From: Bill Graham on

<stephe_k(a)> wrote in message news:h8v0hg$dg7$2(a)
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> "Walter Banks" <walter(a)> wrote in message
>> news:4AB228D8.59CB1866(a)
>>> 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)> wrote in message news:h8v0r9$e78$1(a)
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)> wrote in message
>> news:4ab17f94$0$1647$742ec2ed(a)
>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:4ab132d8$0$1595$742ec2ed(a)
>>>>> 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

From: Bill Graham on

"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)> wrote in message
> stephe_k(a) wrote:
>> 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.
> Well to be fair, George H.W. Bush did have to clean up the mess Reagan
> made with the S&L's, and he did agree to a tax increase to reduce deficit
> spending slightly. And no doubt this was behind his loss for re-election.
> George H.W. Bush also correctly called Reaganomics, "voo-doo economics."
>> And where exactly do you think we borrowed this money to go to war while
>> lowering taxes came from?
> The deficits run up by the tax cuts for the wealthy exceed the cost of the
> health care proposals.
> People complain a lot about George W. Bush because not only was his
> presidency a failure in terms of domestic and foreign policy, but he also
> was personally unpopular, and not well-spoken. Reagan was more dangerous
> because his policy failures were not as well understood or publicized
> because he was personally very popular. It's only in the past couple of
> years that everyone is beginning to realize the damage Reagan wrought.

Speak for yourself and your communist blogger friends.....I don't think,
"everyone is beginning to realize" any such thing at all. Regan is still one
of the most popular presidents of all time. And for good reason.

From: Bill Graham on

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)> wrote in message
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> "wrbrown13" <wrbrown3(a)> wrote in message
>> news:xz99h2s243hc$.9skloajqavx8.dlg(a)
>>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:36:20 -0700, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>> "Bob G" <mrbobjames(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:adbcdb79-6c7f-4021-8fc0-3adf608d7083(a)
>>>>> Republicans would rather get jerked around by the corporations than by
>>>>> the government. Wait until you get a horrible diseaase and your health
>>>>> insurance company drops you like a hot potato.
>>>>> The fact is that this nation is now an oligarchy (and has been for
>>>>> some time) and not a democracy.
>>>>> How does that go, from the corporations, by the corporations, and for
>>>>> the corporations?
>>>> That is what litigation is supposed to correct.....You still have the
>>>> right
>>>> to sue. But I never said that government couldn't regulate. Your health
>>>> insurance policy should list the stuff it doesn't cover, in large ten
>>>> point
>>>> type.......I would vote for a law like that.
>>> Now there's a thought. Sue a large corporation who has any number of
>>> lawyers on their staff and can drag litigation out intil you don't have
>>> a
>>> penny to your name. Great in theory, but a joke in reality.
>> They usually settle out of court. Why? Because juries are very
>> sympathetic to the little guy, and have been known to award many millions
>> of the big companies money to him.
> After years of litigation, during which the plaintiff may have died of
> their illness.

Better yet....Then his poor widow collects even more money....

From: Ray Fischer on
mikey4 <lakediver(a)> wrote:
>"John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>> I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but my impression was that the
>> Great Depression is what happened last time the big banks and
>> companies were allowed to fail.
>Banks were not allowed to fail, from
>Throughout the 1930s over 9,000 banks failed. Bank deposits were uninsured
>and thus as banks failed people simply lost their savings.

What's wrong with this picture? mikey says "Banks were not allowed to
fail" and then provides a cite which says "over 9,000 banks failed".

Stupidity? Insanity?

Ray Fischer