From: Walter Banks on
HEMI-Powered wrote:

> The term "tax and spend liberal" was coined for good reason.
> Conservatives have the outlandish feeling that people should be
> self-reliant and not depend on the goverment, so it follows that
> people should be able to spend their money better than bureaucrats.
> Liberals feel just the opposite. They think people are stupid and
> helpless and so the government must help them. So, they grow
> government and confiscate your money. Might be marginally OK except
> that it has NEVER worked because of waste, fraud, and corruption.

One of the stranger dichotomies is the Democratic governments
in the the US for the last 40 years or so is that they have been
more fiscally responsible that Republican governments. The biggest
republican failure has been that they have failed in many cases to
fund their spending.

The US was essentially bankrupt a year ago. GNP was seriously
down, they were involved in two unfunded wars, revenue was
lower than the costs of essential services at the local level.
Infrastructure was being funded lower than the depreciation.
Private interests were siphoning off about 6% of GNP in
healthcare "overheads".

I have rarely heard anyone talk about the real reason that
the Reagan tax cuts appeared to work. At the time inflation
was greater than 10%. Reducing tax rates at the same time
as increasing everyone's income into the next tax bracket was
a political shell game. At the same time long term debt was
effectively reduced by the inflation rate. Blue smoke and
mirrors was the phase at the time

Walter..



From: Ray Fischer on
HEMI-Powered <none(a)none.gn> wrote:
>Savageduck added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>...
>
>> Bill is also immune to historic fact, and finds all Laws to be
>> written by conspiratorial liberals trying to steal his money,
>> and to control his life.
>>
>The term "tax and spend liberal" was coined for good reason.

Over the past several decades it has been the rightards who have spent
the country into recession.

>Conservatives have the outlandish feeling that people should be
>self-reliant and not depend on the goverment,

Unless it's to benefit "conservatives".

> so it follows that
>people should be able to spend their money better than bureaucrats.

Hows the recession working out for you?

>Liberals feel just the opposite.

Lying about liberals is a favorite pastime of rightard bigots.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Peter on
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010010801530050073-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-01-08 01:33:50 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said:
>
>> In message <4b46a58f$0$1622$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>> <rfischer(a)sonic.net> writes
>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Easy to generalize, isn't it? Why don;t you address the central point?
>>>> Why
>>>> can't a bartender operate a "smoking bar" in the city of Palo Alto,
>>>> California.
>>>
>>> Because cigarette smoke is poisonous.
>>
>> It is not the bar tender who decides it is the bar owner... The problem
>> is the staff. They have rights too. Unless *all* the staff (bar staff,
>> cleaners, cloakroom staff, security, kitchen staff, waiters etc and the
>> owner want to smoke you can not inflict it on them.
>>
>> We discussed this in a private club I attend. As it is private we
>> reasoned it was up to us not the law to decide. However the problem is
>> not all the staff were smokers. Some would prefer not to work in a smoky
>> environment.
>>
>> We also have a bar and serve food including meat. Non-alcohol drinkers
>> to not have to drink alcohol, vegetarians do not have to eat the meat
>> but if people smoke no one gets the choice about inhaling smoke.
>>
>> Everyone has equal rights.
>>
>>>> Smoking is legal on the street.
>>> The open air doesn't concentrate snoke.
>>
>> That is the excuse for putting a lot of pollutants into the air. :-(
>>
>>>> It is the libertarian view that this should be the law, and that to
>>>> force
>>>> all bars to be non-smoking is a transgression of the owner's property
>>>> rights.
>>>
>>> The libertarian view seems to be that one's own rights are more
>>> important than the rights of anybody else.
>>
>> The problem is Bill is NOT an American.
>
> You may be correct. It seems Bill is a product of the planet Graham
> (located somewhere in Oregon), where any foreign thought is declared
> liberal or socialist regardless of the actual political bias of the
> originator of those foreign thoughts.

YOu forgot: "stupid."
The term applies to all who had different ideas and philosophies.


--
Peter

From: Michael J on
On Jan 8, 9:01 am, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
"and the Bible says that you should be put to
> death for working on Sunday."
>
> Ray Fischer        
> rfisc...(a)sonic.net  

Actually the Bible say no such thing nor does the Bible state that
Sunday is the Sabbath.
But that said, according to ray, Jews should be killed for working on
Sunday.

From: Peter on
"Walter Banks" <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote in message
news:4B474033.F4781782(a)bytecraft.com...
> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>
>> The term "tax and spend liberal" was coined for good reason.
>> Conservatives have the outlandish feeling that people should be
>> self-reliant and not depend on the goverment, so it follows that
>> people should be able to spend their money better than bureaucrats.
>> Liberals feel just the opposite. They think people are stupid and
>> helpless and so the government must help them. So, they grow
>> government and confiscate your money. Might be marginally OK except
>> that it has NEVER worked because of waste, fraud, and corruption.
>
> One of the stranger dichotomies is the Democratic governments
> in the the US for the last 40 years or so is that they have been
> more fiscally responsible that Republican governments. The biggest
> republican failure has been that they have failed in many cases to
> fund their spending.
>
> The US was essentially bankrupt a year ago. GNP was seriously
> down, they were involved in two unfunded wars, revenue was
> lower than the costs of essential services at the local level.
> Infrastructure was being funded lower than the depreciation.
> Private interests were siphoning off about 6% of GNP in
> healthcare "overheads".
>
> I have rarely heard anyone talk about the real reason that
> the Reagan tax cuts appeared to work. At the time inflation
> was greater than 10%. Reducing tax rates at the same time
> as increasing everyone's income into the next tax bracket was
> a political shell game. At the same time long term debt was
> effectively reduced by the inflation rate. Blue smoke and
> mirrors was the phase at the time
>


The Bush administration was never a true conservative regime. It used the
conservatives and religious right as an excuse to line their pockets and
those of their buddies. Extreme left does not work and leads to a tyranny of
the left, as proved in the now defunct Soviet Union. A tyranny of the right
needs no further example. It was only after China started to move to the
right that it moved into the position it is now in. The major problem with
labeling and pigeonholing is that it allows for no middle ground. There are
times when the government has an obligation to step in and times when it
should just let businesses sort things out. The lack of restrictions on
giving the bailout funds is an example of what happens when the government
steps in and gives business carte blanche. If I were the CEO of any of those
banks, I probably would have done the same thing. If anyone here says any
thing to the contrary, I truly question their veracity. I see no clear line
when government should and should not act. Indeed, to be truly effective the
line must be flexible. The cry that government is taking over our lives when
it steps in on the health care bill, is patently false. the Sara Palins of
this world have no conscience when they promote such lies as the bill
includes "death panels." I wonder why she promotes those lies. In her case
it may just be stupidity.
</end mini rant>

--
Peter