|
Consideration required
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:52:13 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 27/01/2010 7:04 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:17:41 -0700, wrote: On 27/01/2010 8:57 AM, jps wrote: On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:46:28 -0500, wrote: " Promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends; also eliminates the death tax." Republican wet dream. Interest and unemployment go through the roof and the economy collapses in a worse disaster than 1929. Who knows, might happen. Obama will appologise and make excuses tonight and then promise a lot more and try to quell what we already know. which, if the GOP did this and owned up to their mistakes, we'd be hunting them with dogs Ok, I had it backwards. He promised a lot and then made excuses with more promises. I would hate to think what they do to liberals once they have trashed the US economy. guess he thinks obama's been president for 8 years. guess he forgot about bush, who developed the giveaway to the banks, who held the economy hostage to their mistakes, courtesy of the right wing. Obama talks a lot and no results but feeding democrat corruption engine. and the GOP doesn't talk at all. they just take their orders from their rich masters and enact them into law Obama was so full of sh1t tonight... you could see it dripping from the walls. I did see the democrat people turned hecklers were expidiciously being moved out. Yet many just sat there in disgust. telling the truth to people generally does cause them to become mentally ill. you're living proof Obama should have read up on why Hitler failed to win WW II, too many fronts and not one done right. Will be interesting to see how the market reacts. GODWIN'S LAW!!! PPHWWWWEEET!!! |
Consideration required
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:00:11 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 27/01/2010 8:05 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:20:40 -0700, wrote: Because more people are starting to realize what democrat health care is. An attempt to skim health care revenue for government excesses in spending and corruption uh what? we have the most expensive healthcare in the world. sounds like you crybabies are worrying about the horse that's already left the barn . Including the democrat need to fund dysfunctional private corporations with taxpayers taxes. that's why we need socialized medicine Yep, the best services around if you are approved and live long enough in line. as opposed to what we have now, where, if you lose your job because the right wants wages held low, you get nothing no wonder you love right wing medicine. it whips the undeserving middle class in line |
Consideration required
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:09:02 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 27/01/2010 7:05 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:15:50 -0700, wrote: yeah he has a vision no taxes for the rich all taxes paid for by the middle class How is that different than today? After taxes, it would take the _entire_ wealth of someone like Bill Gates to keep Obama in debt spend for just one week. right now at least they pay 15%. the middle class pays about double that. The wealth destruction is mind boggling. Only thing you know for sure is it will not continue. Sooner of later even the US government will be broke. Pretty much already is, but no one wants to go to the world to say hey, these American welchers are not going to pay. yeah the right wing destroyed the middle class. i agree. too bad the right is too stupid to see it |
Consideration required
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:08:44 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
His roadmap isn't perfect ... or maybe even feasible ... but band-aid approaches to each crisis isn't going to work either. It's really time to re-think economics in this global economy and then plan and act accordingly. The programs and solutions being beaten to death in D.C. aren't going to solve anything, long term. Yeah, but, is it the government's job to rethink the economics? Governments are for tweaking, perhaps giving direction, and, if necessary, saving our economic asses. More than that, would scare the hell out of me. I'll give you, tax code simplification would be a good thing, but an overhaul, is very unlikely. I'd like to see more support for our small business engine, as opposed to the multinationals. Obama seems to support this, and, I'd like to see health care untied from business. The competitive disadvantage it puts on our businesses is considerable, but, other than those things, I think we are quite resilient, and will recover nicely. Not as fast as I would like, or those who are hurting would like, but there is no magic wand. |
Consideration required
|
Consideration required
On 1/28/10 7:58 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In inet, says... I'd like to see more support for our small business engine, as opposed to the multinationals. Obama seems to support this, What makes you say that? Because he *said* so? Come on, small business is going to get eaten up by the government union machine... Scotty I'm sorry, I misplaced my secret decoder ring. Would you please repost that, and this time in standard English? |
Consideration required
|
Consideration required
