G.O.P. Vowing to Take Battle Over Health Care Law Into November

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

On Jun 29, 1:23*am, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:
G.O.P. Vowing to Take Battle Over Health Care Law Into November

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

I find it interesting to note how Republicans do not want Americans to
have health care.

One of the most basic needs of humanity and critical to the defense of
this Country.

TMT

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:43 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch .com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

Extend the trend. If eventually there's one guy with all the money
then what would he invest in? Cake factories?

"whoyakidding" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:43 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearc h.com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

Extend the trend. If eventually there's one guy with all the money
then what would he invest in? Cake factories?

As long as we continue to allow the ultra-rich to remove an ever-increasing
percentage of the total money supply from circulation, the number of people
in need of "handouts" will continue to rise exponentially.

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message ...
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?


You might be surprised.


The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.


Unfortunately, most of it is offshore....

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic
activity.


Unfortunately, most of it is offshore....

http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/in...ct_gets_f.html

Are you receiving 3.85% interest on your bank account??

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:48:41 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"whoyakidding" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:43 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresear ch.com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

Extend the trend. If eventually there's one guy with all the money
then what would he invest in? Cake factories?

As long as we continue to allow the ultra-rich to remove an ever-increasing
percentage of the total money supply from circulation, the number of people
in need of "handouts" will continue to rise exponentially.

What gets me is how many of the rightards don't understand that THEY
are some of those in need of handouts. They want lower taxes AND more
war for example. Then they pretend that the debt belongs to someone
else. Now they're going to drool all over one another complaining
about the ACA and pretend that getting rid of it will cut their
healthcare costs! Remember the good old days when you could pay
insurance for years but get dropped when you get sick because you
forgot to dot an i on your application? Man those were great times
apparently.

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message ...
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic
activity.


Unfortunately, most of it is offshore....

http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/in...ct_gets_f.html

Are you receiving 3.85% interest on your bank account??


First off, I don't view my bank accounts as being "investments"...

But as to my actual investments, I stopped putting money into stocks, securities, etc about 15 years ago, and I'll just say that they dwarf your 3.85% bond rate over the long haul, and that they've more than doubled over the past 3 years or so.

That said, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the amount my company recycles directly back into the US economy as a result of normal everyday business operations.

On 6/29/2012 2:48 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"whoyakidding" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:43 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

Extend the trend. If eventually there's one guy with all the money
then what would he invest in? Cake factories?

As long as we continue to allow the ultra-rich to remove an ever-increasing
percentage of the total money supply from circulation,

Not happening, you stupid clueless ****.

On 6/29/2012 2:57 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message ...
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?


You might be surprised.

No, we wouldn't - you're clueless.

On 6/29/2012 3:05 PM, whoyakidding wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:48:41 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"whoyakidding" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:43 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

Extend the trend. If eventually there's one guy with all the money
then what would he invest in? Cake factories?

As long as we continue to allow the ultra-rich to remove an ever-increasing
percentage of the total money supply from circulation, the number of people
in need of "handouts" will continue to rise exponentially.

What gets me is how many of the rightards don't understand that THEY
are some of those in need of handouts. They want lower taxes AND more
war for example.

No, but even if they did, that wouldn't show that they're in need of
chortle "handouts."

On 6/29/2012 2:36 PM, whoyakidding wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:43 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

Extend the trend. If eventually there's one guy with all the money

Can't happen.

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:33:19 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


First off, I don't view my bank accounts as being "investments"...

But as to my actual investments, I stopped putting money into stocks, securities, etc about 15 years ago, and I'll just say
that they dwarf your 3.85% bond rate over the long haul, and that they've more than doubled over the past 3 years or so.

That said, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the amount my company recycles directly back into the US economy as a
result of normal everyday business operations.

Glenn Beck KNOWS what "conservatives" want to invest in.
http://tinyurl.com/7wekwxl

"Jim Wilkins" wrote
...
http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/in...ct_gets_f.html


For the record, I don't own those bonds and am not giving investment
advice.

