Watching the turd show in Iowa on satellite.
They all seem to forget it was them caused all this mess.
All full of false promise. Lying toads the lot of them.

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 19:31:43 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

Watching the turd show in Iowa on satellite.
They all seem to forget it was them caused all this mess.
All full of false promise. Lying toads the lot of them.

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich.

Could you please elaborate. State facts not your opinion.

On 8/13/2011 2:26 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 19:31:43 +0100,
wrote:

Watching the turd show in Iowa on satellite.
They all seem to forget it was them caused all this mess.
All full of false promise. Lying toads the lot of them.

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich.

Could you please elaborate. State facts not your opinion.


What is it about "Every solution involves making the poor pay for the
mistakes of the rich" is not factual?

-C-

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 14:34:16 -0500, Country
wrote:

On 8/13/2011 2:26 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 19:31:43 +0100,
wrote:

Watching the turd show in Iowa on satellite.
They all seem to forget it was them caused all this mess.
All full of false promise. Lying toads the lot of them.

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich.

Could you please elaborate. State facts not your opinion.


What is it about "Every solution involves making the poor pay for the
mistakes of the rich" is not factual?

-C-
Like I said to the other lib, give me an example.

On 8/13/2011 2:31 PM, harryagain wrote:
Watching the turd show in Iowa on satellite.
They all seem to forget it was them caused all this mess.
All full of false promise. Lying toads the lot of them.

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich.



when did Frank, Waters, and Raines become republicans?

On 8/13/2011 2:31 PM, harryagain wrote:
Watching the turd show in Iowa on satellite.
They all seem to forget it was them caused all this mess.
All full of false promise. Lying toads the lot of them.

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich.


The turd's in DC.
You got to get over your commie class warfare stuff.
Does not go over good in a DIY group.

On 2011-08-13, harryagain wrote:

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich.

Yer kidding yerself if you think it's a mistake.

nb

On Aug 13, 3:26*pm, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 19:31:43 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

Watching the turd show in Iowa on satellite.
They all seem to forget it was them caused all this mess.
All full of false promise. Lying toads the lot of them.

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich..

Could you please elaborate. State facts not your opinion.

Must not have been the same debate we were watching.
I didn't say any proposal that involved making the poor
pay for the mistakes of the rich. I saw very little in the
way of specific proposals at all. As for the "mistake",
the biggest mistake facing the country is spending that
is out of control. It's risen by 40% since 2008. Has
your families level of spending increased like that?
Are you borrowing 40% of your family's annual budget
to support that spending? Every one of the Republicans
at that debate would substantially cut that spending.
If that's your defintion of making the poor pay, I say
so be it. If we took the budget back to what it was
a mere 3 years ago, which isn't radical, the deficit
would be eliminated. I could live with my spending
level of 3 years ago. Why can't the feds?

On 8/13/2011 5:37 PM, wrote:
On Aug 13, 3:26 pm, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 19:31:43 +0100,
wrote:

Watching the turd show in Iowa on satellite.
They all seem to forget it was them caused all this mess.
All full of false promise. Lying toads the lot of them.

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich.

Could you please elaborate. State facts not your opinion.

Must not have been the same debate we were watching.
I didn't say any proposal that involved making the poor
pay for the mistakes of the rich. I saw very little in the
way of specific proposals at all. As for the "mistake",
the biggest mistake facing the country is spending that
is out of control. It's risen by 40% since 2008. Has
your families level of spending increased like that?
Are you borrowing 40% of your family's annual budget
to support that spending? Every one of the Republicans
at that debate would substantially cut that spending.
If that's your defintion of making the poor pay, I say
so be it. If we took the budget back to what it was
a mere 3 years ago, which isn't radical, the deficit
would be eliminated. I could live with my spending
level of 3 years ago. Why can't the feds?

Because it's difficult to buy votes without money, and it doesn't matter
a lick to them, that it's borrowed money.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 19:31:43 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

Watching the turd show in Iowa on satellite.
They all seem to forget it was them caused all this mess.
All full of false promise. Lying toads the lot of them.

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich.

Didn't see any solutions.
But otherwise you're right.

--Vic

"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2011-08-13, harryagain wrote:

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich.

Yer kidding yerself if you think it's a mistake.

Heh, pre-meditated.... very good!
And Joseph Steiglitz would agree (nobelier in economics). See the charlie
rose interview, archived on charlierose.com.
--
EA



nb

Gordon Shumway wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 19:31:43 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

Watching the turd show in Iowa on satellite.
They all seem to forget it was them caused all this mess.
All full of false promise. Lying toads the lot of them.

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich.

Could you please elaborate. State facts not your opinion.

I got sick watching a lot of attention seeking, power hungry retards.
American capitalism caused the worlds problems.
The culprits have not been made to pay.
These are also the same people that destroyed America and are responsible
for the loss hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and sent thousands of
(poor)American boys away to die for a lie. Now their poor parents are going
to be made even poorer.
These are the people that have hamstrung the present government for their
own personalgain.
The problems they have created with their failed ideas are very likely
insurmountable.
There representatives ignore these facts and prate false promises that
cannot be met.
Not one word of apology for their abject failure
All they can think of is more of the same.
Absolute scum.
..

wrote in message
...
On Aug 13, 3:26 pm, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 19:31:43 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

Watching the turd show in Iowa on satellite.
They all seem to forget it was them caused all this mess.
All full of false promise. Lying toads the lot of them.

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich.

Could you please elaborate. State facts not your opinion.