On Jan 27, 11:23*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Jan 27, 8:05 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Jan 27, 6:52 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message om... Just finished reading this. It's worth consideration, I think. Short summary can be viewed and read he http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_rele...ses/RoadmapSum... Detailed report with the numbers to back it up he http://www.house.gov/budget_republic...dmap_detailed_... Have fun, Eisboch Competely DOA as thunder said. Now is the time to spend money not contract. If the private sector doesn't create jobs, the gov't must. |
Consideration required
On Jan 28, 9:44*am, Jack wrote:
On Jan 27, 11:23*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Jan 27, 8:05 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message .... On Jan 27, 6:52 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message om... Just finished reading this. It's worth consideration, I think. Short summary can be viewed and read he http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_rele...ses/RoadmapSum... Detailed report with the numbers to back it up he http://www.house.gov/budget_republic...dmap_detailed_... Have fun, Eisboch Competely DOA as thunder said. Now is the time to spend money not contract. If the private sector doesn't create jobs, the gov't must. This was learned the hard way by the Hoover administration. Pssst... (looking around nervously) .... the "gov't" is broke...... Eisboch No it isn't. It's called deficit spending. Broke implies insolvent or lacking in funds. "Deficit spending is the amount by which a government, private company, or individual's spending exceeds income" Let's see... I spend more than I make, so I'm lacking in funds, so therefore I'm "broke". Why not just admit you're wrong. OK plum, I'm wrong. *I'm sure the US gov has plenty of money, and they're just borrowing billions from China because it's fun. *They aren't lacking any funds at all. Hey, I hear there's a show sale just down the street from you. *Go buy some. Good ditz. show, shoe. Jusr onw ket awat. |
Consideration required
On 1/28/10 10:16 AM, Jack wrote:
On Jan 28, 9:44 am, wrote: On Jan 27, 11:23 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 27, 8:05 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 27, 6:52 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Just finished reading this. It's worth consideration, I think. Short summary can be viewed and read he http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_rele...ses/RoadmapSum... Detailed report with the numbers to back it up he http://www.house.gov/budget_republic...dmap_detailed_... Have fun, Eisboch Competely DOA as thunder said. Now is the time to spend money not contract. If the private sector doesn't create jobs, the gov't must. This was learned the hard way by the Hoover administration. Pssst... (looking around nervously) .... the "gov't" is broke..... Eisboch No it isn't. It's called deficit spending. Broke implies insolvent or lacking in funds. "Deficit spending is the amount by which a government, private company, or individual's spending exceeds income" Let's see... I spend more than I make, so I'm lacking in funds, so therefore I'm "broke". Why not just admit you're wrong. OK plum, I'm wrong. I'm sure the US gov has plenty of money, and they're just borrowing billions from China because it's fun. They aren't lacking any funds at all. Hey, I hear there's a show sale just down the street from you. Go buy some. Good ditz. show, shoe. Jusr onw ket awat. So, English is not your primary language... |
Consideration required
On 1/28/10 1:41 PM, Jack wrote:
Yes, I'm sure the information I give you is tough to swallow... Yeah, a lot of us have problems swallowing your horse****. |
Consideration required
"Jack" wrote in message
... On Jan 28, 1:35 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Jan 28, 10:21 am, Harry wrote: On 1/28/10 10:16 AM, Jack wrote: On Jan 28, 9:44 am, wrote: On Jan 27, 11:23 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 27, 8:05 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 27, 6:52 pm, wrote: wrote in message news:TpadnS3Is7WkUP3WnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@giganew s.com... wrote in message ... wrote in message news:WYmdnUEPp7KH2v3WnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@gigan ews.com... Just finished reading this. It's worth consideration, I think. Short summary can be viewed and read he http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_rele...ses/RoadmapSum... Detailed report with the numbers to back it up he http://www.house.gov/budget_republic...dmap_detailed_... Have fun, Eisboch Competely DOA as thunder said. Now is the time to spend money not contract. If the private sector doesn't create jobs, the gov't must. This was learned the hard way by the Hoover administration. Pssst... (looking around nervously) .... the "gov't" is broke..... Eisboch No it isn't. It's called deficit spending. Broke implies insolvent or lacking in funds. "Deficit spending is the amount by which a government, private company, or individual's spending exceeds income" Let's see... I spend more than I make, so I'm lacking in funds, so therefore I'm "broke". Why not just admit you're wrong. OK plum, I'm wrong. I'm sure the US gov has plenty of money, and they're just borrowing billions from China because it's fun. They aren't lacking any funds at all. Hey, I hear there's a show sale just down the street from you. Go buy some. Good ditz. show, shoe. Jusr onw ket awat. So, English is not your primary language... It is, but spellchecker can't catch that, since both words were spelled correctly. Think of those four last words as a puzzle... with the words show and shoe as a clue. Yes Jack, I got it. Like I said, you're a pill. Yes, I'm sure the information I give you is tough to swallow... a bitter pill. Sometimes that's the best medicine. You're welcome. So, basically what you're saying is that you're unwilling to admit you're wrong, and you'd rather just play the game that demonizes the other side of an issue. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
