On 7/25/10 7:46 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:15:48 -0600,
wrote:

On 25/07/2010 9:41 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:13:42 -0400, wrote:

gee. the germans have a world class export based economy that's
HEAVILY unionized.

the US, with NO unions, is not.


Yeah, and such powerful unions they are.
This union factory worker makes $22,000 a year and the government
taxes more than half of that away for things like his "free" health
care.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...M&refer=europe

Amazing how many people think it is "free" and trust government to do it.

guess he didn't notice this article is

five years old


And it is why Obama-democrat debt spending is so bad,

actually it's the bush/paulson spending. obama is spending roughly
what bush spent in his last year in office

but, you see, bush is white

and obama is black...


I would say the US is in for Japans lost decades for decades to come.

uh, hate to inform you

but japan has LESS government spending as a percentage of GDP than we
do

http://www.tnr.com/blogs/jonathan-chait



Until the leasons are learned, peoples standard of living will
depreciate as governmetn gets bigger. Just like Cuba or Venezuela.

lessons learned? let's see....

the right winger says because of high govt spending we're going to
wind up like japan

but he's too ****ing stupid to realize japan's govt spending is less
than ours!

the right wing is FILLED with incredible bull****



Paying any attention to Canuck's economic dribblings is no smarter than
paying any attention to John Herring's boating dribblings. Neither of
them have any understanding of the subjects on which they expound.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:50:09 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:




Paying any attention to Canuck's economic dribblings is no smarter than
paying any attention to John Herring's boating dribblings. Neither of
them have any understanding of the subjects on which they expound.

i generally would ignore the kluxer, but he's too representative of
the tea baggers here in the states. they have their little myths, the
fairy tales they tell to each other....like frightened school children
they invent stories about evil liberals and ignore the sharp fanged
monsters on wall street.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:37:35 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:




Those who oppose providing decent quality healthcare and decent
retirement possibilities for lower-income workers have no ideas that
will improve the lives of these families. A large percentage of
lower-income workers simply don't have the ability to climb up the
ladder since they must devote all of their time to survival.

Instituting higher tax rates on those who can afford them is a way to
provide the poorer among us with a better quality of life. That, and
cutting the military budget in half would do the job, I am sure.


the right opposes ANY increase in the standard of living for the
middle class

it has never occurred to them that a richer middle class means a
richer america

in that, they are profoundly anti-american

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 12:48:37 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:

What do you expect the working poor to do, w'hine, to help you hang onto
more of your dollars? Get sick and die? Miss an entire day of work to
sit in a hospital ER for a flu shot? Live in a cardboard box when they
are pushed out of their job and there aren't any more jobs?

What did they do 100 years ago ?

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:45:09 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:

since the
Constitution didn't discuss providing decent health care for the poor,
there was no rationale for doing it...or something like that.

There is no rationale for the federal government to do it. That is
very clear.

On 7/25/10 8:18 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 12:48:37 -0400, Harry
wrote:

What do you expect the working poor to do, w'hine, to help you hang onto
more of your dollars? Get sick and die? Miss an entire day of work to
sit in a hospital ER for a flu shot? Live in a cardboard box when they
are pushed out of their job and there aren't any more jobs?

What did they do 100 years ago ?



They got sick and they died, w'hine. Is that what you want to say to
those who cannot afford decent medical care or a respectable
retirement...just...die? Poor people are just a commodity to your type,
eh? Use 'em up and then discard them by the side of the road.

On 7/25/10 8:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:45:09 -0400, Harry
wrote:

since the
Constitution didn't discuss providing decent health care for the poor,
there was no rationale for doing it...or something like that.

There is no rationale for the federal government to do it. That is
very clear.


Sure there is...you just don't accept the concept of decency towards
your fellow man and woman.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:37:31 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:46:56 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...M&refer=europe

Amazing how many people think it is "free" and trust government to do it.

guess he didn't notice this article is

five years old

Do you really think the german union is stronger now?

do you really think the world's economic situation is the same today
as it was 5 years ago?

i KNOW you right wingers live in a plastic bubble...but this is
ridiculous!

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:22:18 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:45:09 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:

since the
Constitution didn't discuss providing decent health care for the poor,
there was no rationale for doing it...or something like that.

There is no rationale for the federal government to do it. That is
very clear.

private industry hasn't. so they've failed. it's time for the american
people to do what the rich refuse to do for us.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:24:25 -0500, Jim wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:


yes. You're giving the gov't at least $7500/yr, and it's likely that the
15% is not going to be 15% in 15 years. It's going to be higher, almost
certainly.


You're speculating about future taxes with no basis for the speculation.
But you're a speculator.

The debt is 14 trillion, they will either have to raise taxes or
monetize the debt and inflate this money away.




?? Not sure what you're trying to say. We're at historically low tax rates.
Taxes will likely rise. Not sure what the national debt has to do with the
strategy I outlined.