Must not have been the same debate we were watching.
I didn't say any proposal that involved making the poor
pay for the mistakes of the rich. I saw very little in the
way of specific proposals at all. As for the "mistake",
the biggest mistake facing the country is spending that
is out of control. It's risen by 40% since 2008. Has
your families level of spending increased like that?
Are you borrowing 40% of your family's annual budget
to support that spending? Every one of the Republicans
at that debate would substantially cut that spending.
If that's your defintion of making the poor pay, I say
so be it. If we took the budget back to what it was
a mere 3 years ago, which isn't radical, the deficit
would be eliminated. I could live with my spending
level of 3 years ago. Why can't the feds?

You are a half wit. The cost of your debt has to be repaid, that is where
expenditure is rising and will rise even more without AAA. Debts incurred
/originated by Bushturd and his cronies and his phoney wars.
It will end in default most likely, you can't just go back. And if it does,
we can all look out.

"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2011-08-13, harryagain wrote:

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich.

Yer kidding yerself if you think it's a mistake.

nb

Yes, that may be true. The greed culture.

harryagain wrote:
"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2011-08-13, harryagain wrote:

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the
rich.

Yer kidding yerself if you think it's a mistake.

nb

Yes, that may be true. The greed culture.

Greed is good.

On 2011-08-14, Existential Angst wrote:

Heh, pre-meditated.... very good!
And Joseph Steiglitz would agree (nobelier in economics). See the charlie
rose interview, archived on charlierose.com.

The financial wizards are playing the system like a cheap violin. No
different than code bois hacking computer code. Notice how the same
thing keeps occuring. Savings and loan fiasco, dot com boom, housing
loan debacle, bail outs. It's no coincidence the same ppl are
piloting govt financial regulatory agencies through 4 administration
changes. According to the latest Time magazine, it's now Europe's
turn to crash and burn. They appear to be right on schedule.

nb

On Aug 14, 3:07*am, "harryagain" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Aug 13, 3:26 pm, Gordon Shumway wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 19:31:43 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

Watching the turd show in Iowa on satellite.
They all seem to forget it was them caused all this mess.
All full of false promise. Lying toads the lot of them.

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich.

Could you please elaborate. State facts not your opinion.

Must not have been the same debate we were watching.
I didn't say any proposal that involved making the poor
pay for the mistakes of the rich. *I saw very little in the
way of specific proposals at all. *As for the "mistake",
the biggest mistake facing the country is spending that
is out of control. *It's risen by 40% since 2008. *Has
your families level of spending increased like that?
Are you borrowing 40% of your family's annual budget
to support that spending? * Every one of the Republicans
at that debate would substantially cut that spending.
If that's your defintion of making the poor pay, I say
so be it. *If we took the budget back to what it was
a mere 3 years ago, which isn't radical, the deficit
would be eliminated. * I could live with my spending
level of 3 years ago. *Why can't the feds?

You are a half wit. *The cost of your debt has to be repaid, that is where
expenditure is rising and will rise even more without AAA.

Interest on the national debt was $261bil in 2008. This
year it's $284bil. That's an increase of $23bil or 9%. Also, the
deficit this year is $1.6tril, meaning thatif we take out the
increased interest paid on the debt, it would still be $1.577tril.
Meanwhile total spending has gone up by 40% over the
same period. I'll leave it for others to judge who the half-wit
is here and who has the facts.




Debts incurred
/originated by Bushturd and his cronies and his phoney wars.
It will end in default most likely, you can't just go back. *And if it does,
we can all look out.

Obama added $850bil in new stimulus spending his very
first year. So, don't put all the blame on Bush. Here we are
two and a half years after Bush and Obama's budget is
running a deficit of $1.6tril, a level never seen in the Bush
years. Yes, there was too much spending during the Bush
years, but for some reason, that's where the libs memories
end. Obama has taken reckless spending and borrowing
to levels never seen before.

On Aug 14, 7:02*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
harryagain wrote:
"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2011-08-13, harryagain wrote:

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the
rich.

Yer kidding yerself if you think it's a mistake.

nb

Yes, that may be true. *The greed culture.

Greed is good.



michelle bachman a tea party republican is a shining example of
someone wanting to ruin our country. heres what she stands for.

no higher taxes even on the super wealthy making over 250 grand a
year.

elminate the minimum wage

elminate social security and medicare as we know it today.

tea party is just for the super wealthy

wrote in message news:2fe2218c-c781-44cd-8c83-

Obama added $850bil in new stimulus spending his very first year. So,
don't put all the blame on Bush. Here we are two and a half years after
Bush and Obama's budget is running a deficit of $1.6tril, a level never seen
in the Bush years. Yes, there was too much spending during the Bush years,
but for some reason, that's where the libs memories end. Obama has taken
reckless spending and borrowing to levels never seen before.

You're too smart to *really* believe what you just wrote. "Reckless
spending?" The economy, as handed over by Bush, was in free fall and near
collapse. Stimulus spending, while it might seem reckless to you, cushioned
the blows delivered by Wall Street's ruthless repackaging of America's real
estate wealth into mortgage securities and selling it abroad. Without that
"reckless spending" to help free up frozen credit we would probably be in a
deeper abyss than the first Great Depression.

A point that non-libs seem to forget it that Obama had *nothing to do* with
the collapse. He simply got stuck with the thankless job of fixing the
incredible mess that under-regulated financial markets and reckless spending
wreaked on America. Blaming him for trying to right a sinking ship is more
than a little disingenuous. It's partisan BS taken into the stratosphere.

At least you sort of acknowledge that Bush spent too much on needless wars,
the "junk touching" TSA agency and about a trillion in new and improved
security measures. We've spent at least 100 times and perhaps 1000 times
the total of the actual monetary damage done on 9/11. Would you pay $1
million in insurance premiums to protect against a $40,000 loss? No, of
course not, but that's exactly what the US did because it was so "terrified"
by terrorists. Bush's spending will probably go down in history as the most
wasteful expenditures ever made by the Feds. Yet you're eager to blame
Obama for trying to clean up the mess of Bush spending trillions he/we
couldn't afford.

