From: stephe_k on
Bill Graham wrote:
>
> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:h916ml$lne$3(a)news.albasani.net...
>> mikey4 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> People are pissed because "they" have finely woke up to the fact that
>>> the "government" is out of control and has been for a very long time.
>>
>> Well I was pissed watching GWB spending BILLIONS on a war while giving
>> MASSIVE tax breaks to the wealthy. I was pissed watching him do
>> NOTHING other than watching the economy fail. Were you? Some of us
>> didn't just "wake up" because a republican wasn't in the white house.
>> If Obama had been handed a healthy country and done this, I'd be
>> pissed right there with ya, but that isn't what happened.
>>
>> Stephanie
> I still don't understand about these, "massive tax cuts to the wealthy".


One example, check out the inheritance tax laws Bush put in place..

> the last time I checked, the more money you make, the greater percentage
> you have to pay, .....that's what the tax tables in the form 1040 tell
> me.....

Talking about OTHER taxes, loopholes opened up for the wealthy and the
owners/CEO etc of big business. People whos income if "off the chart" of
those tables that you refer too. They didn't help anyone whos income
figures are on some tax table.

Stephanie
From: stephe_k on
mikey4 wrote:
> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:h916ml$lne$3(a)news.albasani.net...
>> mikey4 wrote:
>>
>>> People are pissed because "they" have finely woke up to the fact that the
>>> "government" is out of control and has been for a very long time.
>> Well I was pissed watching GWB spending BILLIONS on a war while giving
>> MASSIVE tax breaks to the wealthy. I was pissed watching him do NOTHING
>> other than watching the economy fail. Were you? Some of us didn't just
>> "wake up" because a republican wasn't in the white house. If Obama had
>> been handed a healthy country and done this, I'd be pissed right there
>> with ya, but that isn't what happened.
>>
>> Stephanie
>
> My point here Stephanie is that this entire mess is a result of *both*
> parties screwing the pooch for *years and years and years*. The republicans
> win by a land slide and they *think* they have a mandate, they don't, people
> were sick and tired of what the dems were doing. The dems win by ands land
> slide and well, you finish the sentence.
> They have us right where they want us, squabbling about this party did that
> and the other party did this.
> News flash, BOTH PARTIES are doing US.!!!
>
>


Did I ever say I was a democrat? There are some republicans I am OK with
too. Overall I think NONE of them are representing us. I guess I just
feel Obama has my interests more at heart than GWB ever did.

BTW GWB won by the smallest margin in history yet claimed a "mandate".

Stephanie
From: mikey4 on

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4ab51751$0$1630$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote:
>>>><stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> mikey4 wrote:
>
>>>>>> People are pissed because "they" have finely woke up to the fact that
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> "government" is out of control and has been for a very long time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well I was pissed watching GWB spending BILLIONS on a war while giving
>>>>> MASSIVE tax breaks to the wealthy. I was pissed watching him do
>>>>> NOTHING
>>>>> other than watching the economy fail. Were you? Some of us didn't just
>>>>> "wake up" because a republican wasn't in the white house. If Obama had
>>>>> been handed a healthy country and done this, I'd be pissed right there
>>>>> with ya, but that isn't what happened.
>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>
>>>>My point here Stephanie is that this entire mess is a result of *both*
>>>>parties screwing the pooch for *years and years and years*.
>>>
>>> It is a fundamental policy of republicans to cut taxes for the rich
>>> and reduce or eliminate government regulation while allowing
>>> corporations free reign. Those policies cause this current economic
>>> climate.
>>>
>>> Lack of regulation allowed the finanicial collapse. Cutting taxes for
>>> the rich left the middle class further in debt. Free reign for
>>> corporations allowed them to cut worker salaries in order to give
>>> countless millions to execs.
>>>
>>> And when the middle class doesn't have money to spend, and when the
>>> financial industry collapses, and when the rich ship their money out
>>> of the country, then you get an economy that's in the toilet.
>>>
>>> --
>>Here we go with rays typical response. There was no lack of regulation
>>ray,
>>you really need to read up on the SEC and how it came about.
>
> For the stupid: There were insufficient regulations to control the
> sort of financial instruments that led to the collapse.
>
For the putz, next time say so. Try reading about the SEC anyway.


From: mikey4 on

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4ab5180c$0$1630$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>><stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:h916ml$lne$3(a)news.albasani.net...
>
>>> Well I was pissed watching GWB spending BILLIONS on a war while giving
>>> MASSIVE tax breaks to the wealthy. I was pissed watching him do NOTHING
>>> other than watching the economy fail. Were you? Some of us didn't just
>>> "wake up" because a republican wasn't in the white house. If Obama had
>>> been handed a healthy country and done this, I'd be pissed right there
>>> with ya, but that isn't what happened.
>>>
>>> Stephanie
>>I still don't understand about these, "massive tax cuts to the wealthy".
>>the
>>last time I checked, the more money you make, the greater percentage you
>>have to pay, .....that's what the tax tables in the form 1040 tell me.....
>
> That's the sort of ignorant thinking that gets rightards into trouble.
>
> There are many ways the wealthy get to pay lower taxes. Her's one:
> Long-term capital gains and dividens aren't taxed as regular income.
> It's a flat 15% even before you find any deductions. So, if you own a
> ton of stock that pays you $250/yr in dividends then you pay no more
> than 15% of that as income tax. If you are given $100,000,000 in
> stock by the company and you sell it a year later, you pay 15%.
>
> --
Mean while dip sh.t, the liberal government you love so much just keeps
right on spending.


From: mikey4 on

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4ab51946$0$1630$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> Neil Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>>>>"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>
>>>>>> Much the same with the latest ACORN scandal, which stunk so badly
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> even Democrats in Congress finally voted to stop funding ACORN. But
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> never even heard about it from ABC, CBS or NBC, did you?
>>>>> [Nonsense deleted...]
>>>>>
>>>>> What was shown on tape from a *few* ACORN locations (but where
>>>>> were the reportings of the ones that threw out these imposters?)
>>>>
>>>>What makes you think ANY of the ACORN offices did or would do any
>>>>differently from the ones on tape? ACORN is rotten and corrupt to the
>>>>core.
>>>
>>> If that's true then it must also be true of the Republican party given
>>> the number of Republicans who have been shown to be lying,
>>> philandering hypocrites.
>>
>>Just like the lefttards
>
> Never trust a man who gives online retorts with *no* substance.
> mikey in <h8rvun$1hb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>
> --
Snip away ray there are a few of us who know your true colors.