From: Bill Graham on

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in message
news:maKdndWqQesOZy_XnZ2dnVY3goqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>>> Just look at the crime rate in New York City, where handguns have been
>>> illegal all of my life.
>>
>> Exactly!
>>
>> "http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/04/25/2009-04-25_city_crime_still_falling.html"
>
> More inconvenient facts. We really have to stop this. Poor Bill is going
> to have a heart attack from all that cognitive dissonance and find out how
> poor his overpriced insurance really is.
>
> --
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
As I quoted above, (from his article):

"Robberies were also down from 4,837 last year at this time to 4,131 this
year, and grand larcenies dropped from 10,030 to 8,854."

Things may be getting better there, (probably due to a cleaner police
department) but they are still pretty bad. But my belief in a citizen's
right to carry a gun to protect himself really has nothing to do with crime
statistics. One of the main purposes of the constitution is to protect the
minority from the tyranny of the majority, and the second amendment is just
another good example of that.

From: Bill Graham on

<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:h8uvvd$d18$1(a)news.albasani.net...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>> We have been over this ground too many times already. Let's just look at
>> the present and near future.
>
> Well you might need to look at what Obama was handed by GWB before you try
> to blame him for where we are.
>
>> How can any good come out of spending several trillion dollars right now?
>
> Have you looked around the world? We are NOT the only Gov pumping money
> into their economy trying to avoid a Depression. Which we have done BTW.
> Have you bothered to look at your retirement fund in the last six months?
>
>
>> You can't recover from a monetary loss by spending more money, whether
>> you are an individual or a country.
>
> Actually if we had continued to follow GWB example of doing absolutely
> nothing, we WOULD be in a depression right now.
>
> Stephanie

You might be right about that, but we will never know.....Only a small
percentage of the money allocated by congress for bail-outs has been spent
to date. If they don't blow it all, but are prudent about using it, then I
will really start to agree with your position.....

From: Bill Graham on

<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:h8v09v$dg7$1(a)news.albasani.net...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4ab2b555$0$1614$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>>> We have been over this ground too many times already. Let's just look
>>>> at the present and near future. How can any good come out of spending
>>>> several trillion dollars right now? You can't recover from a monetary
>>>> loss by spending more money, whether you are an individual or a
>>>> country. We are on a big path to certain doom.
>>>
>>> Spending that money will indeed devalue our currency and lead to
>>> inflation. Thanks to W, the U.S. standard of living will be lower for
>>> decades or even a century.
>>>
>>> However the alternative of letting the economy go from recession to
>>> depression would have been much worse. You have to learn to look at the
>>> big picture.
>>>
>>> There is a big difference between the reckless deficit spending of
>>> Reagan and W, and the current bailout of major financial institutions
>>> and manufacturers. The former was to enrich the wealthy at the expense
>>> of the lower and middle class. The latter is to prevent the whole world
>>> from going into a depression caused by the former. As distasteful as it
>>> may be to bail out GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc., the alternative would have
>>> been much worse.
>>>
>>> It will take many decades to undo the problems wrought by supply-side
>>> economics, ignoring the threat of radical Islam, ignoring environmental
>>> degradation, and alienating most of the industrialized world in the
>>> process, but it isn't hopeless or certain doom.
>>
>> This is ridiculous. It wasn't "supply side economics" that got the banks
>> lending money to people who didn't have any down payments and jobs to pay
>> for their homes. It was the erroneous belief that real estate prices
>> would rise forever, plus the lack of regulation that encouraged the banks
>> to be so stupid. Neither Regan nor Bush, (nor Clinton) had anything to do
>> with this.
>
>
> But massive deficit spending did affect all of this. You can't spend
> BILLIONS on a war and at the same time LOWER taxes. You blame the dem for
> "Tax and spend" but ignore the effects of "Tax rebate but spend a lot
> more". That is EXACTLY what Regan AND both Bush's did.
>
> And where exactly do you think we borrowed this money to go to war while
> lowering taxes came from?
>
> Stephanie

I agree that borrowing money is bad, and will produce a depressed economy in
the long run. but it doesn't matter what you use the money for....War, or
other stupid stuff. You still have to pay interest on the loans, and so your
future tax dollars are eaten up with your interest payments. But don't blame
the Republicans for spending all the money.....The Democrats have been just
as good at it during my lifetime.....Can you read Nancy Pelosi's mind?....I
think more than sugar plums are dancing in her wee little head about
now...... And she thinks I am her Santa Claus.....