We've heard your endless criticism of Obama, Chet. Now I'd be interested in
hearing what *you* would have done, President Hayes, had you been Obama in
2008, entering office with the stock market dropping like a paralyzed
falcon, a $700 billion bill for Bush's bailout payments to Wall Street on
your desk, credit markets frozen like Antarctica in winter and major
investment banks and manufacturers staring down the barrel of bankruptcy.
It's easy to find fault - a lot easier than finding solutions.

--
Bobby G.

On 08/14/2011 06:02 AM, HeyBub wrote:
harryagain wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 2011-08-13, wrote:

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the
rich.

Yer kidding yerself if you think it's a mistake.

nb

Yes, that may be true. The greed culture.

Greed is good.


not necessarily

" wrote in
:

On Aug 14, 3:07*am, "harryagain" wrote:
wrote in message

.
.. On Aug 13, 3:26 pm, Gordon Shumway wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 19:31:43 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

Watching the turd show in Iowa on satellite.
They all seem to forget it was them caused all this mess.
All full of false promise. Lying toads the lot of them.

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of
the ri
ch.

Could you please elaborate. State facts not your opinion.

Must not have been the same debate we were watching.
I didn't say any proposal that involved making the poor
pay for the mistakes of the rich. *I saw very little in the
way of specific proposals at all. *As for the "mistake",
the biggest mistake facing the country is spending that
is out of control. *It's risen by 40% since 2008. *Has
your families level of spending increased like that?
Are you borrowing 40% of your family's annual budget
to support that spending? * Every one of the Republicans
at that debate would substantially cut that spending.
If that's your defintion of making the poor pay, I say
so be it. *If we took the budget back to what it was
a mere 3 years ago, which isn't radical, the deficit
would be eliminated. * I could live with my spending
level of 3 years ago. *Why can't the feds?

You are a half wit. *The cost of your debt has to be repaid, that is
wh
ere
expenditure is rising and will rise even more without AAA.

Interest on the national debt was $261bil in 2008. This
year it's $284bil. That's an increase of $23bil or 9%. Also, the
deficit this year is $1.6tril, meaning thatif we take out the
increased interest paid on the debt, it would still be $1.577tril.
Meanwhile total spending has gone up by 40% over the
same period. I'll leave it for others to judge who the half-wit
is here and who has the facts.




Debts incurred
/originated by Bushturd and his cronies and his phoney wars.
It will end in default most likely, you can't just go back. *And if
it
does,
we can all look out.

Obama added $850bil in new stimulus spending his very
first year. So, don't put all the blame on Bush. Here we are
two and a half years after Bush and Obama's budget is
running a deficit of $1.6tril, a level never seen in the Bush
years. Yes, there was too much spending during the Bush
years, but for some reason, that's where the libs memories
end. Obama has taken reckless spending and borrowing
to levels never seen before.

BS. If you want another Depression with 20+ % unemployment, do go and
cut everything but the pentagon and Congress's expenses.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Must not have been the same debate we were watching.
I didn't say any proposal that involved making the poor
pay for the mistakes of the rich. I saw very little in the
way of specific proposals at all.

Me, too. What I saw was politicians wanting to take away money from the
rich and give it to "poor" (translates lazy and won't work) people. After
taking their usual 60%, that is.

You must understand that we are not dealing with reasonable rational human
beings here. Those who have or have had jobs, understand budgeting and
living within their means. We're talking about lifelong slackers who have
only cashed government checks, and who now want more from the Head Person In
Charge, so all is fair in Pollyannashire.

If we'd find a way to tax all that crack and meth and weed that they sell,
we'd be out of the woods in about a month.

HTH

Steve

"Steve B" wrote in
:

If we'd find a way to tax all that crack and meth and weed that they
sell, we'd be out of the woods in about a month.


Good idea, but, as you said, how???

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Aug 14, 11:09*am, "Steve B" wrote:
Must not have been the same debate we were watching.
I didn't say any proposal that involved making the poor
pay for the mistakes of the rich. *I saw very little in the
way of specific proposals at all.

Me, too. *What I saw was politicians wanting to take away money from the
rich and give it to "poor" (translates lazy and won't work) people. *After
taking their usual 60%, that is.

Must have been watching a debate in a different universe.
I saw everyone of them talking about cutting spending and
not increasing taxes. How that translates into taking money
from the rich and giving it to the poor is a mystery. Sure you
weren't watching the Dems?



You must understand that we are not dealing with reasonable rational human
beings here. *Those who have or have had jobs, understand budgeting and
living within their means. *We're talking about lifelong slackers who have
only cashed government checks, and who now want more from the Head Person In
Charge, so all is fair in Pollyannashire.

If we'd find a way to tax all that crack and meth and weed that they sell,
we'd be out of the woods in about a month.

