From: Bill Graham on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
> A tax code, which taxes proportionately according to income, and the
> ability to pay without regard to marital status.
> A tax code which addresses low income, and lower middle income
> proportionately.
> A tax code which is not regressive, and does not provide massive loopholes
> for those more than able to pay their fair share. That includes
> corporations such as Exxon which had billion in profits had off-shore
> subsidiaries pay foreign taxes, but not a cent to the US Treasury.

It may be obsolete, and perhaps, "unfair", but it is a fact that the oil
companies were given these tax breaks, or "loopholes" because they used a
lot of their profits to explore for new oil fields or reserves. this is
similar to the railroads being given land on which to build their
tracks.....My dad, who was an Exxon executive used to tell me about things
like this.

From: Stuffed Crust on
In Neil Harrington <never(a)> wrote:
> That whole process started in the early '90s with Clinton and his aggressive
> expansion of CRA. It just went on and on, became more and more risky, and
> the potential for disaster became greater and greater as it continued.

Wait, you mean expansions of the CRA that a republican congress sent
to Clinton's desk to sign? (And incidentally, it was the latter '90s,
not the early '90s, with aforementioned republican congress, that
loosened the "compliance burden" that you're blaming here)

> A group of senators including John McCain (but not a single Democrat) tried
> to get better regulation enacted in 2003, but didn't get anywhere. And
> Barney Frank was still defending NINJA loans and all the rest of the mess
> right up until it all came crashing down -- he insisted Republicans were
> "making a mountain out of a molehill."

You know, given that the republicans controlled both houses of congress
and the executive branch from '01-07, I fail to see how this failure can
be blamed on the democrats. Granted, they didn't have a
filibuster-proof majority in the senate, but that didn't stop them from
passing a whole lot of legistlation in the mean time. And if you're
gnig to blame Clinton (ie the executive branch) for the CRA's faults
earlier, then it becomes Bush's responsibility as the new executive to
fix it later.

You can't have it both ways; is it congress's fault, or the executive's?

- Solomon
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
From: Stuffed Crust on
In Neil Harrington <never(a)> wrote:
> Obama has given us nothing but misrepresentations, outright lies, broken
> promises, huge increases in the national debt with more of the same to come,
> more bald-faced lies, more abandoned pledges, enormous tax increases down

Hmm, as of this writing, Obama's at 108 promises kept and 19 broken,
34 compromises and another 350ish at various states of [in]completion.


It's worth repeating that many of his promises boil down to proposing
legislation, after which it's up to congress to hand back something for
him to actually sign into law.

> shove a monstrous health care "reform" that most Americans clearly want no
> part of, down their throats.

I really dislike people who claim to know what "most Americans clearly
want" because they're usually just projecting.

- Solomon
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
From: David Ruether on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message

> Yes....Well, when the democratic congress pursues bank financial reform as avidly as they have pursued health reform, (and other
> ways of spending my money like water) then I will sit up and take notice....So far, all they have done is set up to spend one hell
> of a lot of my money. And I wonder when Obama will finally assist the Israel army in bombing the hell out of Iran's nuclear
> facilities with deep-penetration bombs.....It is quite apparent to me that that is the only way we can stop Iran from continuing
> to develop atomic bombs and se;;/give them to terrorists. Right now, all Obama is doing is pussyfooting around with Akmadinijad
> and giving him more time to finish making bombs and hiding them in different parts of his country. You do know that there a lot of
> us, "nuts" who think Obama is an Al Qaeda spy, don't you? What if us nuts are right, and he is? He sure doesn't show me how wrong
> I am.......
> To me, it is very simple.....You say to Iran, "Tell you what....We have many fine nuclear engineers....Why don't you let us build
> you a reactor and supervise its use as a power plant for your energy needs?" And when this is turned down, (as I'm certain it
> would be) then we should scramble the bombers bouquet fast......

Ooooops! My bad! I really thought you had some sense...
Dang! Really, begin to think, "sense", "consequences", and,
"long-term"! It will help us all.

From: David Ruether on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
> On 2010-04-15 18:06:33 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> said:
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)> wrote in message news:hq7546$6vo$1(a)
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:GO6dnasX27edrVvWnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d(a)

>>>> But the government did that years ago, when they yielded to the religious lobbyists and wrote the word, "marriage" into their
>>>> laws. Now, you guys (You religious types) are suffering for that indiscretion. Next time, keep your religious dogma out of my
>>>> laws. Look at the trouble you caused with the change in the pledge of allegiance. (adding, "under God") I still know people who
>>>> refuse to say it, or remove their hats when others say it. You turned what I was always proud to say into another religious
>>>> ritual.....Someday that chicken too, will come home to roost.......

>>> Again thanks. I've always been annoyed by that intrusion of
>>> religion into the pledge, and also with the words, "in god we
>>> trust" on our money, as if that represents the views of all who
>>> use the money, and therefore of all US citizens. The tendency
>>> of a majority of people to believe that their *beliefs* are
>>> universal and "true" can be oppressive.
>>> --DR

>> This country was founded by religious people, and I have no desire to change history. That is one reason why I do not object to
>> the words, "In God we trust" on our money. And, since I am not a historian, I will assume that all the public references to God
>> on our state buildings are so motivated....But when it comes to adding MORE such references after I am grown (in the 50's) then
>> it disturbs me, because this tells me that the religious are attempting to push their quaint myths further and further into my
>> private space......

> OK. History check, and First Amendment check.
> You have used the term "religious" to describe the founders. That is a broad brush you are painting them with. Some of those who
> would love to rewrite our history would love to have them as devote Christians, some were, but the great majority were something
> else, Deists.
> The Deist philosophy played the major role in formulating the First Amendment. That group of Founding Fathers included Jefferson,
> Franklin, Harnett, Morris, Williamson, Adams, Madison, Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine, and Washington.
> Sure the Deists believed in a "God", However this was not the "God" some of today's Christians want us to think the Founding
> Fathers believed in.
> It might be time to reread Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" This almost cost him his head;
> Jefferson thought of Christianity as "The Christian System" and wrote his interpretation of the New Testament, now known as the
> Jefferson Bible.
> I sincerely doubt that any of them would have place a trust in "God" or make such a statement of faith on something so
> symbolically unchristian as money. Even more so since currency is that direct link between our pockets (and some of those are
> atheist pockets) and the Government's treasury.
> As for the addition of "under God" to the pledge of allegiance. This was a political move in 1948 by the DAR & SAR, but not yet
> official. In 1954 a Presbyterian pastor George Docherty made the the proposal to Eisenhower who had recently been baptized as a
> Presbyterian (Ike was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, difficult to think of him handing out The Watchtower!) "under God" was
> incorporated by Joint Resolution on June 14, 1954. The false thinking was that it was a move on the part of HUAC and/or McCarthy
> as a statement of faith in the face of the Cold War.
> There are real issues of the Constitutionality, as this incorporation implies a State religion which excludes those not following
> the "God" of the pledge.
> Both "In God We Trust" and "under God" are unwelcome interlopers.
> What ever happened to "E pluribus unum"?
> That more fully represents what the United States of America should be. Secular and united.
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck

Hey, thanks for the above!