|
Disintegration
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/op..._r=1&th&emc=th
August 8, 2010 America Goes Dark By PAUL KRUGMAN The lights are going out all over America - literally. Colorado Springs has made headlines with its desperate attempt to save money by turning off a third of its streetlights, but similar things are either happening or being contemplated across the nation, from Philadelphia to Fresno. Meanwhile, a country that once amazed the world with its visionary investments in transportation, from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System, is now in the process of unpaving itself: in a number of states, local governments are breaking up roads they can no longer afford to maintain, and returning them to gravel. And a nation that once prized education - that was among the first to provide basic schooling to all its children - is now cutting back. Teachers are being laid off; programs are being canceled; in Hawaii, the school year itself is being drastically shortened. And all signs point to even more cuts ahead. We're told that we have no choice, that basic government functions - essential services that have been provided for generations - are no longer affordable. And it's true that state and local governments, hit hard by the recession, are cash-strapped. But they wouldn't be quite as cash-strapped if their politicians were willing to consider at least some tax increases. And the federal government, which can sell inflation-protected long-term bonds at an interest rate of only 1.04 percent, isn't cash-strapped at all. It could and should be offering aid to local governments, to protect the future of our infrastructure and our children. But Washington is providing only a trickle of help, and even that grudgingly. We must place priority on reducing the deficit, say Republicans and "centrist" Democrats. And then, virtually in the next breath, they declare that we must preserve tax cuts for the very affluent, at a budget cost of $700 billion over the next decade. In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble - literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education - they're choosing the latter. It's a disastrous choice in both the short run and the long run. In the short run, those state and local cutbacks are a major drag on the economy, perpetuating devastatingly high unemployment. It's crucial to keep state and local government in mind when you hear people ranting about runaway government spending under President Obama. Yes, the federal government is spending more, although not as much as you might think. But state and local governments are cutting back. And if you add them together, it turns out that the only big spending increases have been in safety-net programs like unemployment insurance, which have soared in cost thanks to the severity of the slump. That is, for all the talk of a failed stimulus, if you look at government spending as a whole you see hardly any stimulus at all. And with federal spending now trailing off, while big state and local cutbacks continue, we're going into reverse. But isn't keeping taxes for the affluent low also a form of stimulus? Not so you'd notice. When we save a schoolteacher's job, that unambiguously aids employment; when we give millionaires more money instead, there's a good chance that most of that money will just sit idle. And what about the economy's future? Everything we know about economic growth says that a well-educated population and high-quality infrastructure are crucial. Emerging nations are making huge efforts to upgrade their roads, their ports and their schools. Yet in America we're going backward. How did we get to this point? It's the logical consequence of three decades of antigovernment rhetoric, rhetoric that has convinced many voters that a dollar collected in taxes is always a dollar wasted, that the public sector can't do anything right. The antigovernment campaign has always been phrased in terms of opposition to waste and fraud - to checks sent to welfare queens driving Cadillacs, to vast armies of bureaucrats uselessly pushing paper around. But those were myths, of course; there was never remotely as much waste and fraud as the right claimed. And now that the campaign has reached fruition, we're seeing what was actually in the firing line: services that everyone except the very rich need, services that government must provide or nobody will, like lighted streets, drivable roads and decent schooling for the public as a whole. So the end result of the long campaign against government is that we've taken a disastrously wrong turn. America is now on the unlit, unpaved road to nowhere. |
Disintegration
"Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" wrote in message m... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/op..._r=1&th&emc=th August 8, 2010 America Goes Dark By PAUL KRUGMAN The lights are going out all over America - literally. Colorado Springs has made headlines with its desperate attempt to save money by turning off a third of its streetlights, but similar things are either happening or being contemplated across the nation, from Philadelphia to Fresno. Meanwhile, a country that once amazed the world with its visionary investments in transportation, from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System, is now in the process of unpaving itself: in a number of states, local governments are breaking up roads they can no longer afford to maintain, and returning them to gravel. And a nation that once prized education - that was among the first to provide basic schooling to all its children - is now cutting back. Teachers are being laid off; programs are being canceled; in Hawaii, the school year itself is being drastically shortened. And all signs point to even more cuts ahead. We're told that we have no choice, that basic government functions - essential services that have been provided for