, whether on income or
cigarettes, etc, and NOT getting the revenue expected.

And if higher taxes have no effect, then why is it that the
libs maintain that sin taxes work? They like to raise
taxes on cigarettes or soda because it's bad for you and
by doing so, it will force you to do it less. Yet, when it
comes to taxes on income or business, you change
the playing field and assume that it has no effect at
all.

As for Reagan's legacy, I'm comfortable with that.
We've already had quite a long time to put his record
in perspecitve. It's been over 20 years already. And
polls show that he's ranked among the very few at
the top and for good reason:

Inflation fixed
High interest rates fixed
High unemployment fixed
Economic growth fixed
America's respect in the world fixed
Soviet Union fixed and dispatched to the ash heap of history.


Now I know you'll get your shorts all up in a knot
about alleged "huge deficits", that libs have very
selective memory about,
but if you look at the deficits
during his years they were about the same as
his predecessors in terms of their percentage of
GDP. That's the fair way to compare deficits
because then they are in comparison to the
size of the country's economy and it's ability
to support them..

And he never had control of Congress to
be able to really control spending. If you want to
see deficits that are horrific, you need only look
at what's going on now. The deficit this year is
3X as large a percent of GDP as it was during
Reagans term.



..




The inflation-adjusted growth in
income tax receipts was 9.41% from 1981-1991 and 10.41% from 1982-1992,
the lowest growth of any of the 10-year spans from 1940 to 2007 (however
lower growth occurred from 1998-2008 (5.77%) and 199-2009 (-19.36%), as
a result of the Bush tax cuts and the recession.

I'll play that game. Lets' look at the increase in tax revenue for
each
decade after WWII.

1950's 70%
1960's 53%
1970s 24%
1980s 26%
1990s 53%
2000 -16%


First, they are all over the map. Second, the decade PRIOR
to the Reagan tax cuts revenue grew by even less despite
having tax rates that were TWICE as high. Also, the tax
rates in the 90s was very close to where Reagan left
them, yet we had 53% growth in revenue. How is that?

On May 28, 7:58*am, "
wrote:
On May 27, 9:59*pm, SMS wrote:


*When Reagan took office the economy was in shambles.
Perhaps you missed the era of stagflation, ie high inflation, high
unemployment and low economic growth. *There is no doubt in any
reasonable persons mind that cutting taxes created an unprecedented
economic boom. *That in turn lead to a 40% increase in federal
revenue and a revitalization of the American economy. *Had taxes
been left at 70%, you would have had 8 years of low economic
growth, high unemployment, and far less tax revenue.

The same thing happened in the early 60's when JFK cut taxes.
Back then there were reasonable Democrats who understood
economics. *Sadly, today that is long gone. *Today, like you,
they believe in a static model, where if a tax at a rate of 35%
brings in X revenue, then raising it to 70% will bring in 2X.
That fallacy has been demonstrated time and time again
by states raising a variety of taxes, whether on income or
cigarettes, etc, *and NOT getting the revenue expected.



OK, so Regan cut taxes and ran the country into the highest debt than
ever before and is worshiped like a God by conservatives.

Obama does the same and is treated like a pariah by the same people.

-C-

On May 28, 10:06*am, Country wrote:
On May 28, 7:58*am, "
wrote:





On May 27, 9:59*pm, SMS wrote:

*When Reagan took office the economy was in shambles.
Perhaps you missed the era of stagflation, ie high inflation, high
unemployment and low economic growth. *There is no doubt in any
reasonable persons mind that cutting taxes created an unprecedented
economic boom. *That in turn lead to a 40% increase in federal
revenue and a revitalization of the American economy. *Had taxes
been left at 70%, you would have had 8 years of low economic
growth, high unemployment, and far less tax revenue.

The same thing happened in the early 60's when JFK cut taxes.
Back then there were reasonable Democrats who understood
economics. *Sadly, today that is long gone. *Today, like you,
they believe in a static model, where if a tax at a rate of 35%
brings in X revenue, then raising it to 70% will bring in 2X.
That fallacy has been demonstrated time and time again
by states raising a variety of taxes, whether on income or
cigarettes, etc, *and NOT getting the revenue expected.

OK, so Regan cut taxes and ran the country into the highest debt than
ever before and is worshiped like a God by conservatives.

