Obama now wants us to contribute to Hillary's multi-million dollar debt for
running for president.

This would be sad if it wasn't real.

"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote in message
...
Obama now wants us to contribute to Hillary's multi-million dollar debt
for running for president.

This would be sad if it wasn't real.

She started pushing for that over a month ago, Steve. It's kind of funny,
but what's wrong with it?

--
Ed Huntress

On Jun 25, 4:11 am, "SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote:
Obama now wants us to contribute to Hillary's multi-million dollar debt for
running for president.

This would be sad if it wasn't real.


Its blackmail.

If he doesn't, 'her' voters will suicide-vote for McCain.


Dave

wrote in message
...
On Jun 25, 4:11 am, "SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote:
Obama now wants us to contribute to Hillary's multi-million dollar debt
for
running for president.

This would be sad if it wasn't real.


Its blackmail.

If he doesn't, 'her' voters will suicide-vote for McCain.


Dave

Don't buy into the fantasies, Dave. Leave that for the tabloids.

--
Ed Huntress

On Jun 25, 10:03 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Jun 25, 4:11 am, "SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote:
Obama now wants us to contribute to Hillary's multi-million dollar debt
for
running for president.

This would be sad if it wasn't real.

Its blackmail.

If he doesn't, 'her' voters will suicide-vote for McCain.

Dave

Don't buy into the fantasies, Dave. Leave that for the tabloids.

--
Ed Huntress


Is an implied threat, and quite real. Applies to perhaps only a small
number of her voters, but I'm sure they feel they need every vote they
can get.

The divisiveness in the democrat's camp should not be underestimated.


Dave

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:56:14 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote in message
...
Obama now wants us to contribute to Hillary's multi-million dollar debt
for running for president.

This would be sad if it wasn't real.

She started pushing for that over a month ago, Steve. It's kind of funny,
but what's wrong with it?

If he's going to do that for her, think of the other trillions he'll
give away to other "needy" folks/programs/countries during his reign!
(repeat subject here)

She and Bill grossed $109 MILLION last year. They won't be hurting or
in debt for long, if at all. (I'd link to it but it's already gone
from her -much- diminished website.)

--
Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile I caught hell for.
-- Earl Warren

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:56:14 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote in message
...
Obama now wants us to contribute to Hillary's multi-million dollar debt
for running for president.

This would be sad if it wasn't real.

She started pushing for that over a month ago, Steve. It's kind of funny,
but what's wrong with it?

If he's going to do that for her, think of the other trillions he'll
give away to other "needy" folks/programs/countries during his reign!
(repeat subject here)

Larry, don't do the stupid act. We don't believe you're stupid. d8-) You
know better than to draw such a connection.


She and Bill grossed $109 MILLION last year. They won't be hurting or
in debt for long, if at all. (I'd link to it but it's already gone
from her -much- diminished website.)

Just about every political candidate who goes in the hole for an election
tries to recover by asking for help from his/her original contributors.
She's asking Obama to tap the contributors, or to tap into his big warchest
and then help re-fill it from contributors.

yawn. There is nothing unusual going on here, except that Obama figured
out how to shake the money tree like nobody before him. The reason I think
it's funny is that Clinton had the machine behind her, but now she's the one
out of cash.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:39:48 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:56:14 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote in message
...
Obama now wants us to contribute to Hillary's multi-million dollar debt
for running for president.

This would be sad if it wasn't real.

She started pushing for that over a month ago, Steve. It's kind of funny,
but what's wrong with it?

If he's going to do that for her, think of the other trillions he'll
give away to other "needy" folks/programs/countries during his reign!
(repeat subject here)

Larry, don't do the stupid act. We don't believe you're stupid. d8-) You
know better than to draw such a connection.

Damnit, Ed. You know full well that he'd do EXACTLY that the second he
hit office. My thread of connection may have been a bit thin, but
_that_is_his_nature.


She and Bill grossed $109 MILLION last year. They won't be hurting or
in debt for long, if at all. (I'd link to it but it's already gone
from her -much- diminished website.)

Just about every political candidate who goes in the hole for an election
tries to recover by asking for help from his/her original contributors.
She's asking Obama to tap the contributors, or to tap into his big warchest
and then help re-fill it from contributors.

I'm thinking that if he picks her as his running mate, that would slam
dunk his defeat in November.

Who are Bama and McPain looking at, anywho? I haven't been paying
much attention lately.


yawn. There is nothing unusual going on here, except that Obama figured
out how to shake the money tree like nobody before him. The reason I think
it's funny is that Clinton had the machine behind her, but now she's the one
out of cash.