generations - are no longer affordable. And it's true that state and local governments, hit hard by the recession, are cash-strapped. But they wouldn't be quite as cash-strapped if their politicians were willing to consider at least some tax increases. And the federal government, which can sell inflation-protected long-term bonds at an interest rate of only 1.04 percent, isn't cash-strapped at all. It could and should be offering aid to local governments, to protect the future of our infrastructure and our children. But Washington is providing only a trickle of help, and even that grudgingly. We must place priority on reducing the deficit, say Republicans and "centrist" Democrats. And then, virtually in the next breath, they declare that we must preserve tax cuts for the very affluent, at a budget cost of $700 billion over the next decade. In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble - literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education - they're choosing the latter. It's a disastrous choice in both the short run and the long run. In the short run, those state and local cutbacks are a major drag on the economy, perpetuating devastatingly high unemployment. It's crucial to keep state and local government in mind when you hear people ranting about runaway government spending under President Obama. Yes, the federal government is spending more, although not as much as you might think. But state and local governments are cutting back. And if you add them together, it turns out that the only big spending increases have been in safety-net programs like unemployment insurance, which have soared in cost thanks to the severity of the slump. That is, for all the talk of a failed stimulus, if you look at government spending as a whole you see hardly any stimulus at all. And with federal spending now trailing off, while big state and local cutbacks continue, we're going into reverse. But isn't keeping taxes for the affluent low also a form of stimulus? Not so you'd notice. When we save a schoolteacher's job, that unambiguously aids employment; when we give millionaires more money instead, there's a good chance that most of that money will just sit idle. And what about the economy's future? Everything we know about economic growth says that a well-educated population and high-quality infrastructure are crucial. Emerging nations are making huge efforts to upgrade their roads, their ports and their schools. Yet in America we're going backward. How did we get to this point? It's the logical consequence of three decades of antigovernment rhetoric, rhetoric that has convinced many voters that a dollar collected in taxes is always a dollar wasted, that the public sector can't do anything right. The antigovernment campaign has always been phrased in terms of opposition to waste and fraud - to checks sent to welfare queens driving Cadillacs, to vast armies of bureaucrats uselessly pushing paper around. But those were myths, of course; there was never remotely as much waste and fraud as the right claimed. And now that the campaign has reached fruition, we're seeing what was actually in the firing line: services that everyone except the very rich need, services that government must provide or nobody will, like lighted streets, drivable roads and decent schooling for the public as a whole. So the end result of the long campaign against government is that we've taken a disastrously wrong turn. America is now on the unlit, unpaved road to nowhere. Might be time for another revolution. |
Disintegration
On Aug 9, 8:24*am, "YukonBound" wrote:
"Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" wrote in messagenews:ifKdnSMLLvFOcMLRnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earth link.com... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/op..._r=1&th&emc=th August 8, 2010 America Goes Dark By PAUL KRUGMAN The lights are going out all over America - literally. Colorado Springs has made headlines with its desperate attempt to save money by turning off a third of its streetlights, but similar things are either happening or being contemplated across the nation, from Philadelphia to Fresno. Meanwhile, a country that once amazed the world with its visionary investments in transportation, from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System, is now in the process of unpaving itself: in a number of states, local governments are breaking up roads they can no longer afford to maintain, and returning them to gravel. And a nation that once prized education - that was among the first to provide basic schooling to all its children - is now cutting back. Teachers are being laid off; programs are being canceled; in Hawaii, the school year itself is being drastically shortened. And all signs point to even more cuts ahead. We're told that we have no choice, that basic government functions - essential services that have been provided for generations - are no longer affordable. And it's true that state and local governments, hit hard by the recession, are cash-strapped. But they wouldn't be quite as cash-strapped if their politicians were willing to consider at least some tax increases. And the federal government, which can sell inflation-protected long-term bonds at an interest rate of only 1.04 percent, isn't cash-strapped at all. It could and should be offering aid to local governments, to protect the future of our infrastructure and our children. But Washington is providing only a trickle of help, and even that grudgingly. We must place priority on reducing the deficit, say Republicans and "centrist" Democrats. And then, virtually in the next breath, they declare that we must preserve tax cuts for the very affluent, at a budget cost of $700 billion over the next decade. In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble - literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education - they're choosing the latter. It's a