From: Walter Banks on


SMS wrote:

> David Ruether wrote:
>
> > I think you don't understand the predominant beliefs of the US electorate
> > very well... I think few see the election of Democrats as specifically to
> > "steal rich people's money so more can be given to (poor) me", as the
> > unbelievably odd (to some of us) "bill of goods" the Republicans have sold
> > to so many for so long that "supporting the interests of the rich is best for us
> > (the poor) because, well, someday we may also be rich - which is a fantasy,
> > but one that is widely held by Americans, especially now with widespread
> > popular lotteries in existence. BTW, this nonsense predates the "anything
> > socialistic is bad" myth sold also by those on the Right, who fail to mention
> > that much of what is taken for granted as basic services *is* socialistic...
> > Armed with these two myths, a disreputable bunch of rascals is often able
> > to draw roughly 50% of the electorate's votes. Pushing these myths, with
> > repeated lies and deceptions added, works for winning elections, alas...
>
> The other issue many people don't understand is how the salary
> structures have evolved in the U.S. in regards to gross pay and net pay.
> A position paying $100K where $30K is paid in a combination of all taxes
> is not going to be paying $100K if the tax burden falls to $10K. Even
> within the same corporation there are differentials based on cost of
> living of different areas of the country (and world), and these
> differentials are based on both expenses for taxes and the costs of
> goods and services.
>
> If, after the past eight years, anyone voted Republican with the idea
> that Republicans would protect their savings, investments, and job, then
> they haven't been paying attention. Yet Republicans can talk about tax
> cuts (unfunded tax cuts) and there are still some naive middle and lower
> class voters that think that they'll automatically be better off paying
> slightly lower taxes. These people are unable to look at the big picture
> of how government is funded and the effects of increasing deficits. It's
> the same people that whine about how we should have just let GM and
> Chrysler go into liquidation, without understanding that the cost of
> liquidation would be much higher.

For most of the last generation in the US fiscal reality has been almost
the opposite of the rhetoric. The Democrats by an large have balanced
budgets and some cases created government surpluses and invested in
economic growth. The Republicans have been deficient spending and
investing in special interests.

w..

From: Walter Banks on


Bill Graham wrote:

> > Obama has only a year and a half to push through his agenda
> > prior to the evil-doers having more of a chance to stop him.
>
> Lets see....A hundred days equals a trillion dollars, so a year and a
> half.......Oh, oh.....

A what is the GMROI on the trillion? On one part the cash for
clunkers it may have been as high as 30%. I wouldn't mind
making that kind of investment. $300B or so of the bank bailout
is back, most of the rest is paying 5% for the first 5 years and
9% for the following 15 years.

The stock market has risen 30% since the beginning of the year.

Saving an economy priceless.

There are some golden opportunities around now

w..


From: SMS on
Walter Banks wrote:

> For most of the last generation in the US fiscal reality has been almost
> the opposite of the rhetoric. The Democrats by an large have balanced
> budgets and some cases created government surpluses and invested in
> economic growth. The Republicans have been deficient spending and
> investing in special interests.

A lot of it was due to the now discredited "supply-side economics" which
financed big tax cuts for the wealthy with higher deficits. Only someone
like Reagan could have convinced anyone that this would work, even when
all economists explained why it wouldn't--and of course it didn't. Once
the party was over Reagan was out of office, and George H.W. Bush was
left to clean up the messes as best he could. At least George H.W. Bush
realized the need to undo some of the Reagan tax cuts or face fiscal
disaster, including the need to finance the S&L bailout.

California's budget problems are also attributable to voters continually
voting for costly new programs while also continually voting to cut
their own taxes. Now we see protests against 30% increases in college
tuition, but where do the students and their parents think the money to
run the universities came from? But we can sleep at night, knowing that
the guy that stole a slice of pizza is in prison.


From: Neil Harrington on

"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4ab17d78$0$1637$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>> I don't remember whether they had illegal aliens living off the dole in
>> "1984".
>
> Thank goodness we don't have that in the U.S. either!
>
> You really need to spend some time researching the facts. Start here:
> "http://www.urban.org/publications/305184.html"

Did you even read that yourself? This is what it says about illegal aliens:

"First, measures undertaken to control illegal immigration have been largely
unsuccessful. The size of the illegal alien population is continuing to
increase, even in areas with troubled local economies. Because undocumented
immigrants are disproportionately poorly educated and low-skilled, they tend
to have low incomes and place additional stress on local governments."

Now tell me how you get "thank goodness" out of that.

Remember, even Obama's "aunti" from Kenya is still here as an illegal alien,
and the last I heard of her she was living on welfare in public housing in
or around Boston. She even contributed money (illegally) to his campaign --
while on welfare! She was ordered by the immigration service to leave the
country -- FOUR YEARS AGO -- and she hasn't left yet, has she?

Illegal aliens here in the U.S. and on the dole is a large problem, and then
some.


From: Twibil on
On Sep 17, 4:04 am, "mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote:
> "Twibil" <nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2bb17f2b-8570-4fd0-9b89-5a21fbdef241(a)v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 16, 7:26 pm, "mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> > Never trust a man who gives online retorts with *no* substance.
>
> >> Well, you'd certainly be an expert on *that*, "mikey".
>
> > OOOOOOOO what a retort
>
> No, more of an alembic: distilled truth.
>
> LOL !!!! The only thing distilled here is what you are drinking.

I don't drink, and you missed (what a surprise!) the pun on "retort"
and "alembic".

Free hint: when trying to insult someone on Usenet, it's a good idea
to try saying something that has at least a grain of truth in it.

Just grabbing a random insult and flinging it at the wall in hopes
that something will stick is pretty much useless because the insult
isn't likely to make any sense.