They are what Google found as an example of a decent return rate on an
investment with both public and private benefits, to the school
district, the voters, the bus maker and his employees.

jsw

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:25:18 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"whoyakidding" wrote in message

I just remembered a story from another friend from a few months ago.
His mom needing to go into nursing home. (she's still resisting last I
heard) Hospital person advises she take some course which is designed
to teach her how to answer some upcoming interview. At same time she
will need to fake (friend's description) illness to prompt hospital
stay. All part of some scheme to get her into a home at no cost.
Alternatives are between $3500 and $6000 a month IIRC. Do you know
what's going on there?

First, if she is capable of resisting or being schooled, she probably needs
assisted living as opposed to a nursing home. Nursing homes are for people
with tubes hanging out of them. Assisted living is for the goofy or
incontinent. The lower number you quoted would cover that in most states.

That sounds about right. Apparently she's much worse health AND
mobility wise than she thinks and the family's about worn out keeping
her in her own home. Last problem was another broken bone from a fall.

Medicare requires a min 3day hospital stay before they cover nursing homes.
My guess is that they want to give her an illness with no definitive test,
get medicare to roll her to a nursing home and eventually have her turfed
into an assisted living situation under medicaid or as a ward of the state.

That sounds about right as well. Family will probably sell the home
and keep the money but it's a very modest place. I'm amazed that the
industry is counseling people to do such things although I guess I
shouldn't be. The system has devolved to every man for himself instead
of focusing on lowest cost per head.

On Jun 29, 4:11*pm, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message

news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

You have no clue about what serious illiness does to a family's
finances, do you?

One illiness can WIPEOUT a lifetime of investments with good returns.

TMT

On Jun 29, 5:05*pm, whoyakidding wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:48:41 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"





wrote:

"whoyakidding" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:43 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresear ch.com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

Extend the trend. If eventually there's one guy with all the money
then what would he invest in? Cake factories?

As long as we continue to allow the ultra-rich to remove an ever-increasing
percentage of the total money supply from circulation, the number of people
in need of "handouts" will continue to rise exponentially.

What gets me is how many of the rightards don't understand that THEY
are some of those in need of handouts. They want lower taxes AND more
war for example. Then they pretend that the debt belongs to someone
else. Now they're going to drool all over one another complaining
about the ACA and pretend that getting rid of it will cut their
healthcare costs! Remember the good old days when you could pay
insurance for years but get dropped when you get sick because you
forgot to dot an i on your application? Man those were great times
apparently.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well said.

I have known many conservatives who thought it was the other guy's
problem until the bills became their own to pay.

I know one case currently where the typical idiot conservative worth
many millions is slowly being drained...bill after bill...and I
project he and his family will be penniless when he dies.

And bitching all the way about why he has to pay the bills that he and
his family are creating.

TMT

On 6/29/2012 8:25 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jun 29, 4:11 pm, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message

news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

You have no clue about what serious illiness does to a family's
finances, do you?

Whose responsibility is that, and why?

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:35:25 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Jun 29, 6:38*pm, whoyakidding wrote:

I just remembered a story from another friend from a few months ago.
His mom needing to go into nursing home. (she's still resisting last I
heard) Hospital person advises she take some course which is designed
to teach her how to answer some upcoming interview. At same time she
will need to fake (friend's description) illness to prompt hospital
stay. All part of some scheme to get her into a home at no cost.
Alternatives are between $3500 and $6000 a month IIRC. Do you know
what's going on there?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fraud.

And they try it all the time...it won't work.

By the sound of it it not only works but it's routine for officials to
counsel how to do it. The details probably aren't as notable as the
trend: that care is getting so expensive that fewer and fewer will
even try to pay for it. In the case I mentioned there's no way the son
can come up with the money. In a better world the mom's home and
pension would cover the bill. As it is her care so far has probably
cost many times what she paid in and if she lingers for a few more
years the new bills will surely dwarf the ones so far. If I remember
right eight years ago the average daily cost of hospitalization was
$2500 compared to about a third as much in Canada. Newer info here
http://www.californiahealthline.org/...sis-finds.aspx.
4-6 thousand per day in some areas! Now think of costs doubling again
in another 10 years at the same time that purchasing power is
declining and most people's main asset (home) is losing value. It's a
****ing train wreck but the most astonishing part is how many windbag
aresholes pretend that nothing's wrong. As if it couldn't get any more
Kafkaesque apparently the rightards intend to back Romney's drive
AGAINST the exact same reforms he authored and championed! It would be
enlightening to hear from some former Soviets about their perceptions
during the period their empire was winding down. I wonder if it was
like here where half the electorate is humming and has their fingers
plugging their ears.

