|
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On 07 Feb 2009 21:22:26 GMT, Robb wrote:
Way Back Jack wrote: On 07 Feb 2009 20:59:38 GMT, Robb wrote: Restless wrote: On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:23:42 -0500, Kali wrote: You can start with Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman: Not intersted in socialist economists. More like disenchanted with life. You do know an "economist" is nothing special, except for the specialized education, anyone can be one, no license required. Tell it to the other idiot who worships at his altar. Kali? She can outread the both of us. Especially the writings of socialist economists. But can understand why those of you tit suckers who want Uncle Sugar to pay for abortions, sex ed, child care, job-finding assistance would be. Surprised you don't want the government to provide you with a personal trainer and a masseuse. How far was your jump to conclusion? Read the other idiot's wish list. Too busy watching that darn liberal-brainwashing PBS pop their cork over Africans starving to death. You know how it is. Oh no, you don't. Jimmy Carter couldn't save them from themselves. Obama will fail in similar fashion. Many $$$$$$billions later. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 13:23:02 -0800 (PST), =?windows-1252?Q?No_One=99?=
wrote: On Feb 7, 4:20 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote: On 07 Feb 2009 21:13:35 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: On 07 Feb 2009 20:49:16 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks. On cue. Are you going to drop Townhall in here next? Right after I finish reading the "journalism" the other idiot provided from Pravda West (NYTimes). You know, you can recycle the chips on your shoulder. Yeah, ol' Barry really lost his cool over this porkulus thing. Sometime better tell him that it gets harder. The media has already devolved from paralyzed adoration to bobby-soxer doting. Wayback, if you're retired wouldn't you be happier up in Alaska blowing giant assed holes in things? Like polar bears, wolves, Sarah Palins husband? It's more fun trying to educate brainwashed liberals. Wasn't it John McCain that proclaimed you guys as racists, xenophobes and kooks? Talk about a brainwashing, dude, that must have been rougher than riding a motorcycle upside down on your face. (it's a visual, try hard) Barry's the one who played the race card, even against our first black prez, Willie C. Oh, please. He never played the race card. Cite? Cite? Cite? I agree with the cuts. We need to hold back some money for universal health care. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ce-card-on-me/ (...) The former president had been asked whether his remarks comparing Obama’s strong showing in South Carolina to that of Jesse Jackson in 1988 had been a mistake given their impact on his wife Hillary Clinton’s campaign. “No, I think that they played the race card on me,” said Clinton, “and we now know from memos from the campaign and everything that they planned to do it all along.” (...) |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On 07 Feb 2009 21:33:21 GMT, Robb wrote:
Way Back Jack wrote: On 07 Feb 2009 21:06:34 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: On 06 Feb 2009 23:55:34 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: The shrewd ******* is hedging. If it fails, he can say that both sides were for it. If it fails without support from the other side, his side can kiss the 2010 and 2012 elections goodbye. Are you trying to master stating the obvious? But, but, but ... if the communists think that this is such a sure thing, they would want to take all the credit for it. Even someone educated by MTV should see that. Wearing an achy-breaky heart on your sleeve today? Cheer up WayBack, someone will drag you kicking-and-screaming into the decade of prosperity. ;) I mean, the Unholy Trinity of Obama - Pelosi - Reid were damn near grinding their molars to dust trying to get the other side to cave. It's slow ride to Pig****erville, neh? What did you expect by sticking shrub in as chief lawbreaker a second time. Suck it up - eat more pork. When they should have been delighted that the other side refused to vote for it. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Feb 7, 4:29 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 13:23:02 -0800 (PST), =?windows-1252?Q?No_One=99?= wrote: On Feb 7, 4:20 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote: On 07 Feb 2009 21:13:35 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: On 07 Feb 2009 20:49:16 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks. On cue. Are you going to drop Townhall in here next? Right after I finish reading the "journalism" the other idiot provided from Pravda West (NYTimes). You know, you can recycle the chips on your shoulder. Yeah, ol' Barry really lost his cool over this porkulus thing. Sometime better tell him that it gets harder. The media has already devolved from paralyzed adoration to bobby-soxer doting. Wayback, if you're retired wouldn't you be happier up in Alaska blowing giant assed holes in things? Like polar bears, wolves, Sarah Palins husband? It's more fun trying to educate brainwashed liberals. Wasn't it John McCain that proclaimed you guys as racists, xenophobes and kooks? Talk about a brainwashing, dude, that must have been rougher than riding a motorcycle upside down on your face. (it's a visual, try hard) Barry's the one who played the race card, even against our first black prez, Willie C. Oh, please. He never played the race card. Cite? Cite? Cite? I agree with the cuts. We need to hold back some money for universal health care. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...inton-obama-ca... (...) The former president had been asked whether his remarks comparing Obama’s strong showing in South Carolina to that of Jesse Jackson in 1988 had been a mistake given their impact on his wife Hillary Clinton’s campaign. “No, I think that they played the race card on me,” said Clinton, “and we now know from memos from the campaign and everything that they planned to do it all along.” (...) “No, I think that they played the race card on me,” said Clinton..." A statement of opinion reported on a blog doesn't constitute a fact. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
In article , says...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:23:42 -0500, Kali wrote: You can start with Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman: Not intersted in socialist economists. He isn't a socialist, he is a liberal. But can understand why those of you tit suckers who want Uncle Sugar to pay for abortions, sex ed, child care, job-finding assistance would be. Surprised you don't want the government to provide you with a personal trainer and a masseuse. Here's a very easily understood primer on the conflict: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...n2009/db200901 27_702149.htm?campaign_id=rss_topStories I'll stick with the guy who saw all of this coming a long time ago; the guy who won a Nobel Prize; an eminent scholar of the Great Depression. Hopefully there will be enough spending to really get the economy going again. You can go ahead and insist on tax cuts only or the extreme conservative view: do nothing. But I think something is going to be done, regardless. Personally I think the GOP should sit down and STFU after what they've dragged us through economically, but I fear Obama will put the appearance of bipartisanship over all else. In a couple of years we'll know if Moody's multipliers are correct - they are less generous on the effect of tax cuts than Obama's team's multipliers. Lump sum tax rebate: 1.02 Temp across the board tax cut: 1.03 Temp payroll tax holiday: 1.29 Perm/extend AMT patch: .48 Bush tax cuts permanent: .29 Cap gains/div tax permanent: .37 Perm cut corporate tax rate: .30 Extend unemployment benefits: 1.64 Temp increase in food stamps: 1.73 General aid to state govt: 1.36 Increased infrastructure spending: 1.59 http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/do...the-impact-of- the-fiscal-stimulus.pdf [... and another dumbass wingnut greggie sock goes into the bin.] -- Kali “This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.” -Sen. John McCain “What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole point.” -Pres. Barack Obama |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 13:38:55 -0800 (PST), =?windows-1252?Q?No_One=99?=
wrote: On Feb 7, 4:29 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote: On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 13:23:02 -0800 (PST), =3D?windows-1252?Q?No_One=3D99?= =3D wrote: On Feb 7, 4:20 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote: On 07 Feb 2009 21:13:35 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: On 07 Feb 2009 20:49:16 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a = half weeks. On cue. Are you going to drop Townhall in here next? Right after I finish reading the "journalism" the other idiot provi= ded from Pravda West (NYTimes). You know, you can recycle the chips on your shoulder. Yeah, ol' Barry really lost his cool over this porkulus thing. Sometime better tell him that it gets harder. The media has already devolved from paralyzed adoration to bobby-soxer doting. Wayback, if you're retired wouldn't you be happier up in Alaska blo= wing giant assed holes in things? Like polar bears, wolves, Sarah Palins husband? It's more fun trying to educate brainwashed liberals. Wasn't it John McCain that proclaimed you guys as racists, xenophobes= and kooks? Talk about a brainwashing, dude, that must have been rougher t= han riding a motorcycle upside down on your face. (it's a visual, try hard) Barry's the one who played the race card, even against our first black prez, Willie C. Oh, please. He never played the race card. Cite? Cite? Cite? I agree with the cuts. We need to hold back some money for universal health care. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...inton-obama-ca... (...) The former president had been asked whether his remarks comparing Obama=92s strong showing in South Carolina to that of Jesse Jackson in 1988 had been a mistake given their impact on his wife Hillary Clinton=92s campaign. =93No, I think that they played the race card on me,=94 said Clinton, =93and we now know from memos from the campaign and everything that they planned to do it all along.=94 (...) =93No, I think that they played the race card on me,=94 said Clinton..." A statement of opinion reported on a blog doesn't constitute a fact. Your hero Willie said it. Are you saying that he would lie? Of course Barry will deny it. And of course Barry also said that people can't adjust to a president who looks like him on paper notes. You interpret that as you see fit, and so will I. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On 07 Feb 2009 21:44:22 GMT, Robb wrote:
