From: Bob Larter on
stephe_k(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> 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.

You'd think that'd be common sense to anybody, but apparently not.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Larter on
stephe_k(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> 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.

Yep. In Australia, the government pumped a ton of cash into stimulus
payments for just about everybody, & told us to go spend it. We did, &
it kept us out of a recession by the skin of our teeth. In fact, we're
the only G20 nation that has avoided recession. The only thing Obama has
done wrong is not give /enough/ money to people who'd go straight out &
spend it.


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Larter on
Bill Graham wrote:
>
> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4ab10bc3$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>> "Douglas Johnson" <post(a)classtech.com> wrote in message
>>> news:bm0la513ptifqd2htorhffbk4a24j9sbtg(a)4ax.com...
>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> .....Can I blame the liberals for it? After all, it is a socialist
>>>>> idea. Can
>>>>> anyone get food simply by putting their feet on a supermarkets
>>>>> property? If
>>>>> so, then would you go for the idea today that food should be
>>>>> socialized? How
>>>>> about getting a room for the night by simply setting foot on a hotel's
>>>>> property?
>>>>
>>>> So you have a heart attack. The paramedics show up. Should they
>>>> require proof
>>>> of citizenship or ability to pay before starting CPR? Or before
>>>> they transport
>>>> you to the hospital? Should the hospital require it before they
>>>> treat you?
>>>
>>> In my world, yes, yes, yes. Everyone (all 300 million of us citizens)
>>> should have a government ID card, and/or a chip implanted in us that
>>> identifies us as US citizens in good standing, and if we are sick,
>>> then the chip should get us the treatment we need. Today's technology
>>> is more than adequate to accomplish this.
>>
>> Jeez. Ever read 1984?
>>
> I don't remember whether they had illegal aliens living off the dole in
> "1984".

*whooosh!*

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Larter on
mikey4 wrote:
> "Twibil" <nowayjose6(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.

Nice job of proving his point for him, Mikey.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Larter on
C J Campbell wrote:
> And no -- bureaucratizing health care is unlikely to get rid of waste
> and corruption. Far to the contrary. A national health care plan would
> vastly increase waste and corruption.

Really? In every other country with 'socialised' health care, they spend
much less than the USA does.


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------