Simple questions. During the Reagan years, did the Republicans
ever have control of the House? How many years did the
Republicans have control of the Senate?



Obama does the same and is treated like a pariah by the same people.

If only it were the same. In 1981 the budget deficit was 2.6% of
GDP.
It peaked a few years later at 6%. By 1989, the deficit was back down
to 2.6%. During the eight years of Reagan the deficit averaged 4.5%
of GDP.

Now let's look at the current situation. In 2009, the budget deficit
was
10% of GDP. In 2010, 9%. And for 2011 it's estimated to be 11%.
In other words, Obama is running deficits of 2 or 3 times those of
Reagan. And under Reagan, we saw the economy surge and boom.
Under Obama and the Dems, we're still waiting.....

Now let's look at the current situation. * In 2009, the budget deficit
was
10% of GDP. *In 2010, 9%. *And for 2011 it's estimated to be 11%.
In other words, Obama is running deficits of 2 or 3 times those of
Reagan. * And under Reagan, we saw the economy surge and boom.
Under Obama and the Dems, we're still waiting

yeah but obama came into office at the time of the largest economic
collapse other than the great depression..

far larger recession than one during reagan......

and with 2 long term wars obama inherited too

wrote in message
...



If only it were the same. In 1981 the budget deficit was 2.6% of
GDP.
It peaked a few years later at 6%. By 1989, the deficit was back down
to 2.6%. During the eight years of Reagan the deficit averaged 4.5%
of GDP.


What's your point? That Carter's deficit was low & Reagan average was
higher? You do know, that's the point you made.

Now let's look at the current situation. In 2009, the budget deficit
was
10% of GDP. In 2010, 9%. And for 2011 it's estimated to be 11%.
In other words, Obama is running deficits of 2 or 3 times those of
Reagan. And under Reagan, we saw the economy surge and boom.
Under Obama and the Dems, we're still waiting.....

Ok, again, what's your point? The deficit (budget) for 2009, was approved
in under the previous administration. So you're saying O is doing a better
job.

Here we go with Reagan again. Reagan took office with a 7.5% unemployment,
by November 1982 he had a whopping 10.8% unemployment rate. After 2 years,
it was 10.4%. January of 1985, it was at 7.3%. Not really anything to be
chest thumping about.

The buzz would "surge", backfires within the first 4 years.

On 5/28/2011 7:06 AM, Country wrote:

OK, so Regan cut taxes and ran the country into the highest debt than
ever before and is worshiped like a God by conservatives.

It was a great party while it lasted.

George H.W. Bush inherited a mess, just like Obama inherited a mess. He
raised taxes to try to reduce the deficit as well as to pay for the S&L
crisis caused by Reagan's deregulation. He acted responsibly. You saw
what happened to him.

Obama is headed to a one-term presidency. He just upset a key large
block of voters in Florida, a swing state that he can't afford to lose.
As long as the Republican presidential candidate is not someone who
signed onto the Paul Ryan Medicare fiasco, and not one of the lunatics
like Palin, Bachmann, or Gingrich, Obama will have a tough time.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
On 5/28/2011 7:06 AM, Country wrote:

OK, so Regan cut taxes and ran the country into the highest debt than
ever before and is worshiped like a God by conservatives.

It was a great party while it lasted.

George H.W. Bush inherited a mess, just like Obama inherited a mess. He
raised taxes to try to reduce the deficit as well as to pay for the S&L
crisis caused by Reagan's deregulation. He acted responsibly. You saw
what happened to him.

You've got to be kidding! Apparently you either forgotten, or never heard
of the American Dream Downpayment Act. You may want educate yourself about
this, before making an absurd statement like "He acted responsibly" again.





Obama is headed to a one-term presidency. He just upset a key large block
of voters in Florida, a swing state that he can't afford to lose. As long
as the Republican presidential candidate is not someone who signed onto
the Paul Ryan Medicare fiasco, and not one of the lunatics like Palin,
Bachmann, or Gingrich, Obama will have a tough time.

In article ,
SMS wrote:

On 5/28/2011 7:06 AM, Country wrote:

OK, so Regan cut taxes and ran the country into the highest debt than
ever before and is worshiped like a God by conservatives.

It was a great party while it lasted.