Way Back Jack wrote: On 07 Feb 2009 21:13:35 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: On 07 Feb 2009 20:49:16 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks. On cue. Are you going to drop Townhall in here next? Right after I finish reading the "journalism" the other idiot provided from Pravda West (NYTimes). You know, you can recycle the chips on your shoulder. Yeah, ol' Barry really lost his cool over this porkulus thing. Porkulus? Bacon is good. Pork Chops are good. Fatback for the masses! Pig for pigs. Sometime better tell him that it gets harder. Be mindful of what Biden said - "this guy will be tested". The media has already devolved from paralyzed adoration to bobby-soxer doting. Yeah but those folk are just loose lip liberals waiting to ... Their cheerleading is less ardent. Wayback, if you're retired wouldn't you be happier up in Alaska blowing giant assed holes in things? Like polar bears, wolves, Sarah Palins husband? It's more fun trying to educate brainwashed liberals. Wasn't it John McCain that proclaimed you guys as racists, xenophobes and kooks? Talk about a brainwashing, dude, that must have been rougher than riding a motorcycle upside down on your face. (it's a visual, try hard) Barry's the one who played the race card, even against our first black prez, Willie C. Billy wus BLACK? Dyamm. He sure was good with that little girl "what's her name"? Yep. Willy C. was black. He even admits it. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Feb 7, 4:43 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 13:38:55 -0800 (PST), =?windows-1252?Q?No_One=99?= wrote: On Feb 7, 4:29 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote: On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 13:23:02 -0800 (PST), =3D?windows-1252?Q?No_One=3D99?= =3D wrote: On Feb 7, 4:20 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote: On 07 Feb 2009 21:13:35 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: On 07 Feb 2009 20:49:16 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a = half weeks. On cue. Are you going to drop Townhall in here next? Right after I finish reading the "journalism" the other idiot provi= ded from Pravda West (NYTimes). You know, you can recycle the chips on your shoulder. Yeah, ol' Barry really lost his cool over this porkulus thing. Sometime better tell him that it gets harder. The media has already devolved from paralyzed adoration to bobby-soxer doting. Wayback, if you're retired wouldn't you be happier up in Alaska blo= wing giant assed holes in things? Like polar bears, wolves, Sarah Palins husband? It's more fun trying to educate brainwashed liberals. Wasn't it John McCain that proclaimed you guys as racists, xenophobes= and kooks? Talk about a brainwashing, dude, that must have been rougher t= han riding a motorcycle upside down on your face. (it's a visual, try hard) Barry's the one who played the race card, even against our first black prez, Willie C. Oh, please. He never played the race card. Cite? Cite? Cite? I agree with the cuts. We need to hold back some money for universal health care. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...inton-obama-ca.... (...) The former president had been asked whether his remarks comparing Obama=92s strong showing in South Carolina to that of Jesse Jackson in 1988 had been a mistake given their impact on his wife Hillary Clinton=92s campaign. =93No, I think that they played the race card on me,=94 said Clinton, =93and we now know from memos from the campaign and everything that they planned to do it all along.=94 (...) =93No, I think that they played the race card on me,=94 said Clinton...." A statement of opinion reported on a blog doesn't constitute a fact. Your hero Willie said it. Are you saying that he would lie? Of course Barry will deny it. And of course Barry also said that people can't adjust to a president who looks like him on paper notes. You interpret that as you see fit, and so will I. Opinion != lie, but neither does opinion = fact. UPDATE: At a Pittsburgh press availability, Obama was asked about Clinton's charge that his campaign had drawn up plans to use 'the race card.' “Hold on a second,’’ he said. “So former President Clinton dismissed my victory in South Carolina as being similar to Jesse Jackson and he is suggesting that somehow I had something to do with it? You better ask him what he meant by that. I have no idea what he meant. These were words that came out of his mouth. Not words that came out of mine.’’ |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
In article ,
says... On 07 Feb 2009 21:22:26 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: On 07 Feb 2009 20:59:38 GMT, Robb wrote: Restless wrote: On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:23:42 -0500, Kali wrote: You can start with Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman: Not intersted in socialist economists. More like disenchanted with life. You do know an "economist" is nothing special, except for the specialized education, anyone can be one, no license required. Tell it to the other idiot who worships at his altar. Kali? She can outread the both of us. Thanks but I reserve the right to be wrong or **** up ;) Especially the writings of socialist economists. Great stuff. Even for conservatives (the few left who think). The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008 http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring09/007101.htm But can understand why those of you tit suckers who want Uncle Sugar to pay for abortions, sex ed, child care, job-finding assistance would be. Surprised you don't want the government to provide you with a personal trainer and a masseuse. How far was your jump to conclusion? Read the other idiot's wish list. Too busy watching that darn liberal-brainwashing PBS pop their cork over Africans starving to death. You know how it is. Oh no, you don't. Jimmy Carter couldn't save them from themselves. Obama will fail in similar fashion. Let's all hope not. I don't know where this silly thinking comes from. As much as I hated Bush, I sure as hell didn't wish for him to fail. If our leader fails, we all suffer. Many $$$$$$billions later. Or trillions in spending like Bush did, and that wasn't any kind of economic stimulus, either. -- Kali “This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.” -Sen. John McCain “What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole point.” -Pres. Barack Obama |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 16:39:55 -0500, Kali wrote:
In article , says... On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:23:42 -0500, Kali wrote: You can start with Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman: Not intersted in socialist economists. He isn't a socialist, he is a liberal. Yup. Classic liberalism of the Founders has devolved into a 180. But can understand why those of you tit suckers who want Uncle Sugar to pay for abortions, sex ed, child care, job-finding assistance would be. Surprised you don't want the government to provide you with a personal trainer and a masseuse. Here's a very easily understood primer on the conflict: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...n2009/db200901 27_702149.htm?campaign_id=rss_topStories I'll stick with the guy who saw all of this coming a long time ago; the guy who won a Nobel Prize; an eminent scholar of the Great Depression. Hopefully there will be enough spending to really get the economy going again. You can go ahead and insist on tax cuts only or the extreme conservative view: do nothing. But I think something is going to be done, regardless. Personally I think the GOP should sit down and STFU after what they've dragged us through economically, but I fear Obama will put the appearance of bipartisanship over all else. In a couple of years we'll know if Moody's multipliers are correct - they are less generous on the effect of tax cuts than Obama's team's multipliers. Lump sum tax rebate: 1.02 Temp across the board tax cut: 1.03 Temp payroll tax holiday: 1.29 Perm/extend AMT patch: .48 Bush tax cuts permanent: .29 Cap gains/div tax permanent: .37 Perm cut corporate tax rate: .30 Extend unemployment benefits: 1.64 Temp increase in food stamps: 1.73 General aid to state govt: 1.36 Increased infrastructure spending: 1.59 http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/do...the-impact-of- the-fiscal-stimulus.pdf [... and another dumbass wingnut greggie sock goes into the bin.] -- Kali “This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.” -Sen. John McCain “What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole point.” -Pres. Barack Obama Spending that won't achieve the desired end. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=10147 Mr. Obama would have us believe that unless they pass his 900 billion dollar "stimulus" package immediately, our entire nation is going to plunge into oblivion. That's right, no time to study or rationally review anything! Just throw massive amounts of worthless money at random targets and "hope" it all somehow gets better. Didn't we learn anything at ALL from the last "stimulus" fiasco? More precisely... is there anybody left in Washington with a brain? And why the big rush Mr. President? Could it be because your "stimulus" package is so full of pork it virtually oinks? It's been jokingly referred to as every Democratic special interest group's 40 Year Wish List. Most American's don't find that all that funny. Even The Wall Street Journal said "By our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. The rest is pork." Here's some of what we can expect out of this newest spending orgy. The only thing it will stimulate is my sense of outrage!!! What part of THIS COUNTRY IS ALREADY BANKRUPT do they not understand? $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient. A $246 million tax break for hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film. $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program. $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship). $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters. $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees. $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's. $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs. $125 million for the Washington sewer system. $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities. $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion. $75 million for "smoking cessation activities." $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges. $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI. $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction. $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River. $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas. $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings. $500 million for state and local fire stations. $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands. $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs. $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service. $412 million for CDC buildings and property. $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland. $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service. $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration. $850 million for Amtrak. $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint. $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies. $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems. $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations. Oink. Oink. Oink. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Feb 7, 4:54 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 16:39:55 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:23:42 -0500, Kali wrote: You can start with Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman: Not intersted in socialist economists. He isn't a socialist, he is a liberal. Yup. Classic liberalism of the Founders has devolved into a 180. But can understand why those of you tit suckers who want Uncle Sugar to pay for abortions, sex ed, child care, job-finding assistance would be. Surprised you don't want the government to provide you with a personal trainer and a masseuse. Here's a very easily understood primer on the conflict: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...n2009/db200901 27_702149.htm?campaign_id=rss_topStories I'll stick with the guy who saw all of this coming a long time ago; the guy who won a Nobel Prize; an eminent scholar of the Great Depression. Hopefully there will be enough spending to really get the economy going again. You can go ahead and insist on tax cuts only or the extreme conservative view: do nothing. But I think something is going to be done, regardless. Personally I think the GOP should sit down and STFU after what they've dragged us through economically, but I fear Obama will put the appearance of bipartisanship over all else. In a couple of years we'll know if Moody's multipliers are correct - they are less generous on the effect of tax cuts than Obama's team's multipliers. Lump sum tax rebate: 1.02 Temp across the board tax cut: 1.03 Temp payroll tax holiday: 1.29 Perm/extend AMT patch: .48 Bush tax cuts permanent: .29 Cap gains/div tax permanent: .37 Perm cut corporate tax rate: .30 Extend unemployment benefits: 1.64 Temp increase in food stamps: 1.73 General aid to state govt: 1.36 Increased infrastructure spending: 1.59 http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/do...the-impact-of- the-fiscal-stimulus.pdf [... and another dumbass wingnut greggie sock goes into the bin.] -- Kali “This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.” -Sen. John McCain “What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole point.” -Pres. Barack Obama Spending that won't achieve the desired end. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=10147 Mr. Obama would have us believe that unless they pass his 900 billion dollar "stimulus" package immediately, our entire nation is going to plunge into oblivion. That's right, no time to study or rationally review anything! Just throw massive amounts of worthless money at random targets and "hope" it all somehow gets better. Didn't we learn anything at ALL from the last "stimulus" fiasco? More precisely... is there anybody left in Washington with a brain? And why the big rush Mr. President? Could it be because your "stimulus" package is so full of pork it virtually oinks? It's been jokingly referred to as every Democratic special interest group's 40 Year Wish List. Most American's don't find that all that funny. Even The Wall Street Journal said "By our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. The rest is pork." Here's some of what we can expect out of this newest spending orgy. The only thing it will stimulate is my sense of outrage!!! What part of THIS COUNTRY IS ALREADY BANKRUPT do they not understand? $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient. A $246 million tax break for hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film. $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program. $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship). $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters. $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees. $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's. $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs. $125 million for the Washington sewer system. $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities. $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion. $75 million for "smoking cessation activities." $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges. $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI. $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction. $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River. $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas. $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings. $500 million for state and local fire stations. $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands. $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs. $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service. $412 million for CDC buildings and property. $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland. $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service. $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration. $850 million for Amtrak. $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint. $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies. $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems. $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations. Oink. Oink. Oink. Yeah, that's a liberal trick. Kinda like the bridge to nowhere. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
Yeah, you think Barry's going to admit it? On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 13:49:37 -0800 (PST), =?windows-1252?Q?No_One=99?= wrote: On Feb 7, 4:43 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote: On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 13:38:55 -0800 (PST), =3D?windows-1252?Q?No_One=3D99?= =3D wrote: On Feb 7, 4:29 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote: On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 13:23:02 -0800 (PST), =3D3D?windows-1252?Q?No_One= =3D3D99?=3D =3D3D wrote: On Feb 7, 4:20 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote: On 07 Feb 2009 21:13:35 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: On 07 Feb 2009 20:49:16 GMT, Robb wro= te: Way Back Jack wrote: I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and= a =3D half weeks. On cue. Are you going to drop Townhall in here next? Right after I finish reading the "journalism" the other idiot pr= ovi=3D ded from Pravda West (NYTimes). You know, you can recycle the chips on your shoulder. Yeah, ol' Barry really lost his cool over this porkulus thing. Sometime better tell him that it gets harder. The media has already devolved from paralyzed adoration to bobby-so= xer doting. Wayback, if you're retired wouldn't you be happier up in Alaska = blo=3D wing giant assed holes in things? Like polar bears, wolves, Sarah Pal= ins husband? It's more fun trying to educate brainwashed liberals. Wasn't it John McCain that proclaimed you guys as racists, xenopho= bes=3D and kooks? Talk about a brainwashing, dude, that must have been roughe= r t=3D han riding a motorcycle upside down on your face. (it's a visual, try hard) Barry's the one who played the race card, even against our first bl= ack prez, Willie C. Oh, please. He never played the race card. Cite? Cite? Cite? I agree with the cuts. We need to hold back some money for universal health care. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...on-obama-ca..= . (...) The former president had been asked whether his remarks comparing Obama=3D92s strong showing in South Carolina to that of Jesse Jackson = in 1988 had been a mistake given their impact on his wife Hillary Clinton=3D92s campaign. =3D93No, I think that they played the race car= d on me,=3D94 said Clinton, =3D93and we now know from memos from the campai= gn and everything that they planned to do it all along.=3D94 (...) =3D93No, I think that they played the race card on me,=3D94 said Clinton= ..." A statement of opinion reported on a blog doesn't constitute a fact. Your hero Willie said it. Are you saying that he would lie? Of course Barry will deny it. And of course Barry also said that people can't adjust to a president who looks like him on paper notes. You interpret that as you see fit, and so will I. Opinion !=3D lie, but neither does opinion =3D fact. UPDATE: At a Pittsburgh press availability, Obama was asked about Clinton's charge that his campaign had drawn up plans to use 'the race card.' =93Hold on a second,=92=92 he said. =93So former President Clinton dismisse= d my victory in South Carolina as being similar to Jesse Jackson and he is suggesting that somehow I had something to do with it? You better ask him what he meant by that. I have no idea what he meant. These were words that came out of his mouth. Not words that came out of mine.=92=92 |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
A 40-Year Wish List You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill. "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years. APWe've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons. In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities. Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy." Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party? Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator? Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators. iAs for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more. Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers. The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual "budget baseline" that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it's hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays -- increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials. This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit. On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 16:54:16 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On 07 Feb 2009 21:22:26 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: On 07 Feb 2009 20:59:38 GMT, Robb wrote: Restless wrote: On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:23:42 -0500, Kali wrote: You can start with Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman: Not intersted in socialist economists. More like disenchanted with life. You do know an "economist" is nothing special, except for the specialized education, anyone can be one, no license required. Tell it to the other idiot who worships at his altar. Kali? She can outread the both of us. Thanks but I reserve the right to be wrong or **** up ;) Especially the writings of socialist economists. Great stuff. Even for conservatives (the few left who think). The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008 http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring09/007101.htm But can understand why those of you tit suckers who want Uncle Sugar to pay for abortions, sex ed, child care, job-finding assistance would be. Surprised you don't want the government to provide you with a personal trainer and a masseuse. How far was your jump to conclusion? Read the other idiot's wish list. Too busy watching that darn liberal-brainwashing PBS pop their cork over Africans starving to death. You know how it is. Oh no, you don't. Jimmy Carter couldn't save them from themselves. Obama will fail in similar fashion. Let's all hope not. I don't know where this silly thinking comes from. As much as I hated Bush, I sure as hell didn't wish for him to fail. If our leader fails, we all suffer. Many $$$$$$billions later. Or trillions in spending like Bush did, and that wasn't any kind of economic stimulus, either. -- Kali “This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.” -Sen. John McCain “What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole point.” -Pres. Barack Obama |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
$150M for bee insurance? $20M for Fish barriers? What are those? _______ AND DIGGING DEEPER INTO THE SLOP, there is this about educational loans — the Obama-entranced college-agers are not going to like the taste of Real Obama in the morning, ’cause here’s what’s coming at them: educational loans “recalculated” to heap-up some extra, extra, extra deep-dish interest upon interest upon pie-laden porky interest-heavy student loans. Why don’t these grubby mammals with their snouts in everyone else’s trough, why don’t Barack Obama and the Pelosi-Reid Nightmare Bakers, just reduce taxes overall? They don’t and won’t consider THAT because there’d be less for their snouts amidst all the troughs, that’s why. Unfortunately for our nation and those who enjoy the gift of pies from the U.S.A., reducing taxes overall would be too efficient and easy — it would taste too good to the taxpayers. So they churn about and churn and churn and burn all the wholesome pies that might have been made had they not ruined the kitchen. There are decidedly too many bad cooks in the kitchen and nary a chef among them. Ace suggests drinks. I suggest a lot of phone calls and letters and stocking-up for when this dreadful pipe bursts into the ghastly kitchen held occupied by these grubby bakers as they all burn-up what used to be a democratic United States of America, which will soon if not already no longer look like itself because it’s gained five hundred trillion pounds of debt, all of which should be by the end of this month. By the way, I can bake a cherry pie (and an apple one, and blueberry, and peach, too) but it’s plain as cake that Nancy Pelosi cannot. And that Obama thinks everyone else bakes just for him. And I’m willing to bet — if I was a betting fool — that we can all, each and every one of us Americans who is not now surrendered all recipes in service to Obama-the-Baker, I’m willing to bet that we can all anticipate being chastised if not outright harmed by this man and his Nightmare Bakers in some way that will genuinely hurt as the poison goes down — but these Bad Bakers won’t feel a thing. On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 13:56:11 -0800 (PST), =?windows-1252?Q?No_One=99?= wrote: On Feb 7, 4:54 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote: On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 16:39:55 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:23:42 -0500, Kali wrote: You can start with Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman: Not intersted in socialist economists. He isn't a socialist, he is a liberal. Yup. Classic liberalism of the Founders has devolved into a 180. But can understand why those of you tit suckers who want Uncle Sugar to pay for abortions, sex ed, child care, job-finding assistance would be. Surprised you don't want the government to provide you with a personal trainer and a masseuse. Here's a very easily understood primer on the conflict: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...n2009/db200901 27_702149.htm?campaign_id=3Drss_topStories I'll stick with the guy who saw all of this coming a long time ago; the guy who won a Nobel Prize; an eminent scholar of the Great Depression. Hopefully there will be enough spending to really get the economy going again. You can go ahead and insist on tax cuts only or the extreme conservative view: do nothing. But I think something is going to be done, regardless. Personally I think the GOP should sit down and STFU after what they've dragged us through economically, but I fear Obama will put the appearance of bipartisanship over all else. In a couple of years we'll know if Moody's multipliers are correct - they are less generous on the effect of tax cuts than Obama's team's multipliers. Lump sum tax rebate: 1.02 Temp across the board tax cut: 1.03 Temp payroll tax holiday: 1.29 Perm/extend AMT patch: .48 Bush tax cuts permanent: .29 Cap gains/div tax permanent: .37 Perm cut corporate tax rate: .30 Extend unemployment benefits: 1.64 Temp increase in food stamps: 1.73 General aid to state govt: 1.36 Increased infrastructure spending: 1.59 http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/do...the-impact-of- the-fiscal-stimulus.pdf [... and another dumbass wingnut greggie sock goes into the bin.] -- Kali =93This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.