disastrous choice in both the short run and the long run. In the short run, those state and local cutbacks are a major drag on the economy, perpetuating devastatingly high unemployment. It's crucial to keep state and local government in mind when you hear people ranting about runaway government spending under President Obama. Yes, the federal government is spending more, although not as much as you might think. But state and local governments are cutting back. And if you add them together, it turns out that the only big spending increases have been in safety-net programs like unemployment insurance, which have soared in cost thanks to the severity of the slump. That is, for all the talk of a failed stimulus, if you look at government spending as a whole you see hardly any stimulus at all. And with federal spending now trailing off, while big state and local cutbacks continue, we're going into reverse. But isn't keeping taxes for the affluent low also a form of stimulus? Not so you'd notice. When we save a schoolteacher's job, that unambiguously aids employment; when we give millionaires more money instead, there's a good chance that most of that money will just sit idle. And what about the economy's future? Everything we know about economic growth says that a well-educated population and high-quality infrastructure are crucial. Emerging nations are making huge efforts to upgrade their roads, their ports and their schools. Yet in America we're going backward. How did we get to this point? It's the logical consequence of three decades of antigovernment rhetoric, rhetoric that has convinced many voters that a dollar collected in taxes is always a dollar wasted, that the public sector can't do anything right. The antigovernment campaign has always been phrased in terms of opposition to waste and fraud - to checks sent to welfare queens driving Cadillacs, to vast armies of bureaucrats uselessly pushing paper around.. But those were myths, of course; there was never remotely as much waste and fraud as the right claimed. And now that the campaign has reached fruition, we're seeing what was actually in the firing line: services that everyone except the very rich need, services that government must provide or nobody will, like lighted streets, drivable roads and decent schooling for the public as a whole. So the end result of the long campaign against government is that we've taken a disastrously wrong turn. America is now on the unlit, unpaved road to nowhere. Might be time for another revolution. $70 billion a year isn't even a drop in Obama's bucket. But, some folks are just too stupid to realize that. Remember, the Democrats control Congress and the White House. Changing the tax structure is on them. If it doesn't get done, it's 'cause the Dems don't want to do it. I guess liberals are just plain stupid (JPS), if you know what I mean. Hopefully you feel a little more educated. I won't bother you for another month or so. |
Disintegration
"Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" wrote in message
m... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/op..._r=1&th&emc=th August 8, 2010 America Goes Dark By PAUL KRUGMAN The lights are going out all over America - literally. Colorado Springs has made headlines with its desperate attempt to save money by turning off a third of its streetlights, but similar things are either happening or being contemplated across the nation, from Philadelphia to Fresno. Meanwhile, a country that once amazed the world with its visionary investments in transportation, from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System, is now in the process of unpaving itself: in a number of states, local governments are breaking up roads they can no longer afford to maintain, and returning them to gravel. And a nation that once prized education - that was among the first to provide basic schooling to all its children - is now cutting back. Teachers are being laid off; programs are being canceled; in Hawaii, the school year itself is being drastically shortened. And all signs point to even more cuts ahead. We're told that we have no choice, that basic government functions - essential services that have been provided for generations - are no longer affordable. And it's true that state and local governments, hit hard by the recession, are cash-strapped. But they wouldn't be quite as cash-strapped if their politicians were willing to consider at least some tax increases. And the federal government, which can sell inflation-protected long-term bonds at an interest rate of only 1.04 percent, isn't cash-strapped at all. It could and should be offering aid to local governments, to protect the future of our infrastructure and our children. But Washington is providing only a trickle of help, and even that grudgingly. We must place priority on reducing the deficit, say Republicans and "centrist" Democrats. And then, virtually in the next breath, they declare that we must preserve tax cuts for the very affluent, at a budget cost of $700 billion over the next decade. In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble - literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education - they're choosing the latter. It's a disastrous choice in both the short run and the long run. In the short run, those state and local cutbacks are a major drag on the economy, perpetuating devastatingly high unemployment. It's crucial to keep state and local government in mind when you hear people ranting about runaway government spending under President Obama. Yes, the federal government is spending more, although not as much as you might think. But state and local governments are cutting back. And if you add them together, it turns out that the only big spending increases have been in safety-net programs like unemployment insurance, which have soared in cost thanks to the severity of the slump. That is, for all the talk of a failed stimulus, if