HTH

Steve

"Han" wrote


BS. If you want another Depression with 20+ % unemployment, do go and
cut everything but the pentagon and Congress's expenses.
Best regards
Han

What? Cut Congress's expenses as: a private barber shop or three in federal
buildings charging $40 per FREE haircut .......... sign here please? First
class chef(s) and staff and cafeterias all over the capitol with that FREE
sign here, please? Dinner for hundreds for the League of Orgasmic Intensity
as Affected by Urban Noise League? Several gymnasiums so that Barney Frank
can go trolling? (he certainly doesn't exercise in there) OOdles and
OOdles of staff, above and beyond what is necessary? Franking for needless
correspondence to make mass mailings to the folks back home? Printing of
said literature, and not just Xerox, but full color graphics on spendy
equipment? (labor, paper, ink, postage, and overhead about $4 per mailing)
Flying all over with frivolous excuses like the current convention in Maui
to discuss problems down in the Indian Nation? (Seems like they could have
had that in Gallup, NM so some of the locals could have participated.) I
wonder how many citizens of the Indian Nation made it to Maui to voice their
concerns. Endless rounds of golf and government paid for entertainment for
a certain Nigerian citizen and his cohort Thunder Thighs? (I have NEVER
EVER seen the man go to his pocket for money, and believe he carries no cash
whatsoever.) Massive spending so that Thunder Thighs can tell us all how we
should eat, and what we should feed our children ..................HEY, YOU
GONNA KEEP ALL THAT KFC AND TATERS ON YOUR END OF THE TABLE ALL NIGHT?
Paying for 10 or 60 lackeys and friends of Michelle My Belle to go on trips
on wasteful jets? A redundancy of hairdressers so that no matter what, not
enough of them could die or be killed in an enemy attack that Michelle My
Belle would go uncoiffed? FREE THIS, FREE THAT, THINGS THAT EVERY OTHER
NORMAL UNWASHED AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS TO PAY OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET? These
two have more worker bees encircling them than a queen bee in a hive. And
all pair hefty salaries, medical and retirements.

I think I chose the wrong career sometimes. But then, I see how it works,
and in order to move into the King's Court, you must distance yourself for
life from the unwashed rabble, lest they contaminate you. Or the King. Or
Thunder Thighs.

I watch youtube videos of hellfire missiles exploding enemy positions at
$82,000 per clip, and find them more cost effective than a dinner costing
twice that for the Save the Striped Sonoran Desert Chipmunk and its Friends
League.

Of the two, I'll take the hellfire, and the League can meet in the back room
at McDonalds and pay for it themselves.

Steve

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


You're too smart to *really* believe what you just wrote. "Reckless
spending?" The economy, as handed over by Bush, was in free fall and near
collapse. Stimulus spending, while it might seem reckless to you, cushioned
the blows delivered by Wall Street's ruthless repackaging of America's real
estate wealth into mortgage securities and selling it abroad. Without that
"reckless spending" to help free up frozen credit we would probably be in a
deeper abyss than the first Great Depression.
You are too smart to **really** believe what you just wrote. Heck
there was a CBO report within the last couple of months that showed a
hefty part of the stimulus money (especially on "shovel-ready" projects)
hasn't been spent yet.


A point that non-libs seem to forget it that Obama had *nothing to do* with
the collapse. He simply got stuck with the thankless job of fixing the
incredible mess that under-regulated financial markets and reckless spending
wreaked on America. Blaming him for trying to right a sinking ship is more
than a little disingenuous. It's partisan BS taken into the stratosphere.

I'd agree with last part. The mess was very much 20 years in the
making and much of the deregulation was enabled by LEGISLATION passed by
Congress, some as far back as the Clinton Administration. Heck the
repeal of Glass-Stegal, for instance, was approved by a voice vote in
the Senate. Same with most of the other laws that were changed. The ONLY
person I can find without blood on his hands in this mess is Barney
Frank who consistently voted against these measures every chance he got.
(It boils me something fierce to have respect him--grin)
This was inevitable given the psychology of humans. We had a very
long run of good times with even the recessions being short and shallow
by historical standards. We had good times to the point that we forgot
about bad times, and figured it would go on forever.
For instance, the personal savings rate has been negative (my
definition is not necessarily that of the economists. I say if the
savings rate goes down from one year to the next, that is a negative
savings rate) since the late 80s. Even see a downward trend in how much
it increases during recessions, a time when traditionally savings rates
skyrocket.
The average American was spending much more than making. And, this
was not only in housing, but across the board. The same was being seen
in Corporate America which had their equivalent in overleveraging.
Largely because the psychology of the situation that thinks a tree grows
to the sky. It is fascinating that this pattern is much more similar to
when you are expecting inflation (and thus buy things on credit to pay
it back in cheaper dollars). I still haven't figured that one out.
Whether they were mimicing Washington or Washington was taking its
cue from the Public, is an interesting discussion I don't want to get
into (g).
Thus, when the bubble of bubbles broke, NOBODY, consumers, governments
or corporate had any money to pull us out. However, as I noted, this is
hardly solely Bush's problem any more than it is Obama's. This is a
financial cluster f*** with many fathers over literally generations.


At least you sort of acknowledge that Bush spent too much on needless wars,
the "junk touching" TSA agency and about a trillion in new and improved
security measures. We've spent at least 100 times and perhaps 1000 times
the total of the actual monetary damage done on 9/11. Would you pay $1
million in insurance premiums to protect against a $40,000 loss? No, of
course not, but that's exactly what the US did because it was so "terrified"
by terrorists. Bush's spending will probably go down in history as the most
wasteful expenditures ever made by the Feds. Yet you're eager to blame
Obama for trying to clean up the mess of Bush spending trillions he/we
couldn't afford.
That is what the government, at all levels did, because they wanted
to avoid getting grilled by constituents, press, and talking heads that
should have known better and so they could say they did all they could
to avoid the next one. This is quintessential politician and bureaucrat
ass-covering behavior. You SURE you spent a lot of time in DC????
(grin).


We've heard your endless criticism of Obama, Chet. Now I'd be interested in
hearing what *you* would have done, President Hayes, had you been Obama in
2008, entering office with the stock market dropping like a paralyzed
falcon, a $700 billion bill for Bush's bailout payments to Wall Street on
your desk, credit markets frozen like Antarctica in winter and major
investment banks and manufacturers staring down the barrel of bankruptcy.
It's easy to find fault - a lot easier than finding solutions.