=94 -Sen. John McCain =93What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole point.=94 -Pres. Barack Obama Spending that won't achieve the desired end. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=3D10147 Mr. Obama would have us believe that unless they pass his 900 billion dollar "stimulus" package immediately, our entire nation is going to plunge into oblivion. That's right, no time to study or rationally review anything! Just throw massive amounts of worthless money at random targets and "hope" it all somehow gets better. Didn't we learn anything at ALL from the last "stimulus" fiasco? More precisely... is there anybody left in Washington with a brain? And why the big rush Mr. President? Could it be because your "stimulus" package is so full of pork it virtually oinks? It's been jokingly referred to as every Democratic special interest group's 40 Year Wish List. Most American's don't find that all that funny. Even The Wall Street Journal said "By our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. The rest is pork." Here's some of what we can expect out of this newest spending orgy. The only thing it will stimulate is my sense of outrage!!! What part of THIS COUNTRY IS ALREADY BANKRUPT do they not understand? $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient. A $246 million tax break for hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film. $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program. $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship). $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters. $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees. $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's. $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs. $125 million for the Washington sewer system. $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities. $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion. $75 million for "smoking cessation activities." $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges. $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI. $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction. $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River. $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas. $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings. $500 million for state and local fire stations. $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands. $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs. $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service. $412 million for CDC buildings and property. $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland. $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service. $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration. $850 million for Amtrak. $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint. $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies. $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems. $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations. Oink. Oink. Oink. Yeah, that's a liberal trick. Kinda like the bridge to nowhere. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Feb 7, 5:08 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote:
Yeah, you think Barry's going to admit it? Make up your mind whether you're going to top-post or bottom-post, so I can find your answer. So you're saying Obama is guilty no matter what he says. An admission is an admission and a denial is a tacit admission? And an opinion is as good as a fact, as long as it supports what you already believe? When did you stop beating your wife? |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:11:58 -0800 (PST), =?windows-1252?Q?No_One=99?=
wrote: On Feb 7, 5:08 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote: Yeah, you think Barry's going to admit it? Make up your mind whether you're going to top-post or bottom-post, so I can find your answer. So you're saying Obama is guilty no matter what he says. An admission is an admission and a denial is a tacit admission? And an opinion is as good as a fact, as long as it supports what you already believe? I have my opinion regarding this issue; you continue in starry-eyed moonbat rapture. To each his own. When did you stop beating your wife? Then there was the remark about faces on paper currency. But mostly Barry let La Belle Michelle and his sycophants do the race card bit. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
In article ,
says... On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 16:39:55 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:23:42 -0500, Kali wrote: You can start with Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman: Not intersted in socialist economists. He isn't a socialist, he is a liberal. Yup. Classic liberalism of the Founders has devolved into a 180. Wrong. But can understand why those of you tit suckers who want Uncle Sugar to pay for abortions, sex ed, child care, job-finding assistance would be. Surprised you don't want the government to provide you with a personal trainer and a masseuse. Here's a very easily understood primer on the conflict: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...n2009/db200901 27_702149.htm?campaign_id=rss_topStories I'll stick with the guy who saw all of this coming a long time ago; the guy who won a Nobel Prize; an eminent scholar of the Great Depression. Hopefully there will be enough spending to really get the economy going again. You can go ahead and insist on tax cuts only or the extreme conservative view: do nothing. But I think something is going to be done, regardless. Personally I think the GOP should sit down and STFU after what they've dragged us through economically, but I fear Obama will put the appearance of bipartisanship over all else. In a couple of years we'll know if Moody's multipliers are correct - they are less generous on the effect of tax cuts than Obama's team's multipliers. Lump sum tax rebate: 1.02 Temp across the board tax cut: 1.03 Temp payroll tax holiday: 1.29 Perm/extend AMT patch: .48 Bush tax cuts permanent: .29 Cap gains/div tax permanent: .37 Perm cut corporate tax rate: .30 Extend unemployment benefits: 1.64 Temp increase in food stamps: 1.73 General aid to state govt: 1.36 Increased infrastructure spending: 1.59 http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/do...the-impact-of- the-fiscal-stimulus.pdf [... and another dumbass wingnut greggie sock goes into the bin.] -- Kali “This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.” -Sen. John McCain “What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole point.” -Pres. Barack Obama Spending that won't achieve the desired end. Spending what on what? What is your claim? http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=10147 A conservative blog, presumably one that backs up your views. Is he smarter than you are? That's nice, but do you need to tell your buddy here that if he can't figure out why govt spending on infrastructure creates jobs and stimulates the economy, he needs to do a lot more reading and a lot less writing (whining). Also, some of the items listed have already been cut out. Mr. Obama would have us believe that unless they pass his 900 billion dollar "stimulus" package immediately, our entire nation is going to plunge into oblivion. That's right, no time to study or rationally review anything! Just throw massive amounts of worthless money at random targets and "hope" it all somehow gets better. Didn't we learn anything at ALL from the last "stimulus" fiasco? More precisely... is there anybody left in Washington with a brain? And why the big rush Mr. President? Could it be because your "stimulus" package is so full of pork it virtually oinks? It's been jokingly referred to as every Democratic special interest group's 40 Year Wish List. Most American's don't find that all that funny. Even The Wall Street Journal said "By our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. The rest is pork." Here's some of what we can expect out of this newest spending orgy. The only thing it will stimulate is my sense of outrage!!! What part of THIS COUNTRY IS ALREADY BANKRUPT do they not understand? $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient. A $246 million tax break for hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film. $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program. $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship). $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters. $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees. $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's. $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs. $125 million for the Washington sewer system. $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities. $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion. $75 million for "smoking cessation activities." $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges. $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI. $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction. $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River. $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas. $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings. $500 million for state and local fire stations. $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands. $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs. $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service. $412 million for CDC buildings and property. $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland. $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service. $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration. $850 million for Amtrak. $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint. $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies. $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems. $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations. Oink. Oink. Oink. -- Kali “This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.” -Sen. John McCain “What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole point.” -Pres. Barack Obama |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
|
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
The Founders wanted small govt. Today's so-called liberals want to control every aspect our lives, from the food we eat, to the car we drive, to our temperature settings, school busing, quotas .. ..... Classic liberalism was more akin to today's conservatism. That's for starters. Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism, and Individualism by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D. I have often been asked to present a brief introduction to Classical Liberalism and how it fits into the philosophical tradition of which I consider myself to be a member, that of Classical Realism. Furthermore, some have questioned me about my use of the term "Moderate Libertarianism" to also describe my political philosophy. And finally, there have been questions raised about my use of the term "Individualism" and how that term is used in Classical Liberalism. I hope this essay satisfies, at least to some extent for now, those who have raised these matters with me. Classical Liberals and Welfare Liberals Classical Liberals, like myself, stress such ideas as voluntary association, incentives, and self-interest. We believe that people are bound by their own decisions, agreements, contracts, and so on. Therefore, people may do unpleasant jobs, for instance, because they pay. They may, of course, do things as well for non-financial reasons. It is important to note that we stress that our way of doing things combines a way to get things done with a high degree of individual freedom. We assume that people recognize the rights of others and some uncontracted obligations toward others, as well. Classical Liberalism can be contrasted with Welfare or Modern Liberalism which has an opposing view and is currently the dominant political philosophy in the United States. Welfare Liberals think that citizens should have far more welfare guarantees; indeed, some have suggested that everyone should have a guaranteed income. For example, two Yale Law School professors, Bruce Ackermann and Ann Alstott, have advocated that every U.S. citizen with a high school diploma should receive a bounty of $80,000 on his or her twenty-first birthday. Welfare Liberals tend to favor paternalistic actions by government to protect people, and they are less worried about the ethics and practicalities of social engineering by government. They give more weight to social obligations, instead of basic rights, and when they talk about rights and obligations, they have in mind the idea that those who are