you look at government spending as a whole you see hardly any stimulus at all. And with federal spending now trailing off, while big state and local cutbacks continue, we're going into reverse. But isn't keeping taxes for the affluent low also a form of stimulus? Not so you'd notice. When we save a schoolteacher's job, that unambiguously aids employment; when we give millionaires more money instead, there's a good chance that most of that money will just sit idle. And what about the economy's future? Everything we know about economic growth says that a well-educated population and high-quality infrastructure are crucial. Emerging nations are making huge efforts to upgrade their roads, their ports and their schools. Yet in America we're going backward. How did we get to this point? It's the logical consequence of three decades of antigovernment rhetoric, rhetoric that has convinced many voters that a dollar collected in taxes is always a dollar wasted, that the public sector can't do anything right. The antigovernment campaign has always been phrased in terms of opposition to waste and fraud - to checks sent to welfare queens driving Cadillacs, to vast armies of bureaucrats uselessly pushing paper around. But those were myths, of course; there was never remotely as much waste and fraud as the right claimed. And now that the campaign has reached fruition, we're seeing what was actually in the firing line: services that everyone except the very rich need, services that government must provide or nobody will, like lighted streets, drivable roads and decent schooling for the public as a whole. So the end result of the long campaign against government is that we've taken a disastrously wrong turn. America is now on the unlit, unpaved road to nowhere. You are finally seeing the light, eh. The mid term and the next Presidential election, might be the last elections this country sees. Let's hope America has woken up, and will vote responsibly. |
Disintegration
"YukonBound" wrote in message
... "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" wrote in message m... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/op..._r=1&th&emc=th August 8, 2010 America Goes Dark By PAUL KRUGMAN The lights are going out all over America - literally. Colorado Springs has made headlines with its desperate attempt to save money by turning off a third of its streetlights, but similar things are either happening or being contemplated across the nation, from Philadelphia to Fresno. Meanwhile, a country that once amazed the world with its visionary investments in transportation, from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System, is now in the process of unpaving itself: in a number of states, local governments are breaking up roads they can no longer afford to maintain, and returning them to gravel. And a nation that once prized education - that was among the first to provide basic schooling to all its children - is now cutting back. Teachers are being laid off; programs are being canceled; in Hawaii, the school year itself is being drastically shortened. And all signs point to even more cuts ahead. We're told that we have no choice, that basic government functions - essential services that have been provided for generations - are no longer affordable. And it's true that state and local governments, hit hard by the recession, are cash-strapped. But they wouldn't be quite as cash-strapped if their politicians were willing to consider at least some tax increases. And the federal government, which can sell inflation-protected long-term bonds at an interest rate of only 1.04 percent, isn't cash-strapped at all. It could and should be offering aid to local governments, to protect the future of our infrastructure and our children. But Washington is providing only a trickle of help, and even that grudgingly. We must place priority on reducing the deficit, say Republicans and "centrist" Democrats. And then, virtually in the next breath, they declare that we must preserve tax cuts for the very affluent, at a budget cost of $700 billion over the next decade. In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble - literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education - they're choosing the latter. It's a disastrous choice in both the short run and the long run. In the short run, those state and local cutbacks are a major drag on the economy, perpetuating devastatingly high unemployment. It's crucial to keep state and local government in mind when you hear people ranting about runaway government spending under President Obama. Yes, the federal government is spending more, although not as much as you might think. But state and local governments are cutting back. And if you add them together, it turns out that the only big spending increases have been in safety-net programs like unemployment insurance, which have soared in cost thanks to the severity of the slump. That is, for all the talk of a failed stimulus, if you look at government spending as a whole you see hardly any stimulus at all. And with federal spending now trailing off, while big state and local cutbacks continue, we're going into reverse. But isn't keeping taxes for the affluent low also a form of stimulus? Not so you'd notice. When we save a schoolteacher's job, that unambiguously aids employment; when we give millionaires more money instead, there's a good chance that most of that money will just sit idle. And what about the economy's future? Everything we know about economic growth says that a well-educated population and high-quality infrastructure are crucial. Emerging nations are making huge efforts to upgrade their roads, their ports and their schools. Yet in America we're going backward. How did we get to this point? It's the logical consequence of three decades of antigovernment rhetoric, rhetoric that has convinced many voters that a dollar collected in taxes is always a