The bill was one that Obama, for better or worse, had a hand in.
One of the classier (maybe the only one) thing that Bush did was consult
with Obama coming in.
The stimulus bill was the same as 9 months of tax revenues. I would
have returned the money to the American public and trusted them spend it
much more efficiently than I could have. I would have been right.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Steve B" wrote in
:

If we'd find a way to tax all that crack and meth and weed that they
sell, we'd be out of the woods in about a month.


Good idea, but, as you said, how???

--
Best regards
Han

Weed is like the gladiator games of Roman times. It should be given to the
people for entertainment. Weed has redeeming qualities, and like alcohol,
can be a personal choice. The feds and local govt's sure don't mind all
that alcohol income one bit, do they?

Hard drugs can be dealt with by the death penalty. Shoot on sight. Drug
sellers are selling death, just as if they were selling poison. At least,
the overcrowding issue at prisons and recidivism rates would go down. This
is a cancer eating us up from the middle, and it's the elephant in the room
that needs to be dealt with and soon. We've already lost one generation,
going on two.

Liberals aren't going to like it, but when there's a rabid dog running
through a daycare, what's the sensible thing to do?

Government is stealing us blind from the top down, and drugs are eating us
up from the inside out. There's not a lot of healthy tissue left.

Steve

"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2011-08-13, harryagain wrote:

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich.

Yer kidding yerself if you think it's a mistake.

nb

Yeah, I guess some guy in Arkansas delivering stuff from the back of a
pickup, then improving his business and growing it is indicative of the
mistakes of the rich. Although anyone else could have done the same thing,
and still can. They just have to get off the couch, and do what it takes.
Therein lies the rub.

Maybe we should have a minimum income tax so that the 50% of Americans who
currently pay no income tax could bulk up the "rich" politicians. And
lobbyists. And PAC chairmen. And community organizers.

And don't forget the Monday morning brief case to YKW.

Steve

"Steve B" wrote in news:A0S1q.367318$sm6.121904
@news.usenetserver.com:

YKW

???

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2011-08-14, Existential Angst wrote:

Heh, pre-meditated.... very good!
And Joseph Steiglitz would agree (nobelier in economics). See the
charlie
rose interview, archived on charlierose.com.

The financial wizards are playing the system like a cheap violin. No
different than code bois hacking computer code. Notice how the same
thing keeps occuring. Savings and loan fiasco, dot com boom, housing
loan debacle, bail outs. It's no coincidence the same ppl are
piloting govt financial regulatory agencies through 4 administration
changes. According to the latest Time magazine, it's now Europe's
turn to crash and burn. They appear to be right on schedule.

nb

You are exactly right.

The next to do it will be the oil companies.You watch. They are devising
their own forms of blackmail.
Fukushima has given them their chance.

On Aug 14, 10:42*am, "Robert Green"
wrote:
wrote in message news:2fe2218c-c781-44cd-8c83-

Obama added $850bil in new stimulus spending his very first year. *So,
don't put all the blame on Bush. *Here we are two and a half years after
Bush and Obama's budget is running a deficit of $1.6tril, a level never seen
in the Bush years. *Yes, there was too much spending during the Bush years,
but for some reason, that's where the libs memories end. *Obama has taken
reckless spending and borrowing to levels never seen before.

You're too smart to *really* believe what you just wrote. *"Reckless
spending?" *The economy, as handed over by Bush, was in free fall and near
collapse. *Stimulus spending, while it might seem reckless to you, cushioned
the blows delivered by Wall Street's ruthless repackaging of America's real
estate wealth into mortgage securities and selling it abroad. *Without that
"reckless spending" to help free up frozen credit we would probably be in a
deeper abyss than the first Great Depression.

Wrong again. You're confusing TARP, with Obama's stimulus.
TARP is what went to prevent the possible collapse of the financial
system and to keep banks and major businesses from failing.
It has almost ALL been repaid. The stimulus went to build airport
runways no one needs and all kinds of public works programs
that were supposed to reduce unemployment. Last I heard,
for what it produced it was yielding about one job for every
$300,000 spent.

And how long are you libs going to live in the past? It's
been over 2 1/2 years now and Obama is still runnning
a deficit of $1.6tril, an unprecedented amount. Ronald
Reagan inherited an economic mess that was argualbly
as bad. High unemployment, high inflation, high interest
rates. By this time in his presidency we were
experiencing substantial job growth, lower interest rates,
and lower inflation. In other words, his plan worked.





A point that non-libs seem to forget it that Obama had *nothing to do* with
the collapse.

Was he not a US senator hell bent on becoming president?
Since he pretends to be an economic expert now, where
was he back then? Was he making speeches warning of
the impending collapse of the mortgage markets? Of
FNMA, Freddie, which are quasi govt agencies, being
on the path to ruin? The only thing I recall him doing
was voting against the debt ceiling increase and
saying how adding debt was irresponsible.


*He simply got stuck with the thankless job of fixing the
incredible mess that under-regulated financial markets and reckless spending
wreaked on America. *Blaming him for trying to right a sinking ship is more
than a little disingenuous. *It's partisan BS taken into the stratosphere.

Not when the solution is to take spending to even more
reckless levels. Not when everything he does is anti-business.
How about how he's screwing Boeing, as an example?
They built a $2bil
plant in North Carolina to build part of the 787 they just
launched. The Obama administration is blocking them
from using it over a silly claim by a union in WA state
that using that plant constitutes retaliation by Boeing
for a strike years ago. That despite Boeing having added
substantial jobs in WA in the ensuing years.