fortunate have an obligation to serve the community as a whole. To accomplish their aims, Welfare Liberals are strong proponents of public or state education. They use this as a means of shaping people for the so-called responsibilities and duties of citizenship, much of which could be rightly called "state propaganda." Classical Liberals, by the way, tend to see something sinister in governments shaping character through education. We are very suspicious about that. So we can say in a general way that one approach, Classical Liberalism, favors incentives, the shaping of the individual through family upbringing, and participation in the ordinary institutions of a commercial society. The other side, Welfare or Modern Liberals, puts greater weight on socialization to predispose people to specific views and perspectives which favor their agenda. Welfare Liberalism, by the way, does have a real problem with how to get individuals to do things since there is little incentive to do constructive things if you are given what you need by the government rather than having to work for it yourself. One might note that welfare recipients have little incentive to take really unpleasant jobs. Classical Liberals emphasize the importance of individual freedoms of various kinds. We see these as moral rights. There is, however, a great deal of room for disputes about the scope and character of these rights, as in government by consent. We do argue about these rights, which can enliven any gathering of Classical Liberals. We do agree, however, that any government that does exist exists to safeguard or protect the individual rights of its citizens, that is, that is the proper role of government even though we realize that some actual governments don't do that. So we might say that this ought or should be the role of any "legitimate" government. We also expect that if people's rights are safeguarded and protected, human interaction will generate well-being or happiness for each individual. This is achieved through voluntary market transactions, voluntary mutual aid and charity and, in very limited ways, possibly through government action. We believe that individuals are the best judges of their own interests and that government should be limited in scope and function by what citizens will consent to and by individual rights. So we tend to favor a self-limiting Democratic Republic with a written constitution that guarantees protection of individual rights against a simple majority rule. Virtually all Classical Liberals agree with the ideal of the rule of law, rather than the rule of men. And the law should be general in character, publicly available, not retrospective, not arbitrary and capricious, but objective and based on a rational foundation. Government should act only on the basis of the law, and not on mere whim or circumstance. Furthermore, the state should be broadly neutral regarding people's concerns, such as with religion for example. While we all agree that law and order in any society is important and it is the government's job to see to this matter through protecting the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, there is some disagreement among Classical Liberals over the matters of national defense and "public goods" such as mail services and other things that people need but that are not provided or are underprovided by the free market. Classical Liberals also emphasize private property. In fact, many of the early Classical Liberals fostered the idea that individual rights included primarily the rights to life, liberty, and property. In the U.S. Declaration of Independence the right to property was changed to the right to the pursuit of happiness. I happen to agree with this modification because, in my opinion, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are "absolute" rights, whereas, the right to property is not absolute on its face but is derived from the former three and especially the right to the pursuit of happiness, which is a primary right while the right to property is secondary. By the way, not all Classical Liberals agree with me on this so, as you can see, there are disputes, mostly minor fortunately, among those of us who claim to be Classical Liberals. I see this as positive because it means Classical Liberalism is not simply a dead political philosophy but a living one with many theoretical and practical problems still to be resolved. But the right to property is definitely important to us and your private property should not be interfered with by others, including the state, outside the law. The law should protect justly acquired private property, the only exception being in certain specified emergencies and only then with due process of law. On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 17:42:57 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 16:39:55 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:23:42 -0500, Kali wrote: You can start with Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman: Not intersted in socialist economists. He isn't a socialist, he is a liberal. Yup. Classic liberalism of the Founders has devolved into a 180. Wrong. But can understand why those of you tit suckers who want Uncle Sugar to pay for abortions, sex ed, child care, job-finding assistance would be. Surprised you don't want the government to provide you with a personal trainer and a masseuse. Here's a very easily understood primer on the conflict: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...n2009/db200901 27_702149.htm?campaign_id=rss_topStories I'll stick with the guy who saw all of this coming a long time ago; the guy who won a Nobel Prize; an eminent scholar of the Great Depression. Hopefully there will be enough spending to really get the economy going again. You can go ahead and insist on tax cuts only or the extreme conservative view: do nothing. But I think something is going to be done, regardless. Personally I think the GOP should sit down and STFU after what they've dragged us through economically, but I fear Obama will put the appearance of bipartisanship over all else. In a couple of years we'll know if Moody's multipliers are correct - they are less generous on the effect of tax cuts than Obama's team's multipliers. Lump sum tax rebate: 1.02 Temp across the board tax cut: 1.03 Temp payroll tax holiday: 1.29 Perm/extend AMT patch: .48 Bush tax cuts permanent: .29 Cap gains/div tax permanent: .37 Perm cut corporate tax rate: .30 Extend unemployment benefits: 1.64 Temp increase in food stamps: 1.73 General aid to state govt: 1.36 Increased infrastructure spending: 1.59 http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/do...the-impact-of- the-fiscal-stimulus.pdf [... and another dumbass wingnut greggie sock goes into the bin.] -- Kali “This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.” -Sen. John McCain “What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole point.” -Pres. Barack Obama Spending that won't achieve the desired end. Spending what on what? What is your claim? http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=10147 A conservative blog, presumably one that backs up your views. Is he smarter than you are? That's nice, but do you need to tell your buddy here that if he can't figure out why govt spending on infrastructure creates jobs and stimulates the economy, he needs to do a lot more reading and a lot less writing (whining). Also, some of the items listed have already been cut out. Mr. Obama would have us believe that unless they pass his 900 billion dollar "stimulus" package immediately, our entire nation is going to plunge into oblivion. That's right, no time to study or rationally review anything! Just throw massive amounts of worthless money at random targets and "hope" it all somehow gets better. Didn't we learn anything at ALL from the last "stimulus" fiasco? More precisely... is there anybody left in Washington with a brain? And why the big rush Mr. President? Could it be because your "stimulus" package is so full of pork it virtually oinks? It's been jokingly referred to as every Democratic special interest group's 40 Year Wish List. Most American's don't find that all that funny. Even The Wall Street Journal said "By our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. The rest is pork." Here's some of what we can expect out of this newest spending orgy. The only thing it will stimulate is my sense of outrage!!! What part of THIS COUNTRY IS ALREADY BANKRUPT do they not understand? $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient. A $246 million tax break for hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film. $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program. $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship). $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters. $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees. $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's. $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs. $125 million for the Washington sewer system. $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities. $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion. $75 million for "smoking cessation activities." $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges. $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI. $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction. $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River. $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas. $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings. $500 million for state and local fire stations. $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands. $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs. $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service. $412 million for CDC buildings and property. $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland. $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service. $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration. $850 million for Amtrak. $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint. $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies. $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems. $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations. Oink. Oink. Oink. -- Kali “This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.” -Sen. John McCain “What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole point.” -Pres. Barack Obama |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
|
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
|
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
In article ,
says... Liberal moonbat unable to refute. Duly noted. What do you want me to refute? Some idiot copy/pasted a screed bomb which speaks for itself. Well? On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 17:46:37 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... _______ AND DIGGING DEEPER INTO THE SLOP, there is this about educational loans — the Obama-entranced college-agers are not going to like the taste of Real Obama in the morning, ’cause here’s what’s coming at them: educational loans “recalculated” to heap-up some extra, extra, extra deep-dish interest upon interest upon pie-laden porky interest-heavy student loans. Why don’t these grubby mammals with their snouts in everyone else’s trough, why don’t Barack Obama and the Pelosi-Reid Nightmare Bakers, just reduce taxes overall? They don’t and won’t consider THAT because there’d be less for their snouts amidst all the troughs, that’s why. Unfortunately for our nation and those who enjoy the gift of pies from the U.S.A., reducing taxes overall would be too efficient and easy — it would taste too good to the taxpayers. So they churn about and churn and churn and burn all the wholesome pies that might have been made had they not ruined the kitchen. There are decidedly too many bad cooks in the kitchen and nary a chef among them. Ace suggests drinks. I suggest a lot of phone calls and letters and stocking-up for when this dreadful pipe bursts into the ghastly kitchen held occupied by these grubby bakers as they all burn-up what used to be a democratic United States of America, which will soon if not already no longer look like itself because it’s gained five hundred trillion pounds of debt, all of which should be by the end of this month. By the way, I can bake a cherry pie (and an apple one, and blueberry, and peach, too) but it’s plain as cake that Nancy Pelosi cannot. And that Obama thinks everyone else bakes just for him. And I’m willing to bet — if I was a betting fool — that we can all, each and every one of us Americans who is not now surrendered all recipes in service to Obama-the-Baker, I’m willing to bet that we can all anticipate being chastised if not outright harmed by this man and his Nightmare Bakers in some way that will genuinely hurt as the poison goes down — but these Bad Bakers won’t feel a thing. Fact-free invective! Typical winger argument. -- Kali “This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.” -Sen. John McCain “What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole point.” -Pres. Barack Obama -- Kali “This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.” -Sen. John McCain “What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole point.” -Pres. Barack Obama |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
