From: Bill Graham on

"Walter Banks" <walter(a)> wrote in message
> 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)

From: Bill Graham on

"Walter Banks" <walter(a)> wrote in message
> 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..
Not for me, there aren't. I lost about half my retirement investment when
the market crashed. The "opportunities" are for those who have the money to
invest in my crashed stocks, but not for me. I have no choice but to try to
live until the market recovers, and the way the Dems are spending money,
that may never happen.....Even when it does, what will my dollars be worth
after those printing presses have been rumbling for 8 years?

From: Savageduck on
On 2009-09-17 15:47:33 -0700, "D. Peter Maus"
<DPeterMaus(a)> said:

> On 9/17/09 17:33 , SMS wrote:
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>> It's amazing how few people here break into houses, when they know
>>> that the occupants probably have a gun.
>> In fact, the opposite is true. Nearly all break-ins occur when the
>> occupants are not home. Guns are one of the items most likely to be
>> stolen in house break-ins.
>>> If I were a professional house breaker, I would go to some country
>>> where no one is allowed to own a gun. That's just good common sense.
>> A professional "house breaker" does not break into houses that are
>> occupied. They do break into houses where they think fence-able items
>> are available. An indication that the homeowner is a member of the NRA
>> would indicate the probability that handguns are stored in the house.
> > If you want to prevent break-ins, install security cameras, alarms, and
>> get a dog that barks a lot when strangers approach. You'll be much more
>> likely to prevent a break-in than you would by owning a gun.
> Um...when Morton Grove banned handguns, home invasions went up 128%.

Damn! It's a good thing I have this:

and as a retired peace officer, can liberally use it to do this;

and if that isn't enough I can always fall back on these;

.... this I just have for the pure joy of having a piece of history;

Who knows why the home invaders have stayed away?



From: mikey4 on

"Twibil" <nowayjose6(a)> wrote in message
On Sep 17, 4:04 am, "mikey4" <lakediver(a)> wrote:
> "Twibil" <nowayjo...(a)> wrote in message
> news:2bb17f2b-8570-4fd0-9b89-5a21fbdef241(a)
> On Sep 16, 7:26 pm, "mikey4" <lakediver(a)> 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.

What ever you say

From: Walter Banks on

Bill Graham wrote:

> 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.

The basic economy needs the investment so it will produce money in the future.
Think about your stock investment. You give a company some money and they
use the money to do some manufacturing of a product that is sold and your
stock appreciates in value because they sold products for more than they cost
to make and you get to share in the profits. Think what would happen if you
invested your money. The last 6 months of Bush you would have been better
keeping all the money in a sock. The first 6 months of Obama you are about
30% better better off.

A country is similar. It invests in roads so I can eat California grapes and pay

the driver who pays the shipper who pays the farmer. Otherwise the grapes will
rot and the farmer will go broke and the bank will take away his house and
he will live in a tent in downtown SanFrancisco.

A country invests in basic education so they have people with basic skills to
be employed so they can feed their families.

A (some) countries invests in health care so workers will come to work
more often so local workers will be able to be more efficient that unskilled
martians living on a south seas island. Government run health care at its
worse is more efficient than all the insurance middle men. The US is the
last industrialized country to do the math.