If Reagan or even McCain were president, they'd pick
up the phone, call the head of the NLRB and tell them
they are fired. Then they would have a press
conference and give a positive message to business,
saying why they did it and how they are not going
to tolerate govt standing in the way of jobs. IF
Obama did that, the market would be up 300 points.
Instead, he has everyone hunkering down,
because they don't know what stupid thing he's
gonna pull next.




At least you sort of acknowledge that Bush spent too much on needless wars,

I never acknowledged any such thing. The war in Afghanistan
was fully justified and he would have been impeached had he
done nothing. Obama agrees, because he just upped the
anty.

Aa far as Iraq, hindsight is a convenient thing. Intelligence is
never perfect. It was never up to the US or the UN to guess
what was going on in Iraq based on spotty intelligence. It
was a specific agreement than ended Iraq's invasion
on Kuwait that called for Sadam to fully disclose what he
was doing and to give full access to the inspectors.
Up until the last minute, he did not. If it turned out he did
have WMDs and used them, then libs like you would
be calling for his impeachement, because there was
plenty of evidence that he was building WMDs.





the "junk touching" TSA agency and about a trillion in new and improved
security measures. *We've spent at least 100 times and perhaps 1000 times
the total of the actual monetary damage done on 9/11. *Would you pay $1
million in insurance premiums to protect against a $40,000 loss? *No, of
course not, but that's exactly what the US did because it was so "terrified"
by terrorists. *Bush's spending will probably go down in history as the most
wasteful expenditures ever made by the Feds. *Yet you're eager to blame
Obama for trying to clean up the mess of Bush spending trillions he/we
couldn't afford.

That's the approach of the lib pussies. I guess we should have just
sent Bin Laden a cake and let him go on training another 50,000
terrorists in Afghanistan until he had a chemical, biological, or
nuclear
weapon and used it against NYC. It;s incredible how naive you are.


We've heard your endless criticism of Obama, Chet. *Now I'd be interested in
hearing what *you* would have done, President Hayes, had you been Obama in
2008, entering office with the stock market dropping like a paralyzed
falcon, a $700 billion bill for Bush's bailout payments to Wall Street on
your desk, credit markets frozen like Antarctica in winter and major
investment banks and manufacturers staring down the barrel of bankruptcy.
It's easy to find fault - a lot easier than finding solutions.

--
Bobby G.


I would have used the TARP money that Bush had already set up.
But I would have done it differently. One example, I would have
not violated law and the US constitution by screwing the GM bond
holders and handing over the company to the unions.

I would have not gone out and attacked every American business
from Wall Street, to health insurance companies, to drug companies.
I would have set out a positive, pro-business message. I
would have had a one time exemption from corporate income
tax for US companies that brought profits from overseas
where they are sitting to avoid tax, to allow that money to
be used here for new investment. I would have allowed
immediate expensing of any capital eqpt bought in the
next two years.

I would not have appointed tax cheats like Geitner or Holder,
who arranged the pardon of MArc Rich, who was on the FBIs
most wanted list, having never been brought to justice.

I would not have burdened businesses and citizens with
Obamacare when the govt is already broke and not
working. And I most certainly would not have ****ed
away $850bil on stimulus spending.

When BP had the oil spill, I would not have shut down
offshore drilling, throwing people out of work and
raising the price of oil. I would have opened up ANWR
and every offshore drilling site possible.

I would never have allowed the federal budget to grow
40% from 2007.

I would have not said Gitmo is illegal and that I was
gonna try the mastermind of 911 in NYC. I would
have continued enhanced interrogation. And I most
certainly would not have gone around the world on
an apology tour.

That's a good start. But going back further, if I were
a US senator like Obama, I would have walked out
of that hate filled church run by Wright 20 years ago,
not sit there and listen to him spew ant-AMerican
venom.

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Steve B" wrote in
news:A0S1q.367318$sm6.121904
@news.usenetserver.com:

YKW

???

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

You Know Who.

On Aug 14, 9:58*am, bob haller wrote:
On Aug 14, 7:02*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

harryagain wrote:
"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2011-08-13, harryagain wrote:

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the
rich.

Yer kidding yerself if you think it's a mistake.

nb

Yes, that may be true. *The greed culture.

Greed is good.

michelle bachman a tea party republican is a shining example of
someone wanting to ruin our country. heres what she stands for.

no higher taxes even on the super wealthy making over 250 grand a
year.

Sure sign of a lib. They think a family earning $250K a year
is the super wealthy. Here in the nyc area, that's two
maried professionals, both hard working, raising a
family. Trying to pay the state and local income taxes,
sky high property taxes, sales taxes, etc.



elminate the minimum wage

elminate social security and medicare as we know it today.

She has taken no such position. She has said they
need to be reformed. Even Obama said he put them
on the table during the recent debt ceiling talks. At
least some Republicans have an actual plan or are
on record saying some of the things they would do
to keep SS solvent. The dems have no plan, other
than just do nothing until they go broke in another
10 years.




tea party is just for the super wealthy

Apparently you've never seen or attended a tea party
rally. Those folks sure don't look like the super
wealthy to me.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 10:42:35 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

wrote in message news:2fe2218c-c781-44cd-8c83-

Obama added $850bil in new stimulus spending his very first year. So,
don't put all the blame on Bush. Here we are two and a half years after
Bush and Obama's budget is running a deficit of $1.6tril, a level never seen
in the Bush years. Yes, there was too much spending during the Bush years,
but for some reason, that's where the libs memories end. Obama has taken
reckless spending and borrowing to levels never seen before.