Greed will do that to every control freak. She, of all people, should
know that by now, eh?

--
Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile I caught hell for.
-- Earl Warren

Obama now wants us to contribute to Hillary's multi-million dollar debt
for running for president.

This would be sad if it wasn't real.

She started pushing for that over a month ago, Steve. It's kind of funny,
but what's wrong with it?

--
Ed Huntress

Let's look at it. She's going to be supporting him in as many ways as she
can. She's now on the same side as he is and is going to work hard to get
him elected. She's in debt and he has more than enough money to run his
campaign. Why not help someone who is going to do a lot to help you? Seems
perfectly acceptable to me. Besides that it's done all the time in politics.
Rich republicans come up with money to help each other all the time even if
it's to help pay off legal bills when they are guilty of crimes. So why not
Democrats?

Hawke

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:39:48 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:56:14 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote in message
...
Obama now wants us to contribute to Hillary's multi-million dollar
debt
for running for president.

This would be sad if it wasn't real.

She started pushing for that over a month ago, Steve. It's kind of
funny,
but what's wrong with it?

If he's going to do that for her, think of the other trillions he'll
give away to other "needy" folks/programs/countries during his reign!
(repeat subject here)

Larry, don't do the stupid act. We don't believe you're stupid. d8-) You
know better than to draw such a connection.

Damnit, Ed. You know full well that he'd do EXACTLY that the second he
hit office. My thread of connection may have been a bit thin, but
_that_is_his_nature.

I don't know where you're getting that idea, Larry. I don't see it in his
biography. Mostly it's just crap that the pundits have been cooking up. The
ADA/ACU ratings are reductionist nonsense, like a megaphone for the
hard-of-thinking.


She and Bill grossed $109 MILLION last year. They won't be hurting or
in debt for long, if at all. (I'd link to it but it's already gone
from her -much- diminished website.)

Just about every political candidate who goes in the hole for an election
tries to recover by asking for help from his/her original contributors.
She's asking Obama to tap the contributors, or to tap into his big
warchest
and then help re-fill it from contributors.

I'm thinking that if he picks her as his running mate, that would slam
dunk his defeat in November.

I think it's unlikely that he'd choose her, because I don't think he wants
to be saddled with her ambition. I'd feel the same way if I were him. I'd
want a player who is on my side and who will support the things I believe
in.


Who are Bama and McPain looking at, anywho? I haven't been paying
much attention lately.

I don't read tea leaves. However, I read an article a couple of days ago
that explained how it's mostly feints and posturing at this point, anyway.
The possibilities they've named may not even be on their real list of
candidates. At this point in a campaign, says the article, the presumptive
presidential candidates are still playing politics with the interest groups
who might care about one VP candidate or another. For example, Sam Nunn has
been on the public "possibles" list of almost every Democratic presidential
prospect for 20 years. But apparently he's never really been on anybody's
list. Nunn knows this, and yawns when his name is brought up. g



yawn. There is nothing unusual going on here, except that Obama figured
out how to shake the money tree like nobody before him. The reason I think
it's funny is that Clinton had the machine behind her, but now she's the
one
out of cash.

Greed will do that to every control freak. She, of all people, should
know that by now, eh?

I doubt if she'll ever give up being a control freak. She's been like that
all her life.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:20:06 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

Larry, don't do the stupid act. We don't believe you're stupid. d8-) You
know better than to draw such a connection.

Damnit, Ed. You know full well that he'd do EXACTLY that the second he
hit office. My thread of connection may have been a bit thin, but
_that_is_his_nature.

I don't know where you're getting that idea, Larry. I don't see it in his
biography. Mostly it's just crap that the pundits have been cooking up.

I hear it in all of his speeches, at least for the brief periods I can
stand listening to pols spew their bull****. Shrub started the money
disgorgement and a Democrat is right in the wings to take over and
likely expand it. He'll stop the war and go right on spending
billions/day. Mark my words; if he's elected and makes it to office. I
have a bad feeling about his survivability, though. If there aren't
enough nutcases out there already, think what Hillary might set up. We
saw lots of casualties during the reign of the Clintons last time.


The
ADA/ACU ratings are reductionist nonsense, like a megaphone for the
hard-of-thinking.

I had no idea what you were talking about there until I googled 'em,
and now I tend to agree, at least from the brief visit I had.


Greed will do that to every control freak. She, of all people, should
know that by now, eh?