George H.W. Bush inherited a mess, just like Obama inherited a mess. He
raised taxes to try to reduce the deficit as well as to pay for the S&L
crisis caused by Reagan's deregulation. He acted responsibly. You saw
what happened to him.
Yeah he got mugged by the Dems. The Budget "Summit" would only be
attended by the Dems if GHW put tax increases on the table along with
spending cuts in a "bipartisan" manner. The increases the Dems insisted
on were passed (the cuts somehow never materialized) and the Dems then
proceeded to beat GHW about the face and head after he signed
essentially their tax increase.
I think this goes along way toward to explaining GW's distrust of
the theory of "bipartisanship."


Obama is headed to a one-term presidency. He just upset a key large
block of voters in Florida, a swing state that he can't afford to lose.
As long as the Republican presidential candidate is not someone who
signed onto the Paul Ryan Medicare fiasco, and not one of the lunatics
like Palin, Bachmann, or Gingrich, Obama will have a tough time.

A couple big "ifs" there (g)

--
"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

On May 28, 12:29*pm, "TJ" wrote:
wrote in message

....

If only it were the same. * *In 1981 the budget deficit was 2.6% of
GDP.
It peaked a few years later at 6%. *By 1989, the deficit was back down
to 2.6%. *During the eight years of Reagan the deficit averaged 4.5%
of GDP.

What's your point? That Carter's deficit was low & Reagan average was
higher? You do know, that's the point you made.

The point is that the deficit was about the same percent of GDP when
Reagan left as it was when he entered office. And that Obama is
running deficits of 2 or 3X of any that Reagan ran.



Now let's look at the current situation. * In 2009, the budget deficit
was
10% of GDP. *In 2010, 9%. *And for 2011 it's estimated to be 11%.
In other words, Obama is running deficits of 2 or 3 times those of
Reagan. * And under Reagan, we saw the economy surge and boom.
Under Obama and the Dems, we're still waiting.....

Ok, again, what's your point? The deficit (budget) for 2009, was approved
in under the previous administration. So you're saying O is doing a better
job.

No, he's doing what no other president in American history has
done. He's increasing spending and the budget Obama just submitted
a few months ago shows not only a $1.7 tril deficit for this year, but
projected deficits averaging $1tril a year FOR THE NEXT DECADE.
That's over 7% of GDP, a level never reached under Reagan. The
worst deficit during the Reagan years was 6% and that was for a
single year. Maybe that's
your definition of doing a better job, but it's not mine.

BTW, which party controlled the House for the entire Reagan
presidency? Where do spending bills originate?






Here we go with Reagan again. Reagan took office with a 7.5% unemployment,
by November 1982 he had a whopping 10.8% unemployment rate. After 2 years,
it was 10.4%. *January of 1985, it was at 7.3%. *Not really anything to be
chest thumping about.

The buzz would "surge", backfires within the first 4 years.

LOL. What a hack job. Maybe you missed it, but Reagan left office
in
Jan 1989 with an unemployement rate of 5.5%. And unemployment
isn't the only economic indicator. While achieving 5.5% unemployment
interest rates were cut in half, and so inflation was stopped dead in
it's tracks. Maybe you forgot what a mess this country was thanks
to Jimmy Carter and the Dems. but some of us haven't. And yes
that indeed is worthy of chest pumping.

The best the libs can do is bitch on about the "Reagan deficits".
Forgetting to tell everyone that it was Democrats that controlled
the House during all of the Reagan years. Compared to the
above and winning the Cold War, the modest deficits, which
pale compared to the current ones are insignificant. It's like
finding gold bars buried in your backyard and bitching because
they are tarnished.

On 5/28/2011 11:33 AM, wrote:
On May 28, 10:06 am, wrote:
On May 28, 7:58 am,
wrote:





On May 27, 9:59 pm, wrote:

When Reagan took office the economy was in shambles.
Perhaps you missed the era of stagflation, ie high inflation, high
unemployment and low economic growth. There is no doubt in any
reasonable persons mind that cutting taxes created an unprecedented
economic boom. That in turn lead to a 40% increase in federal
revenue and a revitalization of the American economy. Had taxes
been left at 70%, you would have had 8 years of low economic
growth, high unemployment, and far less tax revenue.