Liberalism, whether it surfaces in the spiritual or the secular world ultimately leads to a slide of that world into the oblivion of failed expectations. How and why is this the case? First, and foremost, modern liberalism, as it is practiced today, is rooted in relativism, sometimes called moral relativism. According to this philosophy, there are no absolute truths. What was true yesterday is not true today, and what is true today will not be true tomorrow. What is true for you may not be true for me. Relativism unhitches society from the anchors of traditional, foundational truths. Once unhitched from the anchors of traditional, foundational truths, relativism leads to a free floating uncertain journey through life that has no destination. Thus, it leads to oblivion, because without a destination, there can be no progress, only floating about seeking but never finding. Yogi Bera is quoted has having said, "You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there." And that, at it’s center, is what modern liberalism is all about. Relativism is defined in the American College Dictionary as: "the theory of knowledge or ethics which holds that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with the individual, time and circumstance." Sometime during the 60's America embraced, with gusto in some quarters, an idea called "situational ethics." This was nothing more than relativism. What is right or wrong all depends on the circumstances, and what the actors think is right or wrong. This is unhitched from reality, not to mention traditional, foundational truths. While relativism lies at the center of modern liberal philosophy, there is another factor that, when added to relativism, creates a dynamic that seduces society into believing something that has never been true to be true now, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. That factor is an idea commonly known as "socialism." Modern liberals believe with all of their hearts that government is corrupt, business is exploitive, and people are generally good at heart. Interestingly, however, even with that statement of faith, these same liberals believe the best way to create a perfect world is to regulate the conduct of those good-hearted people and to control the means of production of the exploitive businesses (which are in reality made up of good-hearted people). And who should intervene to control such things? Why, the corrupt government, of course (which is in reality made up of good-hearted people). Modern liberalism has hijacked the label "liberal" and given it a new meaning. Classic liberalism stood for the proposition that government should be restrained not increased. Classic liberalism stressed individual freedom and limited government. It was a marriage between economic freedom and political freedom. It is the principle foundation of the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Thomas Paine and others. It was, indeed, the basis of the foundation upon which the founding fathers of the United States fashioned a more perfect union to establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, to provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. There was tension between the forces that wanted to create a powerful central government with superior rights to the various states within the country and those who distrusted a strong central government that would eventually dictate every area of life of its citizens. It was this tension that gave rise to the Bill of Rights that were to forever preserve to the people and the states superior sovereignty over a central government. Modern liberalism is really not liberalism at all, in the classic sense of the meaning of the word. Instead, modern liberalism is actually socialism in disguise. Prior to the late 19th century, everyone who knew anything about this subject understood liberalism to mean individual freedom, limited government, economic liberalism (liberty) and political liberalism (liberty.) With the introduction of the interventionists central planning concepts from Europe during the late 19th century came modern liberalism. Socialism was the label used in Europe and in Russia for what became modern liberalism in the United States. Most of us have heard of Karl Marx, known to many as the father of Communism. Many of us have heard of his famous book, The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, in which he set forth a plan for the creation of a utopian society in which the state controlled everything for the good of everyone. What most people don’t realize is that what Marx wrote was not original. All Karl Marx really did was to update and codify the very same revolutionary plans and principles set down seventy years earlier by Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Order of Illuminati in Bavaria. This blueprint set forth the foundation for constructing a socialist society where centralized government possessed most, if not all, of the power. It is interesting to note that Karl Marx was hired to put his name on The Communist Manifesto by a group who called themselves the League of the Just. Many serious scholars agree that the League of the Just was the progeny of the Illuminati which was forced underground in 1786 by the Bulgarian government. The Illuminati was founded on May 1, 1776, barely two months before the signing of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia. Although it existed in the open for only a decade, it’s offspring — The League of Outlaws, Educational Society for German Working-men, The Communist League, Workers’ Brotherhood of Germany, and others — have survived even into the 21st century. By the time modern liberalism was taking shape in the United States, the label "socialist" was fairly solidly associated with Communism, which carried with it many negative connotations. The socialists came up with a new name for their movement, and called it liberalism. Over the course of years, the label "liberalism" has come to signify a philosophy of greater government intervention in the lives of citizens and a focus on individualism as opposed to community. On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 21:14:23 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... The Founders wanted small govt. Today's so-called liberals want to control every aspect our lives, from the food we eat, to the car we drive, to our temperature settings, school busing, quotas .. ..... Teddy Roosevelt, a progressive liberal, made the world a safer place by insisting on clean stockyards and labels on food products. It wasn't (and isn't now) about controlling people's lives, it's about improving the quality of life. Liberals aren't authoritarian. I think you're confusing liberals with socialists. Classic liberalism was more akin to today's conservatism. In the tactics, not the goals. That's for starters. Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism, and Individualism by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D. ... Classical Liberals and Welfare Liberals "Bruce Ackermann and Ann Alstott, have advocated that every U.S. citizen with a high school diploma should receive a bounty of $80,000 on his or her twenty-first birthday." That's socialism, not liberalism. Very different things. So here you have a libertarian comparing libertarianism to socialism, its virtual opposite. Libertarians and liberals have much more in common. (You missed where he frames his essay at the top in terms of Realism and Individualism, not libertarians vs. liberals?) Hey, is this why you wingers are so afraid of Obama? You don't know the difference between socialism and liberalism? Scary stupid. If I were a socialist I'd be crusading against your right to spew this crap and to vote. But I'm a liberal, and I'll fight for your right to be as stupid and uneducated and verbose as you want to be, enjoying your safe foods, roads, schools, hospitals, and other "pork" in peace. -- Kali "This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill." -Sen. John McCain "What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole point." -Pres. Barack Obama |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
Still unable to refute. Insults without substantive refutation do not count. On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 21:16:24 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... Liberal moonbat unable to refute. Duly noted. What do you want me to refute? Some idiot copy/pasted a screed bomb which speaks for itself. Well? On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 17:46:37 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... _______ AND DIGGING DEEPER INTO THE SLOP, there is this about educational loans — the Obama-entranced college-agers are not going to like the taste of Real Obama in the morning, ’cause here’s what’s coming at them: educational loans “recalculated” to heap-up some extra, extra, extra deep-dish interest upon interest upon pie-laden porky interest-heavy student loans. Why don’t these grubby mammals with their snouts in everyone else’s trough, why don’t Barack Obama and the Pelosi-Reid Nightmare Bakers, just reduce taxes overall? They don’t and won’t consider THAT because there’d be less for their snouts amidst all the troughs, that’s why. Unfortunately for our nation and those who enjoy the gift of pies from the U.S.A., reducing taxes overall would be too efficient and easy — it would taste too good to the taxpayers. So they churn about and churn and churn and burn all the wholesome pies that might have been made had they not ruined the kitchen. There are decidedly too many bad cooks in the kitchen and nary a chef among them. Ace suggests drinks. I suggest a lot of phone calls and letters and stocking-up for when this dreadful pipe bursts into the ghastly kitchen held occupied by these grubby bakers as they all burn-up what used to be a democratic United States of America, which will soon if not already no longer look like itself because it’s gained five hundred trillion pounds of debt, all of which should be by the end of this month. By the way, I can bake a cherry pie (and an apple one, and blueberry, and peach, too) but it’s plain as cake that Nancy Pelosi cannot. And that Obama thinks everyone else bakes just for him. And I’m willing to bet — if I was a betting fool — that we can all, each and every one of us Americans who is not now surrendered all recipes in service to Obama-the-Baker, I’m willing to bet that we can all anticipate being chastised if not outright harmed by this man and his Nightmare Bakers in some way that will genuinely hurt as the poison goes down — but these Bad Bakers won’t feel a thing. Fact-free invective! Typical winger argument. -- Kali “This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.” -Sen. John McCain “What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole point.” -Pres. Barack Obama -- Kali “This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.” -Sen. John McCain “What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole point.” -Pres. Barack Obama |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
"Kali" wrote in message ... “This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.” -Sen. John McCain “What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole point.” -Pres. Barack Obama Yes, but it will only stimulate if spent in the right way, in the right places. Most of the so-called stimulus bill is wasted in places where it will do absolutely no economic good. I want 100% Pure American Pork. No byproducts, no fillers. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
In article ,