I doubt if she'll ever give up being a control freak. She's been like that
all her life.

Most lawyers (and then politicians) are, but she's taken it to another
level altogether, hasn't she? g

--
Deep doubts, deep wisdom; small doubts, little wisdom.
--Chinese Proverb
----

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:20:06 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

Larry, don't do the stupid act. We don't believe you're stupid. d8-) You
know better than to draw such a connection.

Damnit, Ed. You know full well that he'd do EXACTLY that the second he
hit office. My thread of connection may have been a bit thin, but
_that_is_his_nature.

I don't know where you're getting that idea, Larry. I don't see it in his
biography. Mostly it's just crap that the pundits have been cooking up.

I hear it in all of his speeches, at least for the brief periods I can
stand listening to pols spew their bull****.

I listen to his speeches, too. You must be listening to different speeches.

Shrub started the money
disgorgement and a Democrat is right in the wings to take over and
likely expand it. He'll stop the war and go right on spending
billions/day. Mark my words; if he's elected and makes it to office.

OK, we'll mark your words. g I suspect that we'll have a significant
increase the federal budget one of these years, when single-payer finally
(and inevitably, in my view) becomes the way we pay for healthcare. But it
won't, in itself, increase our out-of-pocket. It will just switch it from
private payments to public payments.

Obama may be the one to do it. He'll try, anyway. He may not succeed, given
the politics, and given the astronomical sums contributed to politicians by
my former employers, the drug companies. It will mean the end of their
joyride in candyland (mostly with no competition, thanks to all the tricks
that can extend drug patents, and paid for by you and me, and everyone else
who has health insurance or who pays out of his pocket), and they won't go
down easily. But it will happen sooner or later.

As for the effects of taxes themselves, we've been over this before, but tax
money doesn't just disappear from the economy. As you say, they spend it --
in other words, it goes right back into the economy. Beyond a certain point
taxes put other burdens on the society, and they change the complexion of an
economy. But note that several countries in Europe, where they pay taxes
that would make your eyes roll back in their sockets, are doing a lot better
than we are right now.

Our problem is debt, not taxes. And, from Ronnie Reagan to the Shrub, our
supposedly "conservative" Republicans have had us living on a big credit
card in the sky. That has to stop, and right now. McCain won't stop it.
He'll continue the deficit spending that has us in this big black hole,
given half a chance, because he'll do everything he can to continue Bush's
tax policies -- mostly for the wealthy. That's one of my big worries about
McCain. I like the man, but he's married to some profoundly stupid and
destructive economic doctrines.

I have a bad feeling about his survivability, though. If there aren't
enough nutcases out there already, think what Hillary might set up. We
saw lots of casualties during the reign of the Clintons last time.

He apparently is willing to take the chance. More power to him.

The
ADA/ACU ratings are reductionist nonsense, like a megaphone for the
hard-of-thinking.

I had no idea what you were talking about there until I googled 'em,
and now I tend to agree, at least from the brief visit I had.


Greed will do that to every control freak. She, of all people, should
know that by now, eh?

I doubt if she'll ever give up being a control freak. She's been like that
all her life.

Most lawyers (and then politicians) are, but she's taken it to another
level altogether, hasn't she? g

--
Deep doubts, deep wisdom; small doubts, little wisdom.
--Chinese Proverb

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:07:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
allowed that:

snippage


Our problem is debt, not taxes. And, from Ronnie Reagan to the Shrub, our
supposedly "conservative" Republicans have had us living on a big credit
card in the sky. That has to stop, and right now. McCain won't stop it.
He'll continue the deficit spending that has us in this big black hole,
given half a chance, because he'll do everything he can to continue Bush's
tax policies -- mostly for the wealthy. That's one of my big worries about
McCain. I like the man, but he's married to some profoundly stupid and
destructive economic doctrines.



Why are you so darned sensible and in touch with the real world? Is it that
you're secretly Canadian or some other brand of European or Commie? BEG


Mark Rand
RTFM

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:07:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

allowed that:

snippage


Our problem is debt, not taxes. And, from Ronnie Reagan to the Shrub, our
supposedly "conservative" Republicans have had us living on a big credit
card in the sky. That has to stop, and right now. McCain won't stop it.
He'll continue the deficit spending that has us in this big black hole,
given half a chance, because he'll do everything he can to continue Bush's
tax policies -- mostly for the wealthy. That's one of my big worries about
McCain. I like the man, but he's married to some profoundly stupid and
destructive economic doctrines.



