JimH wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 04:52:06 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Most of the Democrats who won the House races all ran to the right.
Pro-God, pro-life, pro-gun.

That is true. This is still going to be a fairly conservative
congress. Losing guys like Chafee who consistantly voted against Bush
anyway is not scaring him.
Lieberman winning is pushing the DNC back on the war. Dean was on
tonight warning the faithful that we are not leaving Iraq any time
soon. Pity.


Chris Mathews was pushing Dean pretty hard for the democratic "plan" to
exit
from Iraq.
Dean was so tongue tied he couldn't answer for a while. Finally, he
muttered something like, "after we get control, we'll figure out
something".

Decisive.

Absolutely not true. The Dems have plenty on the table, ready to go in
just the first 100 HOURS:

Franklin Roosevelt had his first hundred days. House Democratic leader
Nancy Pelosi is thinking 100 hours, time enough, she says, to begin to
"drain the swamp" after more than a decade of Republican rule. As in
the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats in her fondest wish
win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel
as the first Madam Speaker in history.

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists
and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that
investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an
hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in
half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the
pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds "I
hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press
interview Thursday.

There's not much in that first 100 hour plan that I disagree with.



All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the
deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or
some other priority. To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have
to be rolled back for those above "a certain level."

Revenues went up with the tax cut. Unfortunately, so did expenditures. If
she wants to enact "pay as you go" legislation, then she should attack it
on the expenditure side. The revenues are already there.

Any tax increase will get vetoed.

Any increase in social spending and entitlements will get vetoed.



She mentioned
annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax
rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era.

$250-300k/year does not define a "rich" person...particularly if they have
a large family, and live in a very expensive area of the country (NYC,
California, or Naples ;-))

Raise the income level to affect only the top 1/2% of income earners and
I'd support it.


As you probably already know those were not Bassy's thoughts but those from
David Espo of the AP:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100600056.html

Too bad he did not credit the source.

Quick, go to your local police department and tell them!!! I'll bet
they are still laughing at your little sissy whining that you were
scared of someone on usenet....
Oh, and did you tell them that it was Kevin Noble?? I hope so!