dollar wasted, that the public sector can't do anything right. The antigovernment campaign has always been phrased in terms of opposition to waste and fraud - to checks sent to welfare queens driving Cadillacs, to vast armies of bureaucrats uselessly pushing paper around. But those were myths, of course; there was never remotely as much waste and fraud as the right claimed. And now that the campaign has reached fruition, we're seeing what was actually in the firing line: services that everyone except the very rich need, services that government must provide or nobody will, like lighted streets, drivable roads and decent schooling for the public as a whole. So the end result of the long campaign against government is that we've taken a disastrously wrong turn. America is now on the unlit, unpaved road to nowhere. Might be time for another revolution. Is the itty bitty island of N.S. threatening the U.S.? Or is it just that retired "crown corp." sot running his mouth again. |
Disintegration
On Aug 9, 10:44*am, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:00:19 -0400, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" wrote: And a nation that once prized education - that was among the first to provide basic schooling to all its children - is now cutting back. Teachers are being laid off; programs are being canceled; in Hawaii, the school year itself is being drastically shortened. And all signs point to even more cuts ahead. This is just another case of "Close the Washington Monument" posturing. Why don't the school boards cut administrative costs? Most of these boards spend more than half the money they take from the taxpayer outside of the classroom. I do agree we don't pay enough taxes to maintain the government we have but I also agree with those who say the government is not very efficient with the money we give them and when they make cuts they cut the most critical and visible programs to make the point that they want more money. When they try to contain costs the teacher's union revolts over the loss of Viagra coverage! Look no further than the extreme waste perpetrated by the various government agencies to see where the money goes. Like an addict, now they want more. |
Disintegration
|
Disintegration
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:00:19 -0400, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net"
wrote: In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble - literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education - they're choosing the latter. not only that, but we're borrowing to finance the gifts for the rich |
Disintegration
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 06:28:57 -0700 (PDT), John H
wrote: $70 billion a year isn't even a drop in Obama's bucket. But, some folks are just too stupid to realize that. Remember, the Democrats control Congress and the White House. Changing the tax structure is on them. If it doesn't get done, it's 'cause the Dems don't want to do it. really? ever h ear of a filibuster? this congress has had a record number of them as the GOP tries to bring gvot to a halt I guess liberals are just plain stupid (JPS), if you know what I mean. seems you right whiners dont know how govt works... Hopefully you feel a little more educated. I won't bother you for another month or so. ROFLMAO!! you and your comic book/rush limpballs view of history |
Disintegration
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 07:50:56 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote: When they try to contain costs the teacher's union revolts over the loss of Viagra coverage! i lived in texas. texas has no teacher's unions and it has one of the worst school systems in the US. as does mississippi... more right wing bull**** |
Disintegration
On 8/9/10 5:08 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:00:19 -0400, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" wrote: In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble - literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education - they're choosing the latter. not only that, but we're borrowing to finance the gifts for the rich Once again, 49% federal tax rates for all income over $250,000, and *every* dollar coming in in any way, except for long-term capital gains on investments made in the United States, should be considered income. |
Disintegration
On 8/9/10 5:12 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 07:50:56 -0700 (PDT), wrote: When they try to contain costs the teacher's union revolts over the loss of Viagra coverage! i lived in texas. texas has no teacher's unions and it has one of the worst school systems in the US. as does mississippi... more right wing bull**** South Carolina is the new Mississippi. |
Disintegration
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:12:51 -0400, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net"
wrote: On 8/9/10 5:08 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:00:19 -0400, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" wrote: In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble - literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education - they're choosing the latter. not only that, but we're borrowing to finance the gifts for the rich Once again, 49% federal tax rates for all income over $250,000, and *every* dollar coming in in any way, except for long-term capital gains on investments made in the United States, should be considered income. another article the other day pointed out that the richest 1% have seen their effective tax rates drop by 50% in the last 10 years. this country is getting more like mexico every day |
Disintegration
bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 06:28:57 -0700 (PDT), John H wrote: $70 billion a year isn't even a drop in Obama's bucket. But, some folks are just too stupid to realize that. Remember, the Democrats control Congress and the White House. Changing the tax structure is on them. If it doesn't get done, it's 'cause the Dems don't want to do it. really? ever h ear of a filibuster? this congress has had a record number of them as the GOP tries to bring gvot to a halt I guess liberals are just plain stupid (JPS), if you know what I mean. seems you right whiners dont know how govt works... Looks like. But he's as good a name-caller as you. The tax cut expiration issue should be interesting. The R's will try to block any tax increase for the "rich." The D's have at least a couple ways to go. 1. Two bills from the house, one keeping the "rich" tax cuts, the other keeping the "non-rich" tax cuts. The Senate D's will vote against the rich and for the non-rich. The Senate R's can vote against the non-rich and stop it, at their peril. 2. Reconciliation. Since taxes are budgetary, reconciliation is a possibility. That's how the R's passed the "Bush tax cuts." As an indication of how poor the state of journalism is, I couldn't find anything to confirm this could be done. Might be a procedural technicality I'm not aware of that would prohibit it. But if not, the D's can do what they please. If Obama was smart, he'd break his $250k promise and let all the tax cuts expire except leave the 10% bracket alone. Wouldn't keep the wingers from whining, but those who think would see he's doing something real about the deficit on the revenue side at least. He'd then do some heavy work on spending and cost control. But Obama really ain't too smart as a strategist. Not taking positive steps to get industrial jobs back shows that. Only way to get unemployment down. I expect the usual cluster****, but who knows. The only thing for sure is the R's will get the blame if the non-rich taxes go up. Jim - Mark my words. |
Disintegration
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:52:47 -0500, Jim wrote:
But Obama really ain't too smart as a strategist. now let's see...who got healthcare passed... uh...FDR? nope... hillary and bill? nope what WAS that president's name...?? Not taking positive steps to get industrial jobs back shows that. of course if he did this he'd be a socialist... Only way to get unemployment down. I expect the usual cluster****, but who knows. The only thing for sure is the R's will get the blame if the non-rich taxes go up. we can only hope. so far the middle class tends to blame the dems for 'tax increases' |
Disintegration
|
Disintegration
|
Disintegration
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:52:47 -0500, Jim wrote:
Wouldn't keep the wingers from whining, but those who think would see he's doing something real about the deficit on the revenue side at least. He'd then do some heavy work on spending and cost control. Good strategy for another Great Depression: Reduce government spending and increase taxes. The last guy who tried it during a major down turn is not remembered too favorably: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover |
Disintegration
|
Disintegration
D.Duck wrote:
"My new Ryobi orbital sander manual is 20 pages." And probably half of them are government mandated safety related. 8) You got real close. Actually it's 33 pages but 1/3 French, 1/3 Spanish, 1/3 English. So 11 pages. 6 pages of warnings. Probably more defense against lawyers than gov mandates. Jim - I don't need no damn manual anyway. Just plug it in and turn it on. Try to remember the sandpaper. |
Disintegration
Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:52:47 -0500, Jim wrote: Wouldn't keep the wingers from whining, but those who think would see he's doing something real about the deficit on the revenue side at least. He'd then do some heavy work on spending and cost control. Good strategy for another Great Depression: Reduce government spending and increase taxes. The last guy who tried it during a major down turn is not remembered too favorably: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover Big mistake thinking this is the same economy as 1932. It ain't. That was the stone age. Structural deficits have to be addressed. That's all long-term. So you want to increase gov spending like many say Hoover should have done? Right now? And leave the current tax law as is? And increase the deficit by trillions while destroying the dollar? Didn't think so. You just don't want tax hikes. You should say that instead of posting some antiquated Herbert Hoover economics bull****. If you got more than a link to Herbert Hoover spell it out. Jim - Telling it like it is. |
Disintegration
On Aug 9, 5:59*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:12:51 -0400, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" wrote: On 8/9/10 5:08 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:00:19 -0400, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" *wrote: In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble - literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education - they're choosing the latter. not only that, but we're borrowing to finance the gifts for the rich Once again, 49% federal tax rates for all income over $250,000, and *every* dollar coming in in any way, except for long-term capital gains on investments made in the United States, should be considered income. another article the other day pointed out that the richest 1% have seen their effective tax rates drop by 50% in the last 10 years. this country is getting more like mexico every day Hey pubhic, you think none of those rich are Dems? What a f'ing joke you are. If the liberals had their way, we'd have a government just like Mexico's, with those in power having all the wealth. When will you liberals wake up? |
Disintegration
|
Disintegration
On 8/10/10 9:28 AM, Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net wrote:
In articlescGdnQtRxNgU8v3RnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@earthlink .com, says... On 8/9/10 5:12 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 07:50:56 -0700 (PDT), wrote: When they try to contain costs the teacher's union revolts over the loss of Viagra coverage! i lived in texas. texas has no teacher's unions and it has one of the worst school systems in the US. as does mississippi... more right wing bull**** South Carolina is the new Mississippi. Spoofer alert! I'm not a bigot. Awww...look...the pussy is spoofing my ID but of course he isn't posting from news.east.earthlink.net. |
Disintegration
On 8/10/10 9:00 AM, John H wrote:
On Aug 9, 5:59 pm, wrote: On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:12:51 -0400, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" wrote: On 8/9/10 5:08 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:00:19 -0400, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" wrote: In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble - literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education - they're choosing the latter. not only that, but we're borrowing to finance the gifts for the rich Once again, 49% federal tax rates for all income over $250,000, and *every* dollar coming in in any way, except for long-term capital gains on investments made in the United States, should be considered income. another article the other day pointed out that the richest 1% have seen their effective tax rates drop by 50% in the last 10 years. this country is getting more like mexico every day Hey pubhic, you think none of those rich are Dems? What a f'ing joke you are. If the liberals had their way, we'd have a government just like Mexico's, with those in power having all the wealth. When will you liberals wake up? If I had my way, you and all the other white racist ****kickers would be shipped to mexico with a sign around your head saying, "I hate Latinos." |
Disintegration
"Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" wrote in message
... On 8/10/10 9:00 AM, John H wrote: On Aug 9, 5:59 pm, wrote: On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:12:51 -0400, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" wrote: On 8/9/10 5:08 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:00:19 -0400, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" wrote: In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble - literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education - they're choosing the latter. not only that, but we're borrowing to finance the gifts for the rich Once again, 49% federal tax rates for all income over $250,000, and *every* dollar coming in in any way, except for long-term capital gains on investments made in the United States, should be considered income. another article the other day pointed out that the richest 1% have seen their effective tax rates drop by 50% in the last 10 years. this country is getting more like mexico every day Hey pubhic, you think none of those rich are Dems? What a f'ing joke you are. If the liberals had their way, we'd have a government just like Mexico's, with those in power having all the wealth. When will you liberals wake up? If I had my way, you and all the other white racist ****kickers would be shipped to mexico with a sign around your head saying, "I hate Latinos." You have too much guano in your diet. -- The OBAMA motto: We've got what it takes, to take what you've got! |
Disintegration
On Aug 10, 9:38*am, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net"
wrote: On 8/10/10 9:00 AM, John H wrote: On Aug 9, 5:59 pm, *wrote: On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:12:51 -0400, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" *wrote: On 8/9/10 5:08 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:00:19 -0400, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" * *wrote: In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble - literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education - they're choosing the latter. not only that, but we're borrowing to finance the gifts for the rich Once again, 49% federal tax rates for all income over $250,000, and *every* dollar coming in in any way, except for long-term capital gains on investments made in the United States, should be considered income.. another article the other day pointed out that the richest 1% have seen their effective tax rates drop by 50% in the last 10 years. this country is getting more like mexico every day Hey pubhic, you think none of those rich are Dems? What a f'ing joke you are. If the liberals had their way, we'd have a government just like Mexico's, with those in power having all the wealth. When will you liberals wake up? If I had my way, you and all the other white racist ****kickers would be shipped to mexico with a sign around your head saying, "I hate Latinos."- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Only cause you are too cowardly to handle any of us yourself... Yeah, just like the rest of your miserable life, let someone else do the work.. |
Disintegration
On 8/10/10 9:59 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On Aug 10, 9:38 am, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" If I had my way, you and all the other white racist ****kickers would be shipped to mexico with a sign around your head saying, "I hate Latinos."- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Only cause you are too cowardly to handle any of us yourself... Yeah, just like the rest of your miserable life, let someone else do the work.. Handle who, short ****? You? My housecats could take you down. I'll be up in Connecticut soon for a long weekend and the 50th Anniversary of "The Beach Party to End All Beach Parties." It'll be interesting to see who is alive and who isn't...Looks like it'll be somewhere between Momauguin Beach and Branford, depending on which of the beach-dwelling alums hosts it. Fortunately, that's not your part of the state, so...the visit will not be impacted by your stench. One of the highlights will be seeing my buddy Mike's late 1950's Lyman with the big (for its day) Merc. Mike found his old boat about 10 years ago, and, once he retired a few years ago, he began to rebuild it. That project is finished, and he found a professionally rebuilt Merc to hang off the transom. I waterskied off that boat. |