On 6/29/2012 3:42 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 6/29/2012 3:05 PM, whoyakidding wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:48:41 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"whoyakidding" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:43 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

Extend the trend. If eventually there's one guy with all the money
then what would he invest in? Cake factories?

As long as we continue to allow the ultra-rich to remove an
ever-increasing
percentage of the total money supply from circulation, the number of
people
in need of "handouts" will continue to rise exponentially.

What gets me is how many of the rightards don't understand that THEY
are some of those in need of handouts. They want lower taxes AND more
war for example.

No, but even if they did, that wouldn't show that they're in need of
chortle "handouts."


Who says they have to "need" them for rightards to want handouts? Since
personal acquisition is the main goal of those on the right, why would
they not want as much as they can get any way they can get it? So it
doesn't matter if rightwingers need handouts or not they want them
anyway. Look at our huge and very profitable corporations. They still
want all the freebies they can get, don't they? So need is irrelevant to
wanting handouts. People at the top and businesses take handouts every
chance they get and that makes them worse because they don't need them.

Hawke

On 6/29/2012 3:40 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 6/29/2012 2:48 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"whoyakidding" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:43 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

Extend the trend. If eventually there's one guy with all the money
then what would he invest in? Cake factories?

As long as we continue to allow the ultra-rich to remove an
ever-increasing
percentage of the total money supply from circulation,

Not happening, you stupid clueless ****.


The stupid guy is you. You haven't even noticed that over the last two
decades the richest 1% has seen tremendous gains in wealth while the
average American has lost 40% of theirs. So, the fact is, much of the
country's wealth has been redistributed from the middle and lower
classes to the upper class. And you are too unaware and ignorant to know
that. But maybe you do and are one of those boneheads that think a large
disparity in wealth is good for a country's economy. Either way it shows
you to be a fool.


Hawke

On 6/29/2012 3:43 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 6/29/2012 2:36 PM, whoyakidding wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:43 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

Extend the trend. If eventually there's one guy with all the money

Can't happen.


Maybe not. But it can get close. It was estimated that when John D.
Rockefeller was the richest man in America that of every eight dollars
in the country one of them belonged to him. What's amazing is that
anyone with any brains or education can see that as a positive thing.
Fortunately, most people can see the inherent wrong in allowing one
person to control that much of a nation's wealth. Only a moron can't see
anything wrong with it.

Hawke

On 6/29/2012 3:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 6/29/2012 2:57 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?


You might be surprised.

No, we wouldn't - you're clueless.


You're a goldbug aren't you? One of those nuts; and you probably think
you're a hell of an "investor". Hah!

Hawke

On 6/29/2012 8:25 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jun 29, 4:11 pm, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message

news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

You have no clue about what serious illiness does to a family's
finances, do you?

One illiness can WIPEOUT a lifetime of investments with good returns.

TMT



Half of the personal bankruptcies in the country are the result of
medical problems. But it's like they say. This is the best health care
system in the world; as long as you are rich. If you're not it stinks.

Hawke

On 7/1/2012 9:57 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 6/29/2012 3:42 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 6/29/2012 3:05 PM, whoyakidding wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:48:41 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"whoyakidding" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:43 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash
reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

Extend the trend. If eventually there's one guy with all the money
then what would he invest in? Cake factories?

As long as we continue to allow the ultra-rich to remove an
ever-increasing
percentage of the total money supply from circulation, the number of
people
in need of "handouts" will continue to rise exponentially.

What gets me is how many of the rightards don't understand that THEY
are some of those in need of handouts. They want lower taxes AND more
war for example.

No, but even if they did, that wouldn't show that they're in need of
chortle "handouts."


Who says they have to "need" them for conservatives to want handouts?

Your ****witted leftard pal said,

What gets me is how many of the rightards don't understand that
THEY are some of those in need of handouts.

Conservatives and libertarians don't want handouts and don't need
handouts. Only leftards believe in rewarding sloth.