On Jan 28, 1:34*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Jan 27, 11:23 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Jan 27, 8:05 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message .... On Jan 27, 6:52 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message om... Just finished reading this. It's worth consideration, I think. Short summary can be viewed and read he http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_rele...ses/RoadmapSum... Detailed report with the numbers to back it up he http://www.house.gov/budget_republic...dmap_detailed_... Have fun, Eisboch Competely DOA as thunder said. Now is the time to spend money not contract. If the private sector doesn't create jobs, the gov't must. This was learned the hard way by the Hoover administration. Pssst... (looking around nervously) .... the "gov't" is broke...... Eisboch No it isn't. It's called deficit spending. Broke implies insolvent or lacking in funds. "Deficit spending is the amount by which a government, private company, or individual's spending exceeds income" Let's see... I spend more than I make, so I'm lacking in funds, so therefore I'm "broke". Why not just admit you're wrong. OK plum, I'm wrong. *I'm sure the US gov has plenty of money, and they're just borrowing billions from China because it's fun. *They aren't lacking any funds at all. You're just being a pill, as usual I'm afraid. I never said we have "plenty of money." They're allowing us to borrow money, because they're making money that way. Lot's of money. Hey, I hear there's a show sale just down the street from you. *Go buy some. Good ditz. Hey, I bet you're not able to afford much these days. I wonder if "broke" is a self-description for you. So, basically what you're saying is that you're unwilling to admit you're wrong, and you'd rather just play the game that demonizes the other side of an issue. Got it. |
Consideration required
On Jan 28, 1:47*pm, Harry wrote:
On 1/28/10 1:41 PM, Jack wrote: Yes, I'm sure the information I give you is tough to swallow... Yeah, a lot of us have problems swallowing your horse****. You said nothing I posted was worth any effort. So quit making one. |
Consideration required
|
Consideration required
|
Consideration required
On 28/01/2010 4:03 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:35:12 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:27:38 -0500, wrote: guess he thinks obama's been president for 8 years. guess he forgot about bush, who developed the giveaway to the banks, who held the economy hostage to their mistakes, courtesy of the right wing. I think the point is, Obama is just an extension of the last 8 (actually 20) years of Bush/Clinton./Bush. really? bush tried to get the middle class health insurance? he proposed taxing banks? The guy in the White House is not as important as the people sitting in the actual seats that direct financial policy and those are the same guys. Names like Rubin and Summers keep popping up. Geitner and Bernanke were at ground zero in creating the problem and now we expect them to clean it up. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. the difference is that obama is actually trying to bring the middle class into the political process. all bush did was cut taxes for rich folks Sure has a funny way of doing it, giving all the debt to the middle class and the cash to corrupt corporations. Don't forget, Bush hardly signed any money away. It was Obama who signed the checks to the banks and GM. Bush only gave GM enough to hobble to Obama is officially my mama day. |
Consideration required
On Jan 28, 6:07*pm, Harry wrote:
On 1/28/10 6:03 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:35:12 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:27:38 -0500, *wrote: guess he thinks obama's been president for 8 years. guess he forgot about bush, who developed the giveaway to the banks, who held the economy hostage to their mistakes, courtesy of the right wing. I think the point is, Obama is just an extension of the last 8 (actually 20) years of Bush/Clinton./Bush. really? bush tried to get the middle class health insurance? he proposed taxing banks? The guy in the White House is not as important as the people sitting in the actual seats that direct financial policy and those are the same guys. Names like Rubin and Summers keep popping up. Geitner and Bernanke *were at ground zero in creating the problem and now we expect them to clean it up. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. the difference is that obama is actually trying to bring the middle class into the political process. all bush did was cut taxes for rich folks Obama has worked tirelessly... While playing golf and jet-setting around Europe. Awesome. |
Consideration required
On Jan 28, 7:53*pm, Canuck57 wrote:
On 28/01/2010 4:03 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:35:12 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:27:38 -0500, *wrote: guess he thinks obama's been president for 8 years. guess he forgot about bush, who developed the giveaway to the banks, who held the economy hostage to their mistakes, courtesy of the right wing. I think the point is, Obama is just an extension of the last 8 (actually 20) years of Bush/Clinton./Bush. really? bush tried to get the middle class health insurance? he proposed taxing banks? The guy in the White House is not as important as the people sitting in the actual seats that direct financial policy and those are the same guys. Names like Rubin and Summers keep popping up. Geitner and Bernanke *were at ground zero in creating the problem and now we expect them to clean it up. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. the difference is that obama is actually trying to bring the middle class into the political process. all bush did was cut taxes for rich folks Sure has a funny way of doing it, giving all the debt to the middle class and the cash to corrupt corporations. Hey! Don't do that... it gets the lib's panties in a wad. And they are wadded enough... |
Consideration required
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:07:14 -0500, Harry
wrote: Obama has worked tirelessly to clean up some of the messes Bush left for us. Most of those messes are going to take years, if not decades, to clean up. Bush by any meaningful measurement was the worst president of the last 100 years. no,no, no.... you have to sing the party line! everyone in america was rich. unemployment was minus 5%. until inauguration day of last year. then, in 1 day, unemployment went to 500%, the banks all collapsed and the chinese took over the govt. in 1 day. |
Consideration required
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:53:15 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: Sure has a funny way of doing it, giving all the debt to the middle class and the cash to corrupt corporations. Don't forget, Bush hardly signed any money away. It was Obama who signed the checks to the banks and GM. Bush only gave GM enough to hobble to Obama is officially my mama day. guess the idiot would have preferred 25% unemployment like we had in the 29 crash. of course, the unemployed would be middle class, so he doesn't care |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:36:18 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:21:06 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: $383,071,060,815.42 last year 12,3% Expect to see that shoot up with the extra $2 trillion What extra $2T? And, it won't make that much difference. The "debt" issue is seriously overblown. It's not insignificant, but it's not anywhere close to a crisis. The extra $2T we added to the debt in the last year. ($10T to $12T) If you think the added 20% of interest on the $2T is not that much difference, "De Salude Don Corleone" So, it went from 12.3% to 20%? Amazing math. Let's slow down. The debt service WAS 12.3% of the budget in 2009 (one thing) We added 20% to the debt since last year so the basis for the interest will go up 20% (a different thing) The missing number is what the auction will set the interest at for the paper when it rolls over. If the US starts looking just a little more risky that rate will go higher. The "risk" isn't really the threat of default, only the threat of the devaluation of the dollar but that can go over the tipping point. There's no "threat of default." That's just a fear tactic. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:37:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The "risk" isn't really the threat of default, only the threat of the devaluation of the dollar but that can go over the tipping point. There's no "threat of default." That's just a fear tactic. "No threat" is a bold statement but I did say it wasn't really the risk that would drive up interest rates. That will simply be the threat of devaluing the dollar and that is happening as we speak. The problem is once it starts to slide that can become an avalanche because we import so much of what we need to survive. The dollar has lot value, significant value before. "Once it starts to slide" is the Chicken Little philosophy. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
On 1/29/2010 2:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:37:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The "risk" isn't really the threat of default, only the threat of the devaluation of the dollar but that can go over the tipping point. There's no "threat of default." That's just a fear tactic. "No threat" is a bold statement but I did say it wasn't really the risk that would drive up interest rates. That will simply be the threat of devaluing the dollar and that is happening as we speak. The problem is once it starts to slide that can become an avalanche because we import so much of what we need to survive. The dollar has lot value, significant value before. "Once it starts to slide" is the Chicken Little philosophy. Does that mean we should all go running around in circles screaming "The sky is falling"? |
Consideration required
"Don White" wrote in message ... On 1/29/2010 2:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:37:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The "risk" isn't really the threat of default, only the threat of the devaluation of the dollar but that can go over the tipping point. There's no "threat of default." That's just a fear tactic. "No threat" is a bold statement but I did say it wasn't really the risk that would drive up interest rates. That will simply be the threat of devaluing the dollar and that is happening as we speak. The problem is once it starts to slide that can become an avalanche because we import so much of what we need to survive. The dollar has lot value, significant value before. "Once it starts to slide" is the Chicken Little philosophy. Does that mean we should all go running around in circles screaming "The sky is falling"? Better for you to scream...I'm an idiot and a loser. |