Why are you so darned sensible and in touch with the real world? Is it
that
you're secretly Canadian or some other brand of European or Commie? BEG


Mark Rand
RTFM

Sensible Canadians? Have you ever watched them eat Québécois poutine? If
that doesn't disgust you...well, you might be a Brit. g

There are caveats on that deficit business. We actually have a worse problem
with personal debt; if you look at the numbers, our deficit numbers actually
are not all that high as a percentage of GDP, compared to those of several
European countries that actually are running higher. But we're running a
horrible trade deficit to go with it, and the budget deficit is becoming
institutionalized. That's the pattern that has to be broken.

--
Ed Huntress

On Jun 25, 3:39*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


yawn. There is nothing unusual going on here, except that Obama figured
out how to shake the money tree like nobody before him. The reason I think
it's funny is that Clinton had the machine behind her, but now she's the one
out of cash.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


The fun part is that the political world here somehow got turned on
it's head.
Republicans for Hilllary , Hillary democrats for McCain , who the
far-right
is less than enthusiastic about . Said McCain, once (maybe) a
"straight shooting maverick",
sniffing up Dubya's crack and flipping to try and get that support
that he needs .

At the top of the heap we have a guy that nobody gave a chance
against Hillary
not that long ago (but who I thought looked startlingly good at the
2004 convention,
though I was afraid to be very hopeful... now here we are ) , and he
has these
magic slippers and then before you know it (unless you were watching
any one of the
half-dozen Hillary Network Channels on le telly) , ding dong , the
wicked witch is dead .

wtf just happened ? (^8

did ya feel that?... I did ; it's a different world

we may have postponed our inevitable self-inflicted doom

hee hee hee

Dar
now here now out of sight

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:17:48 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



Why are you so darned sensible and in touch with the real world? Is it
that
you're secretly Canadian or some other brand of European or Commie? BEG


Mark Rand
RTFM

Sensible Canadians? Have you ever watched them eat Québécois poutine? If
that doesn't disgust you...well, you might be a Brit. g


I meant Canadian of European, not French ;-)


Mark Rand
RTFM

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:07:01 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

I hear it in all of his speeches, at least for the brief periods I can
stand listening to pols spew their bull****.

I listen to his speeches, too. You must be listening to different speeches.

Perhaps I listen to his speeches with a bit more cynical mind. Take
off them blinders, son.


Shrub started the money
disgorgement and a Democrat is right in the wings to take over and
likely expand it. He'll stop the war and go right on spending
billions/day. Mark my words; if he's elected and makes it to office.

OK, we'll mark your words. g I suspect that we'll have a significant
increase the federal budget one of these years, when single-payer finally
(and inevitably, in my view) becomes the way we pay for healthcare. But it
won't, in itself, increase our out-of-pocket. It will just switch it from
private payments to public payments.

When that happens, if it happens with the current medical monopoly,
it'll break us. If the gov't is smart (fat chance, you say?) they'll
offer lots of clients to new doctors for a set price per year. At 1/8
to 1/4 mil per year (what's fair?), lots of new doctors might jump on
that. Finding drug companies who want all the gov't clients shouldn't
be too hard, either, once gov't gets rid of the TOTAL cluster**** they
just signed onto. Hospitals will have to be run totally differently,
too. $4mil to redo the lobby while serving patient meals on 9 year old
plastic plates? (Tri-City Hospital, Oceanside CA a couple decades ago)
Then there are the $7 aspirin tablets. SOMETHING is wrong there.

The medical community is as entrenched as heavily as the pols are.
sigh All that has to go if we're to have a decent, full-service,
"free" healthcare system.

Ayup, all we have to do is completely overhaul our political, medical,
and legal systems and we'll be OK.


Obama may be the one to do it. He'll try, anyway. He may not succeed, given
the politics, and given the astronomical sums contributed to politicians by
my former employers, the drug companies. It will mean the end of their
joyride in candyland (mostly with no competition, thanks to all the tricks
that can extend drug patents, and paid for by you and me, and everyone else
who has health insurance or who pays out of his pocket), and they won't go
down easily. But it will happen sooner or later.

I sure hope they'll put a clause (or 20) in there which requires
preventive medicine, not just allopathic.


As for the effects of taxes themselves, we've been over this before, but tax
money doesn't just disappear from the economy. As you say, they spend it --
in other words, it goes right back into the economy. Beyond a certain point
taxes put other burdens on the society, and they change the complexion of an
economy. But note that several countries in Europe, where they pay taxes
that would make your eyes roll back in their sockets, are doing a lot better
than we are right now.

