From: mikey4 on

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4ab351ee$0$1647$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>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.
>
> What the rightards and politicians don't seem to grasp is that giving
> tons of money to rich people doesn't do squat for the economy, and
> most likely makes things even worse because they often ship their
> money out of the country. Give stimulus money to the poor and middle
> classes and the money will get spent and will get spent in the
> country.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfischer(a)sonic.net
>
So what do the lefttards do? They throw it at big business, banks, etc
instead of suspending *all* payroll taxes for a month or more.
OH YEAH the lefttards are so much better......... BS!!!


From: mikey4 on

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4ab356dd$0$1640$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> DRS <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>>"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> stephe_k(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>I have to disagree with that last statement. Obama's administration
>>majorly
>>fucked up the bailout of Wall St.
>
> Except that it was the Bush administration.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21qanda.html
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfischer(a)sonic.net
>
*And both houses*. What a twit you are.


From: mikey4 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
Just what do you think is happening right now????????? Why do you think
people are so PISSED????????
This is *not* the dems vs the repubs, this is *us the people" vs *them*, why
can't anyone see this?????????
We have the government we deserve.



From: mikey4 on

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ab33441$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> 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.
>
> --
And the stupidity of *both* parties continues.


From: mikey4 on

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4ab30775$0$1673$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> 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.
>
> Of course you can. It's done all the time and is commonly known as
> "investing". Everyone, from governments to take on debt to invest and
> earn more money in the future.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfischer(a)sonic.net

LMAO !!!!!!!
>