The same thing happened in the early 60's when JFK cut taxes.
Back then there were reasonable Democrats who understood
economics. Sadly, today that is long gone. Today, like you,
they believe in a static model, where if a tax at a rate of 35%
brings in X revenue, then raising it to 70% will bring in 2X.
That fallacy has been demonstrated time and time again
by states raising a variety of taxes, whether on income or
cigarettes, etc, and NOT getting the revenue expected.

OK, so Regan cut taxes and ran the country into the highest debt than
ever before and is worshiped like a God by conservatives.

Simple questions. During the Reagan years, did the Republicans
ever have control of the House? How many years did the
Republicans have control of the Senate?



Obama does the same and is treated like a pariah by the same people.

If only it were the same. In 1981 the budget deficit was 2.6% of
GDP.
It peaked a few years later at 6%. By 1989, the deficit was back down
to 2.6%. During the eight years of Reagan the deficit averaged 4.5%
of GDP.

Now let's look at the current situation. In 2009, the budget deficit
was
10% of GDP. In 2010, 9%. And for 2011 it's estimated to be 11%.
In other words, Obama is running deficits of 2 or 3 times those of
Reagan. And under Reagan, we saw the economy surge and boom.
Under Obama and the Dems, we're still waiting.....



And again, why does everyone keep giving POTUS the credit/blame for what
the 535 fools on the hill do/don't do? The president has amazingly
little actual power over taxes and spending, short of unilaterally
shutting things down and forcing a constitutional crisis. (See Nixon and
line-item veto proposal.) If the 535 would actually do their damn jobs,
we would not be in this mess. We are definitely getting the government
somebody is paying for.

Long past time for a real 3rd political party, to throw a scare in the
1.5 parties we currently have.

--
aem sends...

In article ,
aemeijers wrote:


Long past time for a real 3rd political party, to throw a scare in the
1.5 parties we currently have.
I tend to agree with Claire Wolfe:
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the
system, but too early to shoot the *******s."

--
"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

wrote in message
...
On May 28, 12:29 pm, "TJ" wrote:
wrote in message

The point is that the deficit was about the same percent of GDP when
Reagan left as it was when he entered office. And that Obama is
running deficits of 2 or 3X of any that Reagan ran.

Good grief, he was handed it, and you want him to wave a magic wand. Are
you really that silly?



Now let's look at the current situation. In 2009, the budget deficit
was
10% of GDP. In 2010, 9%. And for 2011 it's estimated to be 11%.
In other words, Obama is running deficits of 2 or 3 times those of
Reagan. And under Reagan, we saw the economy surge and boom.
Under Obama and the Dems, we're still waiting.....

Ok, again, what's your point? The deficit (budget) for 2009, was approved
in under the previous administration. So you're saying O is doing a
better
job.


BTW, which party controlled the House for the entire Reagan
presidency? Where do spending bills originate?

And who signs them? LMAO! I always love how a far right will flip flop
from POTUS to representatives. You'll also want to read my reply further
down, I'm sure you'll walk away babbling.






Here we go with Reagan again. Reagan took office with a 7.5%
unemployment,
by November 1982 he had a whopping 10.8% unemployment rate. After 2
years,
it was 10.4%. January of 1985, it was at 7.3%. Not really anything to be
chest thumping about.

The buzz would "surge", backfires within the first 4 years.

LOL. What a hack job. Maybe you missed it, but Reagan left office
in
Jan 1989 with an unemployement rate of 5.5%. And unemployment
isn't the only economic indicator. While achieving 5.5% unemployment
interest rates were cut in half, and so inflation was stopped dead in
it's tracks. Maybe you forgot what a mess this country was thanks
to Jimmy Carter and the Dems. but some of us haven't. And yes
that indeed is worthy of chest pumping.

Yep, LMAO @ you. So, you want to side step the issue Reagan had the highest
unemployment in decades. That's your choice, doesn't change the facts of
what the UI was in the _facts_ I stated. I'd post the link for you, but
you're gonna have to do your own homework. I always love how a Reagan
worshipper attacks the messenger. Calling me a hack for bringing the facts
to the table, shows your colors. Gotta love it!!

Here's some more facts for ya:

For the first six years of the Reagan presidency (1981-87) The Republicans
controlled the Senate, and the Democrats the House of Representatives

In 1986, the Democrats recaptured the Senate (while retaining the House)
and thereafter remained in control of both chamber until losing both in
1994.

Now, what about those final years UI got back into check????? UI was high
under Reagan. It wasn't until both houses were controlled by Democrats,
when UI got into check.