You're too smart to *really* believe what you just wrote. "Reckless
spending?" The economy, as handed over by Bush, was in free fall and near
collapse. Stimulus spending, while it might seem reckless to you, cushioned
the blows delivered by Wall Street's ruthless repackaging of America's real
estate wealth into mortgage securities and selling it abroad. Without that
"reckless spending" to help free up frozen credit we would probably be in a
deeper abyss than the first Great Depression.


That's all probably true.
I don't know where trader4 got his "$850bil in new stimulus spending."
Everything I've seen says the bill was $787b.
And $288b was tax cuts.
So that's $499b in spending.
If you don't count tax cuts as spending.
In that case trader4 is 70% off.
If you do count tax cuts in the spending, he's off only 8%.
But then you'd have to call the Bush tax cuts spending too.
I rightly don't know the answer to that.

A point that non-libs seem to forget it that Obama had *nothing to do* with
the collapse. He simply got stuck with the thankless job of fixing the
incredible mess that under-regulated financial markets and reckless spending
wreaked on America. Blaming him for trying to right a sinking ship is more
than a little disingenuous. It's partisan BS taken into the stratosphere.

At least you sort of acknowledge that Bush spent too much on needless wars,
the "junk touching" TSA agency and about a trillion in new and improved
security measures. We've spent at least 100 times and perhaps 1000 times
the total of the actual monetary damage done on 9/11. Would you pay $1
million in insurance premiums to protect against a $40,000 loss? No, of
course not, but that's exactly what the US did because it was so "terrified"
by terrorists. Bush's spending will probably go down in history as the most
wasteful expenditures ever made by the Feds. Yet you're eager to blame
Obama for trying to clean up the mess of Bush spending trillions he/we
couldn't afford.

We've heard your endless criticism of Obama, Chet. Now I'd be interested in
hearing what *you* would have done, President Hayes, had you been Obama in
2008, entering office with the stock market dropping like a paralyzed
falcon, a $700 billion bill for Bush's bailout payments to Wall Street on
your desk, credit markets frozen like Antarctica in winter and major
investment banks and manufacturers staring down the barrel of bankruptcy.
It's easy to find fault - a lot easier than finding solutions.

It would be interesting to see how totally ****ed up this country
would be if the Republicans were in charge.
Might still get a chance to find out. Then the fur will really fly.
Nearly all these pols - D and R alike - are millionaire yuppies,
don't know the importance of manufacturing the products we buy right
here, and think everybody should be educated for "jobs of the
future.".
Right. Like China and India don't produce educated people by the
millions.
****ing morons.

--Vic

On 8/14/2011 11:03 AM, Han wrote:
(snip)
BS. If you want another Depression with 20+ % unemployment, do go and
cut everything but the pentagon and Congress's expenses.



Pentagon could probably take a 1/3 budget cut with no loss in mission
capability, if they would just get their act together, and cut out all
the duplication and internecine turf warfare. Hell, having one supply
system instead of five, and one set of rulebooks and procedures instead
of five, would probably save billions. They don't even have a DoD-wide
email system, and every service is spending millions to 'develop' their
own. But the Joint Chiefs and Congress prefer the status quo, because it
is a lot of flag billets and jobs and contracts for donors to keep all
those redundant structures in place. Every five years or so, yet
another commission does a study and says the same thing, but it never
changes, I'd love to see a POTUS with the guts to start issuing orders
to 'just do it already', and when Congress gets ****y, go on national TV
and explain it all to the public.

--
aem sends...

--
aem sends...

On 8/14/2011 7:02 AM, HeyBub wrote:
harryagain wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 2011-08-13, wrote:

Every solution involves making the poor pay for the mistakes of the
rich.

Yer kidding yerself if you think it's a mistake.

nb

Yes, that may be true. The greed culture.

Greed is good.

Greed is one of the 7 deadly sins. Greed, by definition is bad. You
continue to confuse greed with the [reasonable] desire for self
improvement. This will never change regardless of how often you repeat
it...

--
Jack
No matter how much you push the envelope, it'll still be stationery.
http://jbstein.com

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 11:16:05 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

It would be interesting to see how totally ****ed up this country
would be if the Republicans were in charge.
Might still get a chance to find out. Then the fur will really fly.
Nearly all these pols - D and R alike - are millionaire yuppies,
don't know the importance of manufacturing the products we buy right
here, and think everybody should be educated for "jobs of the
future.".
Right. Like China and India don't produce educated people by the
millions.
****ing morons.

--Vic

Here is a simple tutorial for voting democrat or republican.

Do you have a public sector job and pay taxes?
If yes, vote republican.

Are you too lazy to work and don't pay taxes and do you want the
government to give you money to support yourself or do you work at a
government job and want to insure you never get laid off or have to
work very hard?
If yes, vote democrat.

Class dismissed.

On Aug 14, 12:16*pm, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 10:42:35 -0400, "Robert Green"





wrote:
wrote in message news:2fe2218c-c781-44cd-8c83-

Obama added $850bil in new stimulus spending his very first year. *So,
don't put all the blame on Bush. *Here we are two and a half years after
Bush and Obama's budget is running a deficit of $1.6tril, a level never seen
in the Bush years. *Yes, there was too much spending during the Bush years,
but for some reason, that's where the libs memories end. *Obama has taken
reckless spending and borrowing to levels never seen before.

You're too smart to *really* believe what you just wrote. *"Reckless
spending?" *The economy, as handed over by Bush, was in free fall and near
collapse. *Stimulus spending, while it might seem reckless to you, cushioned
the blows delivered by Wall Street's ruthless repackaging of America's real
estate wealth into mortgage securities and selling it abroad. *Without that
"reckless spending" to help free up frozen credit we would probably be in a
deeper abyss than the first Great Depression.