says... Liberalism, whether it surfaces in the spiritual or the secular world [plagiarism, copyright violation, other people's ideas because greggie doesn't have any of his own] How many combinations are you going to make me kill? On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 21:14:23 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... The Founders wanted small govt. Today's so-called liberals want to control every aspect our lives, from the food we eat, to the car we drive, to our temperature settings, school busing, quotas .. ..... Teddy Roosevelt, a progressive liberal, made the world a safer place by insisting on clean stockyards and labels on food products. It wasn't (and isn't now) about controlling people's lives, it's about improving the quality of life. Liberals aren't authoritarian. I think you're confusing liberals with socialists. Classic liberalism was more akin to today's conservatism. In the tactics, not the goals. That's for starters. Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism, and Individualism by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D. ... Classical Liberals and Welfare Liberals "Bruce Ackermann and Ann Alstott, have advocated that every U.S. citizen with a high school diploma should receive a bounty of $80,000 on his or her twenty-first birthday." That's socialism, not liberalism. Very different things. So here you have a libertarian comparing libertarianism to socialism, its virtual opposite. Libertarians and liberals have much more in common. (You missed where he frames his essay at the top in terms of Realism and Individualism, not libertarians vs. liberals?) Hey, is this why you wingers are so afraid of Obama? You don't know the difference between socialism and liberalism? Scary stupid. If I were a socialist I'd be crusading against your right to spew this crap and to vote. But I'm a liberal, and I'll fight for your right to be as stupid and uneducated and verbose as you want to be, enjoying your safe foods, roads, schools, hospitals, and other "pork" in peace. -- Kali "This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill." -Sen. John McCain "What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole point." -Pres. Barack Obama -- Kali "This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill." -Sen. John McCain "What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole point." -Pres. Barack Obama |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
In article ,
says... "Kali" wrote in message ... “This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.” -Sen. John McCain “What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole point.” -Pres. Barack Obama Yes, but it will only stimulate if spent in the right way, in the right places. Most It's more accurate to say most of us haven't seen (undisputed) items. What we've seen: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0...chart-what-36- mi_n_164828.html (Pie chart 1/3rd of the way down) of the so-called stimulus bill is wasted in places where it will do absolutely no economic good. At the same time, several of the reported cuts were good stimulus spending. I want 100% Pure American Pork. No byproducts, no fillers. What's left of it. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...entrists-have- wrought/ -- Kali |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 21:58:18 -0500, Kali wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0...chart-what-36- mi_n_164828.html (Pie chart 1/3rd of the way down) You'll find the same thing in MotherJones.com and Salon. Maybe even in Louis Farrakhan's website. I want 100% Pure American Pork. No byproducts, no fillers. What's left of it. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...entrists-have- wrought/ Mr. Obama would have us believe that unless they pass his 900 billion dollar "stimulus" package immediately, our entire nation is going to plunge into oblivion. That's right, no time to study or rationally review anything! Just throw massive amounts of worthless money at random targets and "hope" it all somehow gets better. Didn't we learn anything at ALL from the last "stimulus" fiasco? More precisely... is there anybody left in Washington with a brain? And why the big rush Mr. President? Could it be because your "stimulus" package is so full of pork it virtually oinks? It's been jokingly referred to as every Democratic special interest group's 40 Year Wish List. Most American's don't find that all that funny. Even The Wall Street Journal said "By our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. The rest is pork." Here's some of what we can expect out of this newest spending orgy. The only thing it will stimulate is my sense of outrage!!! What part of THIS COUNTRY IS ALREADY BANKRUPT do they not understand? $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient. A $246 million tax break for hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film. $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program. $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship). $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters. $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees. $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's. $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs. $125 million for the Washington sewer system. $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities. $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion. $75 million for "smoking cessation activities." $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges. $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI. $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction. $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River. $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas. $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings. $500 million for state and local fire stations. $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands. $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs. $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service. $412 million for CDC buildings and property. $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland. $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service. $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration. $850 million for Amtrak. $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint. $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies. $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems. $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations. Oink. Oink. Oink. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 21:38:56 -0500, Kali wrote:
In article , says... Liberalism, whether it surfaces in the spiritual or the secular world [plagiarism, copyright violation, other people's ideas because greggie doesn't have any of his own] Translation: No refutation. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On 08 Feb 2009 02:50:45 GMT, Robb wrote:
Way Back Jack wrote: Liberalism, whether it surfaces in the spiritual or the secular world ultimately leads You copy and paste screed off the web as your own, that **** has a way of revealing itself, wingnut. Skeers ya, don't it moonbat. That's how come you snipped it without trying to refute it. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On 08 Feb 2009 03:06:03 GMT, Robb wrote:
Kali wrote: Hey, is this why you wingers are so afraid of Obama? You don't know the difference between socialism and liberalism? No difference. Liberalism, whether it surfaces in the spiritual or the secular world ultimately leads to a slide of that world into the oblivion of failed expectations. How and why is this the case? First, and foremost, modern liberalism, as it is practiced today, is rooted in relativism, sometimes called moral relativism. According to this philosophy, there are no absolute truths. What was true yesterday is not true today, and what is true today will not be true tomorrow. What is true for you may not be true for me. Relativism unhitches society from the anchors of traditional, foundational truths. Once unhitched from the anchors of traditional, foundational truths, relativism leads to a free floating uncertain journey through life that has no destination. Thus, it leads to oblivion, because without a destination, there can be no progress, only floating about seeking but never finding. Yogi Bera is quoted has having said, "You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there." And that, at it’s center, is what modern liberalism is all about. Relativism is defined in the American College Dictionary as: "the theory of knowledge or ethics which holds that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with the individual, time and circumstance." Sometime during the 60's America embraced, with gusto in some quarters, an idea called "situational ethics." This was nothing more than relativism. What is right or wrong all depends on the circumstances, and what the actors think is right or wrong. This is unhitched from reality, not to mention traditional, foundational truths. While relativism lies at the center of modern liberal philosophy, there is another factor that, when added to relativism, creates a dynamic that seduces society into believing something that has never been true to be true now, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. That factor is an idea commonly known as "socialism." Modern liberals believe with all of their hearts that government is corrupt, business is exploitive, and people are generally good at heart. Interestingly, however, even with that statement of faith, these same liberals believe the best way to create a perfect world is to regulate the conduct of those good-hearted people and to control the means of production of the exploitive businesses (which are in reality made up of good-hearted people). And who should intervene to control such things? Why, the corrupt government, of course (which is in reality made up of good-hearted people). Modern liberalism has hijacked the label "liberal" and given it a new meaning. Classic liberalism stood for the proposition that government should be restrained not increased. Classic liberalism stressed individual freedom and limited government. It was a marriage between economic freedom and political freedom. It is the principle foundation of the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Thomas Paine and others. It was, indeed, the basis of the foundation upon which the founding fathers of the United States fashioned a more perfect union to establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, to provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. There was tension between the forces that wanted to create a powerful central government with superior rights to the various states within the country and those who distrusted a strong central government that would eventually dictate every area of life of its citizens. It was this tension that gave rise to the Bill of Rights that were to forever preserve to the people and the states superior sovereignty over a central government. Modern liberalism is really not liberalism at all, in the classic sense of the meaning of the word. Instead, modern liberalism is actually socialism in disguise. Prior to the late 19th century, everyone who knew anything about this subject understood liberalism to mean individual freedom, limited government, economic liberalism (liberty) and political liberalism (liberty.) With the introduction of the interventionists central planning concepts from Europe during the late 19th century came modern liberalism. Socialism was the label used in Europe and in Russia for what became modern liberalism in the United States. Most of us have heard of Karl Marx, known to many as the father of Communism. Many of us have heard of his famous book, The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, in which he set forth a plan for the creation of a utopian society in which the state controlled everything for the good of everyone. What most people don’t realize is that what Marx wrote was not original. All Karl Marx really did was to update and codify the very same revolutionary plans and principles set down seventy years earlier by Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Order of Illuminati in Bavaria. This blueprint set forth the foundation for constructing a socialist society where centralized government possessed most, if not all, of the power. It is interesting to note that Karl Marx was hired to put his name on The Communist Manifesto by a group who called themselves the League of the Just. Many serious scholars agree that the League of the Just was the progeny of the Illuminati which was forced underground in 1786 by the Bulgarian government. The Illuminati was founded on May 1, 1776, barely two months before the signing of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia. Although it existed in the open for only a decade, it’s offspring — The League of Outlaws, Educational Society for German Working-men, The Communist League, Workers’ Brotherhood of Germany, and others — have survived even into the 21st century. By the time modern liberalism was taking shape in the United States, the label "socialist" was fairly solidly associated with Communism, which carried with it many negative connotations. The socialists came up with a new name for their movement, and called it liberalism. Over the course of years, the label "liberalism" has come to signify a philosophy of greater government intervention in the lives of citizens and a focus on individualism as opposed to community. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On 08 Feb 2009 02:43:43 GMT, Robb wrote:
Way Back Jack wrote: The Founders wanted small govt. "The Founders" were not gods. Neither is your mulatto Messiah, twinks. Their lives ended and the society they knew doesn't exist, anymore. In the fullness of time we shall be just as dead as they. Another Ruth Bader Ginsburg disciple: Kill the Constitution; embrace world law. Today's so-called liberals want to Shove NeoCon's under a bus? It must give you a sense of power to find someone out there has already prepared the things you want to say. "if only" is an excuse, "Looking-Way-Back". NeoCons are social liberals who happen to like the bottom line. Many are Jews. Are you anti-semitic, puss? |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
|
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and her fellow limousine communists Breyer, Souter, and Stevens, along with retired justice Sandy O'Connor : "We must rely more on International Law and less on the Constitution." By the way, it might be a good idea to trim newsgroups. Cite the newsgroup to which you're posting and I'll pick a more appropriate politically-oriented group for my responses. That'll keep it to two groups. Others aren't joining in anyway. If you want to keep it as is, that's OK too. On 08 Feb 2009 03:57:05 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: On 08 Feb 2009 02:43:43 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: The Founders wanted small govt. "The Founders" were not gods. Neither is your mulatto Messiah, twinks. Get a veg-o-matic. It slices and dices far more efficiently than any word processor. Their lives ended and the society they knew doesn't exist, anymore. In the fullness of time we shall be just as dead as they. Another Ruth Bader Ginsburg disciple: Kill the Constitution; embrace world law. Your man Shrub is the one who said it was "just a piece of goddam paper". Please die on schedule, living too long will ****up the infernal system of balances. Today's so-called liberals want to Shove NeoCon's under a bus? It must give you a sense of power to find someone out there has already prepared the things you want to say. "if only" is an excuse, "Looking-Way-Back". NeoCons are social liberals who happen to like the bottom line. You're equating hemlines and ass with fiscal responsibility? I suppose - if you must go there. Many are Jews. So. I'm converting, does that prove anything about nothing or what? Are you anti-semitic, puss? What's the correct answer to that question, Pork-Pie? -- Robb | Shared Secrets Usenet |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
If you want to kill all the rich and take their wealth, I don't care. It would finance Obamanation about three months. Unless you include the limousine liberals like Soros, Gates, Kennedy, and the Garbage that runs Hollywood. Then you could finance Obamanation for a year. By the way, it might be a good idea to trim newsgroups. Cite the newsgroup to which you're posting and I'll pick a more appropriate politically-oriented group for my responses. That'll keep it to two groups. Others aren't joining in anyway. If you want to keep it as is, that's OK too. On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 22:45:52 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , - says... Kali wrote: Hey, is this why you wingers are so afraid of Obama? You don't know the difference between socialism and liberalism? What did you expect? I suspected it, now it's confirmed. Scary stupid. If I were a socialist I'd be crusading against your right to spew this crap and to vote. But I'm a liberal, and I'll fight for your right to be as stupid and uneducated and verbose as you want to be, enjoying your safe foods, roads, schools, hospitals, and other "pork" in peace. See wingnuts don't realize they can have Pork 'n Peace, they were raised on Pork 'n War (I know, sounds crazy but wingnuts came from Somewhere!). Pork 'n beans. It would scare the death out of them if the US didn't have NASA and wasn't "controller" of the sky, "Decider" - something - it's hard to keep up with all of their re-definitions. Patriot Act! Shock and awe! Operation Iraqi Liberation (spells out oil, oops!) Make that Operation Iraqi Freedom! Freedom fries! NASA is porky pie, you know. It just got cut out of the bill, along with a heap of infrastructure spending. Roads, schools and colleges, hospitals, police, fire, EMS, broadband, chopped right out. I wonder if that levee in the Big Easy is in there. From what I've seen, that is one of those necessities that is porky. -- Kali |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
Gregory Hall wrote:
[snip] Get with the program, Marcia. I'm brilliant and recognized as such by many. socks. -- "You know how long it would take for the court house to scan every document and put it online. It would NEVER happen." (Jamie) "Of course I would never steal software by using cracks but some people who are less than ethical might not mind using a crack which is licensed to Trang Nguyen. He he!" (Gregory Hall) "Liberal men are too much like women and a relationship with them ends up awfully boring." (Gregory Hall) "And, Gary also needs to offer to re-instate my DataBasux account as a gesture of sincerity." (Gregory Hall) |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
[adding m.s for my good friend Gummy]
Kali wrote: In article , - says... Way Back Jack wrote: The shrewd ******* is hedging. If it fails, he can say that both sides were for it. If it fails without support from the other side, his side can kiss the 2010 and 2012 elections goodbye. I predict another Dem sweep in 2010, as more and more middle class people wake up and see the GOP for what it is, not what it says it is. Stonewalling and whining about tax cuts is about all they're good for right now, with a few exceptions: vulnerable Rethugs up for reelection in 2010. [snip] There really is a partisan shift in the nation towards the Democrats. There's a short summary here, under the heading "Long-term Partisan Shifts Analyzed": http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...s/Feb09-s.html with a link to more specific data he http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do...?diaryId=11450 In short, outside the South the Democrats have made deep gains. The South is the only region redder than 4 years ago, and not even the whole South. Gummy's hoped-for Ragnarok looks even more kooky nowadays than it did then. -- "You know how long it would take for the court house to scan every document and put it online. It would NEVER happen." (Jamie) "Of course I would never steal software by using cracks but some people who are less than ethical might not mind using a crack which is licensed to Trang Nguyen. He he!" (Gregory Hall) "Liberal men are too much like women and a relationship with them ends up awfully boring." (Gregory Hall) "And, Gary also needs to offer to re-instate my DataBasux account as a gesture of sincerity." (Gregory Hall) |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
No health care for seniors. EXCERPT: The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis. In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision. ______ COMMENT: They factor in the senior's expected life span. If the mandated cost is exceeded, no treatment for mama. Shucks, we might as well put mom and pop out on an ice raft when they hit a certain age. Another example of big govt. controlling your life. __________ Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey Commentary by Betsy McCaughey Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy. Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department. Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version). The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors. But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.” Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far. New Penalties Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541) What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make. The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system. Elderly Hardest Hit Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt. Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464). The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis. In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision. Hidden Provisions If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later. The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181). Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.” More Scrutiny Needed On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny. The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy. (Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...aL zfDxfbwhzs On 10 Feb 2009 22:38:46 GMT, Robb wrote: Kali wrote: NASA is porky pie, you know. It just got cut out of the bill, along with a heap of infrastructure spending. Roads, schools and colleges, hospitals, police, fire, EMS, broadband, chopped right out. I wonder if that levee in the Big Easy is in there. From what I've seen, that is one of those necessities that is porky. This isn't quite up to PETA's level of stim, but 'maybe'. ;) http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...animation.html Bloomberg - Economists who support legislation to stimulate growth say the version passed in the House of Representatives would create at least half a million more jobs than the bill the Senate votes on today. The key difference: The Senate version provides less money than the House measure for public works and aid to state and local governments. While the two measures have similar price tags, the Senate’s includes bigger tax cuts and adds tax breaks for auto and home buyers, part of a compromise to win some Republican votes. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...OG8&refer=home Includes a $70BN AMT tax cut - one that guys like "Joe the everything" never had to worry about. Schools: $16 billion in investments in school infrastructure that is in the House legislation. Yet the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that spending $127 billion to $268 billion is needed to bring school facilities to a good condition. The projects these funds would pay for are among the infrastructure investments that can be brought up to speed very quickly. The construction sector, which would benefit most from this funding, has enormous idle capacity and more idle workers than any other industry, having shed 10 percent of its jobs over the past year, compared to 3.2 percent for the private sector overall. Weatherization: On average, weatherization reduces heating bills by 32% and overall energy bills by $358 per year at current prices. This in turn, spurs low-income communities toward job growth and economic development. Average value of weatherization services provided is $2,500, the value of the weatherization is 2.2 times greater than the cost of the improvement: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/weather.../improving.cfm LIHEAP Funding (Low income heating supplement) - The Bush Years: 01 $1,372,500,000 + $455,650,000 sup + $27,500,000 lev/REACH $1,855,650,000 + f 02 $1,672,500,000 + $100,000,000 sup + $27,500,000 lev/REACH $1,800,000,000 + f 03 $1,760,978,750 + $200,000,000 sup + $27,321,250 lev/REACH $1,988,300,000 + f 04 $1,762,042,250 + $99,410,000 sup + $27,337,750 lev/REACH $1,888,790,000 + f 05 $1,857,519,008 + $297,600,000 sup + $27,280,000 lev/REACH $2,182,399,008 + f 06 $2,452,775,000 + $600,000,000 sup + $27,247,000 lev/REACH $3,080,022,000 + f 07 $1,980,000,000 + $181,170,000 sup + $27,225,000 lev/REACH $2,188,395,000 + f 08 $1,980,000,351 + $610,677,759 sup + $0 lev/REACH $2,590,678,110 + f -- Robb | Shared Secrets Usenet |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
What does putting adverse health care for seniors in so-called stimulus plan have to do with creating jobs? On 10 Feb 2009 23:44:37 GMT, Robb wrote: Vladimir wrote: . 200 lines of bull**** snipped http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123137245971962641.html Greg, it's sorry commentary that you can't discern the modus operandi of someone who deigns to promote themselves over and above everything else. "Ms. McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York state, is a fellow at the Hudson Institute and chair of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths". What does a plethora of stylings from this woman have to do with "anything" remotely related to economic stimulus? -- Robb | Shared Secrets Usenet |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com