The best the libs can do is bitch on about the "Reagan deficits".
Forgetting to tell everyone that it was Democrats that controlled
the House during all of the Reagan years. Compared to the
above and winning the Cold War, the modest deficits, which
pale compared to the current ones are insignificant. It's like
finding gold bars buried in your backyard and bitching because
they are tarnished.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm an independent. I find it quite
humorous running across those who worshipped Reagan and deny facts.

Reagan's trickle down theory has long been debunked. Your tantrum isn't
going to change the facts. You're free to honor the guy known for wearing
diapers, that's what is great about America.

On Sat, 28 May 2011 18:30:24 -0400, "TJ" wrote:

Babbling snipped

And who signs them? LMAO! I always love how a far right will flip flop
from POTUS to representatives. You'll also want to read my reply further
down, I'm sure you'll walk away babbling.

....and compete with you?

more babbling snipped

On May 27, 6:59*pm, SMS wrote:
On 5/27/2011 7:57 AM, Bob wrote:









On May 27, 9:22 am, *wrote:
On 5/27/2011 4:00 AM, bob haller wrote:

snip

The new agency would be a fraction of its current size still deliver
mail and cost a lot less to operate.

Some good ideas, but it would have no effect on the deficit because the
postal service is a self-sufficient operation. They occasionally borrow
money when increases in postage rates lag their expenditures, but then
repay it when revenue increases.

It might bring down postage costs if they made some of those cuts. They
could do M W F to half the residences, T, TH, Sat to the other half.
Ironically it's businesses that send out ads and bills that don't want
this type of service cuts. Delaying the receipt of a bill by one day
could mean a delay of three days in the payment reaching the company if
the recipient pays with a check and leaves the envelope for the
mailperson to pick up.

The key to deficit reduction is to increase revenue. Sadly, there are
not a lot of cuts left to be made that will not have negative long-term
consequences. Tax rates are now at historic lows.

Please show us a credible reference that shows that the total tax
burden on Americans is anywhere near historic lows. *That means
including federal income tax, state income tax, local income tax,
social security taxes, unemployment taxes,
sales taxes, real estate taxes, personal property taxes, etc.

Let's just look at the federal pictu

Here is tax revenue every 5 years going back to 1980,
together with govt spending, in trillions:

1980 *.517 * *.591
1985 *.734 * *.946
1988 *.909 * *1.06
1990 *1.0 * * *1.25
1995 *1.35 * *1.52
2000 *2.0 * * *1.79
2005 *2.2 * * *2.47
2010 *2.2 * * *3.46

I included 1988 to smash the myth that the Reagan tax cuts
created deficits. * In fact, those cuts lead to a 40% INCREASE
in govt revenue.

You don't understand the difference between correlation and causation.

Most of the hysterical pseudo-Libertarians on this NG don't. I doubt
if they even understand the terms.

..
You don't understand that without those cuts revenue would have
increased to a far greater extent. The inflation-adjusted growth in
income tax receipts was 9.41% from 1981-1991 and 10.41% from 1982-1992,
the lowest growth of any of the 10-year spans from 1940 to 2007 (however
lower growth occurred from 1998-2008 (5.77%) and 199-2009 (-19.36%), as
a result of the Bush tax cuts and the recession.

Reaganomics was the beginning of the decline of the United States. Too
many people bought into the trickle down myth. History will judge Reagan
harshly.

As well as the shrewd, determined operators who carried his campaign
forward, led from behind the scenes by the toad called Roger Ailes.

Recommended reading: New "Rolling Stone" magazine, article on Roger
Ailes, the evil spirit behind the carefully engineered growth of the
Mad Dogs. Ailes is the evil genius behind Fox News, which is the
glaringly obvious broadcast outlet of the Mad Dog Republicans. How
the FCC lets Fox "News" retain their broadcast license is an accurate
indicator of where the real power lies.

HB

On May 27, 9:49*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 06:30:57 -0400, "Robert Green"

wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message
...
Republicans are going to REFUSE to raise our countries debt limit.
[...]

Almost all oil "subsidies" are nothing more than deductions for costs
incurred, just like any other business.

(Falls down laughing hysterically. 1984 has come, but not gone.
Let's hear it for NewSpeak and GroupThink...)

[...]

HB