Consideration required
On 1/29/2010 3:32 PM, Don White wrote:
"Don wrote in message ... On 1/29/2010 2:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:37:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The "risk" isn't really the threat of default, only the threat of the devaluation of the dollar but that can go over the tipping point. There's no "threat of default." That's just a fear tactic. "No threat" is a bold statement but I did say it wasn't really the risk that would drive up interest rates. That will simply be the threat of devaluing the dollar and that is happening as we speak. The problem is once it starts to slide that can become an avalanche because we import so much of what we need to survive. The dollar has lot value, significant value before. "Once it starts to slide" is the Chicken Little philosophy. Does that mean we should all go running around in circles screaming "The sky is falling"? Better for you to scream...I'm an idiot and a loser. I hate these damn spoofing morons. |
Consideration required
On 1/29/10 4:05 PM, Don White wrote:
On 1/29/2010 3:32 PM, Don White wrote: "Don wrote in message ... On 1/29/2010 2:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:37:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The "risk" isn't really the threat of default, only the threat of the devaluation of the dollar but that can go over the tipping point. There's no "threat of default." That's just a fear tactic. "No threat" is a bold statement but I did say it wasn't really the risk that would drive up interest rates. That will simply be the threat of devaluing the dollar and that is happening as we speak. The problem is once it starts to slide that can become an avalanche because we import so much of what we need to survive. The dollar has lot value, significant value before. "Once it starts to slide" is the Chicken Little philosophy. Does that mean we should all go running around in circles screaming "The sky is falling"? Better for you to scream...I'm an idiot and a loser. I hate these damn spoofing morons. Looking in the mirror again? |
Consideration required
On 28/01/2010 6:29 PM, Jack wrote:
On Jan 28, 7:53 pm, wrote: On 28/01/2010 4:03 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:35:12 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:27:38 -0500, wrote: guess he thinks obama's been president for 8 years. guess he forgot about bush, who developed the giveaway to the banks, who held the economy hostage to their mistakes, courtesy of the right wing. I think the point is, Obama is just an extension of the last 8 (actually 20) years of Bush/Clinton./Bush. really? bush tried to get the middle class health insurance? he proposed taxing banks? The guy in the White House is not as important as the people sitting in the actual seats that direct financial policy and those are the same guys. Names like Rubin and Summers keep popping up. Geitner and Bernanke were at ground zero in creating the problem and now we expect them to clean it up. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. the difference is that obama is actually trying to bring the middle class into the political process. all bush did was cut taxes for rich folks Sure has a funny way of doing it, giving all the debt to the middle class and the cash to corrupt corporations. Hey! Don't do that... it gets the lib's panties in a wad. And they are wadded enough... A lot of liberals waddle. |
Consideration required
On 28/01/2010 7:30 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:53:15 -0700, wrote: Sure has a funny way of doing it, giving all the debt to the middle class and the cash to corrupt corporations. Don't forget, Bush hardly signed any money away. It was Obama who signed the checks to the banks and GM. Bush only gave GM enough to hobble to Obama is officially my mama day. guess the idiot would have preferred 25% unemployment like we had in the 29 crash. of course, the unemployed would be middle class, so he doesn't care You have it, and just like the day after Obama spend-talk-a-lot the market dipped. Because capitalists know you can't debt-spend your way to prosperity. And Obama is like a used car salesman selling you a lemon. Obama is a big mouthed fraud. Going to put Amrica in the poor house. I read an interesting article about government debt. How with taxes and dollar devaluation the average standard of living in the USA and Canada is going to take a wild dive in the next decade as more people in the world compete for limited resurces. That the worlds population is going to mandate a much lower standard of living, and Americans will not have the cash to buy goods like before. Interesting read incinuationg this is WWW III or global socialism and leaderships are pandering to it. |
Consideration required
|
Consideration required
|
Consideration required