_IF_ it's spent here, some of it goes back into the economy.


Our problem is debt, not taxes. And, from Ronnie Reagan to the Shrub, our
supposedly "conservative" Republicans have had us living on a big credit
card in the sky. That has to stop, and right now. McCain won't stop it.
He'll continue the deficit spending that has us in this big black hole,
given half a chance, because he'll do everything he can to continue Bush's
tax policies -- mostly for the wealthy. That's one of my big worries about
McCain. I like the man, but he's married to some profoundly stupid and
destructive economic doctrines.

I'm far more afraid of Obama than McCain regarding spending.


I doubt if she'll ever give up being a control freak. She's been like that
all her life.

Most lawyers (and then politicians) are, but she's taken it to another
level altogether, hasn't she? g

That's a severe understatement, Ed.

--
Deep doubts, deep wisdom; small doubts, little wisdom.
--Chinese Proverb
----

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:46:37 +0100, with neither quill nor qualm, Mark
Rand quickly quoth:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:07:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
allowed that:

snippage


Our problem is debt, not taxes. And, from Ronnie Reagan to the Shrub, our
supposedly "conservative" Republicans have had us living on a big credit
card in the sky. That has to stop, and right now. McCain won't stop it.
He'll continue the deficit spending that has us in this big black hole,
given half a chance, because he'll do everything he can to continue Bush's
tax policies -- mostly for the wealthy. That's one of my big worries about
McCain. I like the man, but he's married to some profoundly stupid and
destructive economic doctrines.

Why are you so darned sensible and in touch with the real world? Is it that
you're secretly Canadian or some other brand of European or Commie? BEG

Yeah, Mark. Your tax dollars go to putting pads on telephone and light
poles so your citizens aren't knocked unconscious (or have their teeth
knocked out) while wandering aimlessly down the sidewalk entranced in
their Gameboy or cell phone.

Tell us about sensibilities!

--
Deep doubts, deep wisdom; small doubts, little wisdom.
--Chinese Proverb
----

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:17:48 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Mark Rand" wrote in message
.. .
snippage

Why are you so darned sensible and in touch with the real world? Is it
that
you're secretly Canadian or some other brand of European or Commie? BEG

Sensible Canadians? Have you ever watched them eat Québécois poutine? If
that doesn't disgust you...well, you might be a Brit. g

Hang onto your haggis, friends. Dem keebeckers found a new one!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poutine Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!


There are caveats on that deficit business. We actually have a worse problem
with personal debt; if you look at the numbers, our deficit numbers actually
are not all that high as a percentage of GDP, compared to those of several
European countries that actually are running higher. But we're running a
horrible trade deficit to go with it, and the budget deficit is becoming
institutionalized. That's the pattern that has to be broken.

Correction: That's merely one of the patterns which has to be broken.

--
Deep doubts, deep wisdom; small doubts, little wisdom.
--Chinese Proverb
----

"Dar" wrote in message
...
On Jun 25, 3:39 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


yawn. There is nothing unusual going on here, except that Obama figured
out how to shake the money tree like nobody before him. The reason I think
it's funny is that Clinton had the machine behind her, but now she's the
one
out of cash.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


The fun part is that the political world here somehow got turned on
it's head.
Republicans for Hilllary , Hillary democrats for McCain , who the
far-right
is less than enthusiastic about . Said McCain, once (maybe) a
"straight shooting maverick",
sniffing up Dubya's crack and flipping to try and get that support
that he needs .

At the top of the heap we have a guy that nobody gave a chance
against Hillary
not that long ago (but who I thought looked startlingly good at the
2004 convention,
though I was afraid to be very hopeful... now here we are ) , and he
has these
magic slippers and then before you know it (unless you were watching
any one of the
half-dozen Hillary Network Channels on le telly) , ding dong , the
wicked witch is dead .

wtf just happened ? (^8

did ya feel that?... I did ; it's a different world

we may have postponed our inevitable self-inflicted doom

hee hee hee

Dar

=========================================

That's an interesting take, and it did feel that way. I was trying to figure
out just what was going on as he slipped past Clinton in the polls.

I think we all have a tendency to believe other people don't see what we
see; every once in a while we're reminded that they see pretty well, after
all.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:17:48 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Mark Rand" wrote in message
. ..
snippage

Why are you so darned sensible and in touch with the real world? Is it
that
you're secretly Canadian or some other brand of European or Commie?
BEG

Sensible Canadians? Have you ever watched them eat Québécois poutine? If
that doesn't disgust you...well, you might be a Brit. g

Hang onto your haggis, friends. Dem keebeckers found a new one!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poutine Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!