That's all probably true.
I don't know where trader4 got his "$850bil in new stimulus spending."
Everything I've seen says the bill was $787b.

Not according to the CBO, who is responsible for non-partisan
scoring:


CBO raises its stimulus cost estimate, again
-
The Washington Times
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf (Associated
Press)Click-2-Listen
Story TopicsPolitics

Congress‘ chief scorekeeper has again raised the cost estimate of
President Obama’s two-year-old economic-stimulus program, calculating
it will end up costing taxpayers $821 billion — or $34 billion more
than originally projected.


So, I'm off a little bit, but still pretty close. It's $821bil, not
$850bil. I've seen
estimates higher than that too. But let's just use that relatively
recent
CBO number, that's fine with me.



And $288b was tax cuts.
So that's $499b in spending.
If you don't count tax cuts as spending.
In that case trader4 is 70% off.
If you do count tax cuts in the spending, he's off only 8%.
But then you'd have to call the Bush tax cuts spending too.
I rightly don't know the answer to that.




According to Obama's system of accounting you do count
tax cuts as spending, which is a totaly new concept. He has
repeatedly tried to obfuscate by referrring to tax cuts as
"spending in the tax code". And as usual, not one reporter
in the mainstream media has said, "Wait a minute, that
ain't right....."

I however agree that the part of the Obama package that
was tax cuts should not be counted as spending. So, he
just chucked in $533bil in spending stimulus, not
$850.





A point that non-libs seem to forget it that Obama had *nothing to do* with
the collapse. *

Just like Bush had nothing to do with it. They were both politicians
in
office at the time and neither saw the collapse coming.



He simply got stuck with the thankless job of fixing the
incredible mess that under-regulated financial markets and reckless spending
wreaked on America. *Blaming him for trying to right a sinking ship is more
than a little disingenuous. *It's partisan BS taken into the stratosphere.

At least you sort of acknowledge that Bush spent too much on needless wars,
the "junk touching" TSA agency and about a trillion in new and improved
security measures. *We've spent at least 100 times and perhaps 1000 times
the total of the actual monetary damage done on 9/11. *Would you pay $1
million in insurance premiums to protect against a $40,000 loss? *No, of
course not, but that's exactly what the US did because it was so "terrified"
by terrorists. *Bush's spending will probably go down in history as the most
wasteful expenditures ever made by the Feds. *Yet you're eager to blame
Obama for trying to clean up the mess of Bush spending trillions he/we
couldn't afford.

We've heard your endless criticism of Obama, Chet. *Now I'd be interested in
hearing what *you* would have done, President Hayes, had you been Obama in
2008, entering office with the stock market dropping like a paralyzed
falcon, a $700 billion bill for Bush's bailout payments to Wall Street on
your desk, credit markets frozen like Antarctica in winter and major
investment banks and manufacturers staring down the barrel of bankruptcy..
It's easy to find fault - a lot easier than finding solutions.

It would be interesting to see how totally ****ed up this country
would be if the Republicans were in charge.

The federal budget was $2.6tril in 2007. This year it's $3.8tril.
That is a 40% increase in 4 years. We just saw were both
parties stood on the issue. Republicans wanted real and
significant cuts
to reduce spending. The Dems screamed bloody murder
at each and every proposal while offering none of their own.
It took the Tea Party folks pushing to the brink to get the
insignificant real cuts we just got. And that amounts to a
whopping $60bil in the next two years. It's could not
be more clear where each party stands, and who is
refusing to make any real cuts. When spending is up
40 in just 4 years, you don't have a revenue problem.
You have a SPENDING problem.

Gordon Shumway wrote in :

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 11:16:05 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

It would be interesting to see how totally ****ed up this country
would be if the Republicans were in charge.
Might still get a chance to find out. Then the fur will really fly.
Nearly all these pols - D and R alike - are millionaire yuppies,
don't know the importance of manufacturing the products we buy right
here, and think everybody should be educated for "jobs of the
future.".
Right. Like China and India don't produce educated people by the
millions.
****ing morons.

--Vic

Here is a simple tutorial for voting democrat or republican.

Do you have a public sector job and pay taxes?
If yes, vote republican.

Seems to me that the way Tea Party Fanatics are cutting public service
sector jobs, that would ensure either loss of a job, or a big increase in
work load (and dealing with irate clients).


Are you too lazy to work and don't pay taxes and do you want the
government to give you money to support yourself or do you work at a
government job and want to insure you never get laid off or have to
work very hard?
If yes, vote democrat.

I agree that need has to be established for a handout. Wish that was
simple. Getting unemployment because you don't want to work should not
be possible. On the other hand, if the only job available was one that
cut wages to less than half, some kind of subsidy should be available.

Class dismissed.

Great way to make things simple snicker.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:27:45 -0500, Gordon Shumway wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 11:16:05 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

It would be interesting to see how totally ****ed up this country
would be if the Republicans were in charge.
Might still get a chance to find out. Then the fur will really fly.
Nearly all these pols - D and R alike - are millionaire yuppies,
don't know the importance of manufacturing the products we buy right
here, and think everybody should be educated for "jobs of the
future.".
Right. Like China and India don't produce educated people by the
millions.
****ing morons.

--Vic

Here is a simple tutorial for voting democrat or republican.

Do you have a public sector job and pay taxes?
If yes, vote republican.

Are you too lazy to work and don't pay taxes and do you want the
government to give you money to support yourself or do you work at a
government job and want to insure you never get laid off or have to
work very hard?
If yes, vote democrat.

Class dismissed.

Oops, should have been:

Do you have a PRIVATE sector job and pay taxes?
If yes, vote republican.