On 7/1/2012 10:01 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 6/29/2012 3:40 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 6/29/2012 2:48 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"whoyakidding" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:43 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

Extend the trend. If eventually there's one guy with all the money
then what would he invest in? Cake factories?

As long as we continue to allow the ultra-rich to remove an
ever-increasing
percentage of the total money supply from circulation,

Not happening, you stupid clueless ****.


The stupid guy is you.

No, not even close. I'm far smarter than you. Even your allies here
recognize that.


You haven't even noticed that over the last two
decades the richest 1% has seen tremendous gains in wealth while the
average American has lost 40% of theirs.

Irrelevant - it doesn't mean that any part of the "money supply" is
being withdrawn from circulation.

Talk about stupid - you don't even know what the money supply is. I do,
but you don't. You're stupid. You like being stupid - being stupid is
the only thing at which you work.

On 7/1/2012 10:06 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 6/29/2012 3:43 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 6/29/2012 2:36 PM, whoyakidding wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:43 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

Extend the trend. If eventually there's one guy with all the money

Can't happen.


Maybe not. But it can get close.

It can't even get close.

On 7/1/2012 10:06 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 6/29/2012 3:43 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 6/29/2012 2:36 PM, whoyakidding wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:43 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

Extend the trend. If eventually there's one guy with all the money

Can't happen.


Maybe not. But it can get close. It was estimated that when John D.
Rockefeller was the richest man in America that of every eight dollars
in the country one of them belonged to him.

No, it wasn't "estimated" that that was true, and not so long ago - some
time in the last four years - I completely debunked that. I'll find it
again and repost it later.

On Jul 1, 12:11*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 6/29/2012 8:25 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:





On Jun 29, 4:11 pm, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message

news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearc h.com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

You have no clue about what serious illiness does to a family's
finances, do you?

One illiness can WIPEOUT a lifetime of investments with good returns.

TMT

Half of the personal bankruptcies in the country are the result of
medical problems. But it's like they say. This is the best health care
system in the world; as long as you are rich. If you're not it stinks.

Hawke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Correct...and that half of personal bankruptcies is for people who HAD
health insurance when the medical incident occurred.

All of us are just one illiness from bankruptcy with the current
medical system.

Anyone who doesn't think the American medical system didn't need
change is a fool.

TMT

On Jul 1, 12:13*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/1/2012 9:57 AM, Hawke wrote:





On 6/29/2012 3:42 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 6/29/2012 3:05 PM, whoyakidding wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:48:41 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:

"whoyakidding" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:43 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnres earch.com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash
reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

Extend the trend. If eventually there's one guy with all the money
then what would he invest in? Cake factories?

As long as we continue to allow the ultra-rich to remove an
ever-increasing
percentage of the total money supply from circulation, the number of
people
in need of "handouts" will continue to rise exponentially.

What gets me is how many of the rightards don't understand that THEY
are some of those in need of handouts. They want lower taxes AND more
war for example.

No, but even if they did, that wouldn't show that they're in need of
chortle "handouts."

Who says they have to "need" them for conservatives to want handouts?

Your ****witted leftard pal said,

* * * What gets me is how many of the rightards don't understand that
* * * THEY are some of those in need of handouts.

Conservatives and libertarians don't want handouts and don't need
handouts. *Only leftards believe in rewarding sloth.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

George the Fool rants.

Your poster child Gummer is a perfect example of how freaking wrong
you are.

TMT

On Jul 1, 12:15*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/1/2012 10:06 AM, Hawke wrote:





On 6/29/2012 3:43 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 6/29/2012 2:36 PM, whoyakidding wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:43 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresea rch.com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity..

Extend the trend. If eventually there's one guy with all the money

Can't happen.

Maybe not. But it can get close. It was estimated that when John D.
Rockefeller was the richest man in America that of every eight dollars
in the country one of them belonged to him.

No, it wasn't "estimated" that that was true, and not so long ago - some
time in the last four years - I completely debunked that. *I'll find it
again and repost it later.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LOL...you mean that you will lie again about it.

TMT

On 7/1/2012 10:09 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 6/29/2012 3:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 6/29/2012 2:57 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?


You might be surprised.

No, we wouldn't - you're clueless.


You're a goldbug aren't you?

You guessed wrong again. You *always* get it wrong.

