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****.

"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

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.

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.

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:35:12 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:27:38 -0500, bpuharic 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

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:37:26 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:30:22 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

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.

That is more like 20-22% top line to bottom line, less if you have a
big mortgage. I agree rich people could pay more on cap gains but they
do end up paying most of the taxes now.

that's because their income went up 300% iin the last 25 years. middle
class incomes went up about 20%

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 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.

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.

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.

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...