From: Bill Graham on

<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:h8v0hg$dg7$2(a)news.albasani.net...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>> "Walter Banks" <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote in message
>> news:4AB228D8.59CB1866(a)bytecraft.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> 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..
>>>
>> Usually because the Republicans have had to handle the wars, (mostly
>> because they have happened to be in office when we were attacked, or
>> otherwise obligated to wage them)
>
>
> The KEY thing to note is: IF the country is at war spending BILLIONS, you
> don't give HUGE tax breaks to big business at the same time.
>
> Stephanie

I don't think that "big business" has been getting, "Huge tax breaks". the
last time I checked, corporate taxes were like 50%, but that was a number of
years ago......I would hate to think they were still that high, especially
for small businesses.....

From: Bill Graham on

<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:h8v0r9$e78$1(a)news.albasani.net...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4ab17f94$0$1647$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4ab132d8$0$1595$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
>>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think of it as the lesser of two evils. Right now, the government
>>>>>> is giving my money away to the illegal aliens in bushel baskets,
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually they're not, at least not the federal government directly.
>>>>> It's the states that are required to provide education, and that are
>>>>> not allowed to turn away anyone from emergency rooms regardless of
>>>>> their ability to pay or whether or not they are here legally.
>>>>
>>>> When I use the term, "government" I mean either stste or federal. (or
>>>> even local county) They are all the same to me, since they all take tax
>>>> money from me.
>>>
>>> The difference is that the state and local governments have no power to
>>> enforce immigration laws. The federal government mandates on education
>>> and emergency health care are unfunded mandates that the state is forced
>>> to accept. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for welfare unless a
>>> state or locality decides to provide it, so of course you never actually
>>> saw piles of welfare checks that were being distributed to illegal
>>> immigrants in Oregon, unless you're referring to welfare that is being
>>> distributed to U.S. citizens that were born here to illegal immigrants.
>>> If that's the case I suggest that you work on changing the law to
>>> eliminate the provision that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a
>>> citizen--you'd have a lot of support for that.
>>
>> Yes. I knew a family who were illegal's, but they worked very hard, and
>> the guy fixed my automobiles for me, so I got along well with him.
>
>
>
> Well my friend YOU are the reason they even come to this country and stay.
> My guess is you were paying this guy cash, probably at a very discounted
> rate to have your car repaired, so this was a "good illegal" according to
> your post. What you did was NO DIFFERENT that buying stolen goods. YOU are
> the people who encourage ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. Just like theives wouldn't
> steal if they couldn't sell what they stole, if people didn't pay illegals
> to work, they wouldn't be here.
>
> Stephanie

Again, you are right, but the difference in my mind is that I expect my INS
to control the borders and prevent them from coming here to begin with. Once
they are here, several things interfere with my following your instructions.
In the first place, it is impolite for me to require or even ask someone who
is trying to help me for his ID and to prove he is a citizen. I tend to
assume people are Ok first, and only give them a hard time for cause. My
wife's car quit when she was a half a block from this guy's house, and he
walked down to where she was and got her car started again for her, and
drove it to his place where he fixed it up right. That was how I first met
him, and it was not until several years later, when he had learned to trust
me, that he revealed to me his true circumstances. by that time, he had
become my friend, and I was more than willing to collude with him in
screwing my government out of anything we could. (You know how I love the
government. and live to give them more money) As a matter of fact, when this
guy finally left to go home, I loaned him several hundred dollars to make
sure he had a safe trip home. His daughters are citizens in good standing
here, and don't need anything from me or anyone else....They are taking part
in keeping our government in business.....One is an MD, and the other two
are no slouches either. We really need more, "illegal aliens" like this guy
was.