On 7/1/2012 10:14 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

As long as we continue to allow the ultra-rich to remove an
ever-increasing
percentage of the total money supply from circulation,

Not happening, you stupid clueless ****.


The stupid guy is you.

No, not even close. I'm far smarter than you. Even your allies here
recognize that.

What's not close is how much higher my level of knowledge is than yours
is. And you're dreaming if you think you're smarter than me. But what
does that matter when I know so much more than you do? You're like a kid
compared to me. You don't know squat and have to Google everything. I've
got it all in my head.



You haven't even noticed that over the last two
decades the richest 1% has seen tremendous gains in wealth while the
average American has lost 40% of theirs.

Irrelevant - it doesn't mean that any part of the "money supply" is
being withdrawn from circulation.

I'm not interested in the money supply. That's the Federal Reserve's
problem, and is irrelevant in relation to the negative effect of having
so much money held by so few individuals. While it may have no effect
one way or the other on the money supply it sure has many other odious
effects. But you wouldn't know anything about them except whether the
money supply was changed by it. You wouldn't know about what it is doing
to the lives of actual human beings. Because you don't care about them.
All you care about is numbers. But that's okay because I can tell that
no one cares if you're alive or dead either.


Talk about stupid - you don't even know what the money supply is. I do,
but you don't. You're stupid. You like being stupid - being stupid is
the only thing at which you work.

**** you! I knew what the money supply was when you were still in grade
school. You're a stupid little punk that is overly impressed with
yourself. Unfortunately for you no one else is. Your arguments and
rational are silly and weak. But that is what you get from a wuss like you.

Hawke

On 7/1/2012 10:15 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/1/2012 10:06 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 6/29/2012 3:43 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 6/29/2012 2:36 PM, whoyakidding wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:43 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

Extend the trend. If eventually there's one guy with all the money

Can't happen.


Maybe not. But it can get close. It was estimated that when John D.
Rockefeller was the richest man in America that of every eight dollars
in the country one of them belonged to him.

No, it wasn't "estimated" that that was true, and not so long ago - some
time in the last four years - I completely debunked that. I'll find it
again and repost it later.



You're so damn stupid that you always miss the salient point anyway
unless someone spells it out for you like for a retard. Right now you
can take six members of the Walmart family and their wealth is equal to
the wealth of the bottom 150 million Americans. You want to figure out
exactly how many dollars that means they are in control of? You would.
But that's not the point.

The point is that the U.S. now ranks in the top five or six countries in
the world where income and wealth disparity is the worst. Get that? The
WORST! So much money is held by so few people that we are just like a
banana republic when it comes to how our country's economic pie is cut
up. Now, to someone like you that means nothing. But to normal humans
that is something to be outraged at to the point where it's about time
for a revolution like you see in Syria.

Unknown to economists, when wealth becomes too unfair and too unequal
the people rise up in revolution and burn things down. Why not? They own
nothing and everything they destroy belongs to the rich. We are at that
point now. So while it doesn't matter to an economist who owns how much
of a country's wealth it sure matters to the population that has nothing.

Hawke

On 7/1/2012 11:50 AM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:11 pm, Hawke wrote:
On 6/29/2012 8:25 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:





On Jun 29, 4:11 pm, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message

news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

You have no clue about what serious illiness does to a family's
finances, do you?

One illiness can WIPEOUT a lifetime of investments with good returns.

TMT

Half of the personal bankruptcies in the country are the result of
medical problems. But it's like they say. This is the best health care
system in the world; as long as you are rich. If you're not it stinks.

Hawke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Correct...and that half of personal bankruptcies is for people who HAD
health insurance when the medical incident occurred.

All of us are just one illiness from bankruptcy with the current
medical system.

Anyone who doesn't think the American medical system didn't need
change is a fool.


Oh, you have to be talking about Pimpton.

Hawke

On 7/1/2012 10:13 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/1/2012 9:57 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 6/29/2012 3:42 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 6/29/2012 3:05 PM, whoyakidding wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:48:41 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"whoyakidding" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:43 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash
reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic
activity.

Extend the trend. If eventually there's one guy with all the money
then what would he invest in? Cake factories?

As long as we continue to allow the ultra-rich to remove an
ever-increasing
percentage of the total money supply from circulation, the number of
people
in need of "handouts" will continue to rise exponentially.