OH, JEEZ, did they have to show a photo of it, too? I just ate lunch. gag!



There are caveats on that deficit business. We actually have a worse
problem
with personal debt; if you look at the numbers, our deficit numbers
actually
are not all that high as a percentage of GDP, compared to those of several
European countries that actually are running higher. But we're running a
horrible trade deficit to go with it, and the budget deficit is becoming
institutionalized. That's the pattern that has to be broken.

Correction: That's merely one of the patterns which has to be broken.

--
Deep doubts, deep wisdom; small doubts, little wisdom.
--Chinese Proverb
----

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:07:01 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

snip


As for the effects of taxes themselves, we've been over this before, but
tax
money doesn't just disappear from the economy. As you say, they spend
it --
in other words, it goes right back into the economy. Beyond a certain
point
taxes put other burdens on the society, and they change the complexion of
an
economy. But note that several countries in Europe, where they pay taxes
that would make your eyes roll back in their sockets, are doing a lot
better
than we are right now.

_IF_ it's spent here, some of it goes back into the economy.

And if it's spent here, where does the rest go? Into a mattress?

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:00:17 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:07:01 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

snip


As for the effects of taxes themselves, we've been over this before, but
tax
money doesn't just disappear from the economy. As you say, they spend
it --
in other words, it goes right back into the economy. Beyond a certain
point
taxes put other burdens on the society, and they change the complexion of
an
economy. But note that several countries in Europe, where they pay taxes
that would make your eyes roll back in their sockets, are doing a lot
better
than we are right now.

_IF_ it's spent here, some of it goes back into the economy.

And if it's spent here, where does the rest go? Into a mattress?

Offshore vendors.

--
Deep doubts, deep wisdom; small doubts, little wisdom.
--Chinese Proverb
----

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:00:17 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:07:01 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

snip


As for the effects of taxes themselves, we've been over this before, but
tax
money doesn't just disappear from the economy. As you say, they spend
it --
in other words, it goes right back into the economy. Beyond a certain
point
taxes put other burdens on the society, and they change the complexion
of
an
economy. But note that several countries in Europe, where they pay taxes
that would make your eyes roll back in their sockets, are doing a lot
better
than we are right now.

_IF_ it's spent here, some of it goes back into the economy.

And if it's spent here, where does the rest go? Into a mattress?

Offshore vendors.

You said if it's spend *here*, *some* of it goes back into the economy. I
took that to mean that, if it's spent here, some of it *doesn't* go back
into the economy. I take it that's not what you meant?

Anyway, regarding purchases from offshore, a lot of that is military. We get
some microchips from Switzerland, and some from China. The ones from
Switzerland are part of the guidance system for smart bombs, and the Swiss
don't like selling them to us. China probably is a more secure source.
They'll sell anything to anybody.

This is mostly the doing of Rumsfeld. I wrote about it in an article some
years ago. I think it stinks, but it's a complicated issue.

--
Ed Huntress

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:07:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

allowed that:

snippage


Our problem is debt, not taxes. And, from Ronnie Reagan to the Shrub, our
supposedly "conservative" Republicans have had us living on a big credit
card in the sky. That has to stop, and right now. McCain won't stop it.
He'll continue the deficit spending that has us in this big black hole,
given half a chance, because he'll do everything he can to continue
Bush's
tax policies -- mostly for the wealthy. That's one of my big worries
about
McCain. I like the man, but he's married to some profoundly stupid and
destructive economic doctrines.



Why are you so darned sensible and in touch with the real world? Is it
that
you're secretly Canadian or some other brand of European or Commie? BEG


It's simple really. He can put two and two together and come up with four.
When you put one right wing republican in the white house after another
right wing republican you get the same thing you had the last time. You
don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that.

Hawke

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:02:27 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:


Yeah, Mark. Your tax dollars go to putting pads on telephone and light
poles so your citizens aren't knocked unconscious (or have their teeth
knocked out) while wandering aimlessly down the sidewalk entranced in
their Gameboy or cell phone.

Tell us about sensibilities!


Actually, I've yet to see that phenomenon, except for Rugby goal posts, but in
that case, it's to keep brains of the paintwork :-)

regards
Mark Rand
RTFM

RCM

"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote in message
...
Obama now wants us to contribute to Hillary's multi-million dollar debt
for running for president.

This would be sad if it wasn't real.