On 27/01/2010 9:23 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On 27/01/2010 3:07 PM, Harry wrote: On 1/27/10 5:05 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:56:30 -0500, wrote: On 1/27/10 4:53 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:00:56 -0500, wrote: 2500 for individuals? 5000 for families? this is a tax increase 'cuz aint no one gonna get insurance at those prices AND it's the biggest tax give away for the rich in history. they would pay no taxes at all. more typical GOP right wing bull**** Well, sadly, of course. All the right really wants is to avoid responsibilities, and let the other guy pay the bills. yeah. it's a MASSIVE tax INCREASE for the middle class: no tax deductions for mortgages AND we have have to pay for our health insurance BUT the rich get the ultimate tax DEDUCTION: they pay no taxes at all. Well, of course...the middle and lower income classes exist only to further enrich the rich. So the democrat way seems to be is to unemploy us all. Only ex-pats like you. Funny, I don't need a job and have one. LOL. You? Unemployment runs out when? |
Consideration required
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 27/01/2010 9:23 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On 27/01/2010 3:07 PM, Harry wrote: On 1/27/10 5:05 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:56:30 -0500, wrote: On 1/27/10 4:53 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:00:56 -0500, wrote: 2500 for individuals? 5000 for families? this is a tax increase 'cuz aint no one gonna get insurance at those prices AND it's the biggest tax give away for the rich in history. they would pay no taxes at all. more typical GOP right wing bull**** Well, sadly, of course. All the right really wants is to avoid responsibilities, and let the other guy pay the bills. yeah. it's a MASSIVE tax INCREASE for the middle class: no tax deductions for mortgages AND we have have to pay for our health insurance BUT the rich get the ultimate tax DEDUCTION: they pay no taxes at all. Well, of course...the middle and lower income classes exist only to further enrich the rich. So the democrat way seems to be is to unemploy us all. Only ex-pats like you. Funny, I don't need a job and have one. LOL. You? Unemployment runs out when? I doubt it. You're here a lot. LOL. Me? I'm a small business owner, which I've said several times. Do you need a hearing-aid? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Consideration required
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:11:08 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 28/01/2010 7:30 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:53:15 -0700, wrote: Sure has a funny way of doing it, giving all the debt to the middle class and the cash to corrupt corporations. Don't forget, Bush hardly signed any money away. It was Obama who signed the checks to the banks and GM. Bush only gave GM enough to hobble to Obama is officially my mama day. guess the idiot would have preferred 25% unemployment like we had in the 29 crash. of course, the unemployed would be middle class, so he doesn't care You have it, and just like the day after Obama spend-talk-a-lot the market dipped. the market's up 50% since obama took office. you righties just dont follow the news. that's what you get for letting limbaugh tell you what to think Because capitalists know you can't debt-spend your way to prosperity. uh no. capitalists in the US have socialized risk and privatized wealth, courtesy of the right wing I read an interesting article about government debt. How with taxes and dollar devaluation the average standard of living in the USA and Canada is going to take a wild dive in the next decade as more people in the world compete for limited resurces. That the worlds population is going to mandate a much lower standard of living, and Americans will not have the cash to buy goods like before. Interesting read incinuationg this is WWW III or global socialism and leaderships are pandering to it. we didn't have the cash for the last 8 years. but bush and his crony thugs just ran the credit card out to the max |
Consideration required
|
Consideration required
Don White wrote:
Does that mean we should all go running around in circles screaming "The sky is falling"? Ask your mommy - or Harry. Alternatively, you could learn to think for yourself but it may be too late for that. |
Consideration required
|
Consideration required
|
Consideration required
wrote in message
... On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 08:00:59 -0500, bpuharic wrote: ... and Geithner was his right hand man as President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Summers was pushing the deregulation in 1999-2000 along with Rubin and Greenie. Greenspan is the only one who admits it was a mistake. The rest are staying the course. no question that the free market fundamentalist religion has been driving the US economy since reagan. now, finally, even geither has seen that it was all smoke and mirrors NOW if only the GOP will see the same and quit preaching that unregulated free markets make the rich richer so it's good for the middle class In all fairness, the Reagan deregulation was not the problem. It was when the Bush/Clinton/Bust free marketeers took over that they really stripped away any similance of a fair market (free doesn't have to mean unfair) They have tipped the scales so a few rich people run the world but that idea was originally advanced by what the left called "wingnuts". Remember when you were ridiculing those people who warned you about the Bilderburgers and other secret societies? Well they are the bankers who raped the country. Just look at the names that pop up when you investigate these groups. I have never bought into the whole conspiracy theory but there is a thread of truth in it.. What?? Reagan's deregulation was the problem... banks, airlines, media, healthcare industry, etc. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com