What gets me is how many of the rightards don't understand that THEY
are some of those in need of handouts. They want lower taxes AND more
war for example.

No, but even if they did, that wouldn't show that they're in need of
chortle "handouts."


Who says they have to "need" them for conservatives to want handouts?

Your ****witted leftard pal said,

What gets me is how many of the rightards don't understand that
THEY are some of those in need of handouts.

Conservatives and libertarians don't want handouts and don't need
handouts. Only leftards believe in rewarding sloth.


You're a rightard in need of a functioning brain. Right now you don't
get ****.

Hawke

On 7/1/2012 11:51 AM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:13 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/1/2012 9:57 AM, Hawke wrote:





On 6/29/2012 3:42 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 6/29/2012 3:05 PM, whoyakidding wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:48:41 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:

"whoyakidding" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:43 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash
reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

Extend the trend. If eventually there's one guy with all the money
then what would he invest in? Cake factories?

As long as we continue to allow the ultra-rich to remove an
ever-increasing
percentage of the total money supply from circulation, the number of
people
in need of "handouts" will continue to rise exponentially.

What gets me is how many of the rightards don't understand that THEY
are some of those in need of handouts. They want lower taxes AND more
war for example.

No, but even if they did, that wouldn't show that they're in need of
chortle "handouts."

Who says they have to "need" them for conservatives to want handouts?

Your ****witted leftard pal said,

What gets me is how many of the rightards don't understand that
THEY are some of those in need of handouts.

Conservatives and libertarians don't want handouts and don't need
handouts. Only leftards believe in rewarding sloth.

Your poster child Gummer

This is about leftards, not gummer.

On 7/1/2012 11:53 AM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:15 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/1/2012 10:06 AM, Hawke wrote:





On 6/29/2012 3:43 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 6/29/2012 2:36 PM, whoyakidding wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:43 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

Extend the trend. If eventually there's one guy with all the money

Can't happen.

Maybe not. But it can get close. It was estimated that when John D.
Rockefeller was the richest man in America that of every eight dollars
in the country one of them belonged to him.

No, it wasn't "estimated" that that was true, and not so long ago - some
time in the last four years - I completely debunked that. I'll find it
again and repost it later.

LOL...you mean

I mean that it is debunked.

On 7/1/2012 11:53 AM, Too_Much_A_Fool lied:
On Jul 1, 12:15 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/1/2012 10:06 AM, Hawke wrote:





On 6/29/2012 3:43 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 6/29/2012 2:36 PM, whoyakidding wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:43 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:KJOdnal_H5EdknPSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

--rather, it will end up languishing someplace as excess cash reserves
-that aren't going do one bit of good for anybody save for a handful
-of ultra-rich puppet-masters.

You really have no clue about smart investing, do you?

The investments with good returns support a LOT of economic activity.

Extend the trend. If eventually there's one guy with all the money

Can't happen.

Maybe not. But it can get close. It was estimated that when John D.
Rockefeller was the richest man in America that of every eight dollars
in the country one of them belonged to him.

No, it wasn't "estimated" that that was true, and not so long ago - some
time in the last four years - I completely debunked that. I'll find it
again and repost it later.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LOL...you mean that

It is *debunked*, squeaky.

Rockefeller's net worth at its peak was $1.5 billion. Even as a
fraction of GDP, it was only 1/65th, but that ratio is an absurdity,
because net worth is a stock, while GDP is a flow. I know you don't
know the difference, but it's relevant.

The bit of folklore - and that's clearly all it is - that says
Rockefeller "owned" one of every eight dollars in the country, or about
12.5%, is based on a comparison of his net worth to something -
something the myth-believers never specify. No matter what the other
value is, it's bunk - they couldn't be talking about literal money, i.e.
gold and greenbacks, because they would have no way of knowing what
share of Rockefeller's fortune was tied up in cash and other money
equivalents.

No, the ****witted myth-eaters are looking at his total net worth and
comparing it to some other stock value, and there is *NO WAY* it could
be 1/8th of all wealth in the country, if GDP at that time was $90-$100
billion per year.

The claim is debunked. It's the kind of ****wittery believed only by
credulous do-nothing leftists like you.