Disintegration
"Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" wrote in message m... On 8/10/10 9:59 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote: On Aug 10, 9:38 am, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" If I had my way, you and all the other white racist ****kickers would be shipped to mexico with a sign around your head saying, "I hate Latinos."- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Only cause you are too cowardly to handle any of us yourself... Yeah, just like the rest of your miserable life, let someone else do the work.. Handle who, short ****? You? My housecats could take you down. I'll be up in Connecticut soon for a long weekend and the 50th Anniversary of "The Beach Party to End All Beach Parties." It'll be interesting to see who is alive and who isn't...Looks like it'll be somewhere between Momauguin Beach and Branford, depending on which of the beach-dwelling alums hosts it. Fortunately, that's not your part of the state, so...the visit will not be impacted by your stench. One of the highlights will be seeing my buddy Mike's late 1950's Lyman with the big (for its day) Merc. Mike found his old boat about 10 years ago, and, once he retired a few years ago, he began to rebuild it. That project is finished, and he found a professionally rebuilt Merc to hang off the transom. I waterskied off that boat. Oh oh! If our little pint-sized prick even thinks you'll be in his state, he'll have the entire town of Centerbrook out to guard his sorry ass. |
Disintegration
|
Disintegration
|
Disintegration
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 06:00:43 -0700 (PDT), John H
wrote: On Aug 9, 5:59*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:12:51 -0400, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" this country is getting more like mexico every day Hey pubhic, you think none of those rich are Dems? when's the last time the dems pushed a tax cut for the wealthy with the mddle class to pay for it? What a f'ing joke you are. If the liberals had their way, we'd have a government just like Mexico's, with those in power having all the wealth. When will you liberals wake up?' gee...we just came through a period with GWB and the GOP congress that did exactly what you said liberals want.. cut taxes on the rich deregulated the hell out of govt destroyed unions anything else to make the US like mexico? |
Disintegration
bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:52:47 -0500, Jim wrote: But Obama really ain't too smart as a strategist. now let's see...who got healthcare passed... uh...FDR? nope... hillary and bill? nope what WAS that president's name...?? It's his legacy, and a feather in his cap. But it was Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who made it happen. If Obama were a better strategist the bill would have been much better and found an easier passage. I do agree it was a huge achievement. Not taking positive steps to get industrial jobs back shows that. of course if he did this he'd be a socialist... Tough ****. His lamebrain enemies already give him that handle anyway. But I really don't think he understands that is the solution. Doesn't mean he's a bad person. Uh-oh. Cue the Smoot-Hawley Act crowd and references to the Hoover era. Jim - Will you vote for Hoover? |
Disintegration
YukonBound wrote:
"Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" wrote in message m... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/op..._r=1&th&emc=th August 8, 2010 America Goes Dark By PAUL KRUGMAN The lights are going out all over America - literally. Colorado Springs has made headlines with its desperate attempt to save money by turning off a third of its streetlights, but similar things are either happening or being contemplated across the nation, from Philadelphia to Fresno. Meanwhile, a country that once amazed the world with its visionary investments in transportation, from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System, is now in the process of unpaving itself: in a number of states, local governments are breaking up roads they can no longer afford to maintain, and returning them to gravel. And a nation that once prized education - that was among the first to provide basic schooling to all its children - is now cutting back. Teachers are being laid off; programs are being canceled; in Hawaii, the school year itself is being drastically shortened. And all signs point to even more cuts ahead. We're told that we have no choice, that basic government functions - essential services that have been provided for generations - are no longer affordable. And it's true that state and local governments, hit hard by the recession, are cash-strapped. But they wouldn't be quite as cash-strapped if their politicians were willing to consider at least some tax increases. And the federal government, which can sell inflation-protected long-term bonds at an interest rate of only 1.04 percent, isn't cash-strapped at all. It could and should be offering aid to local governments, to protect the future of our infrastructure and our children. But Washington is providing only a trickle of help, and even that grudgingly. We must place priority on reducing the deficit, say Republicans and "centrist" Democrats. And then, virtually in the next breath, they declare that we must preserve tax cuts for the very affluent, at a budget cost of $700 billion over the next decade. In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble - literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education - they're choosing the latter. It's a disastrous choice in both the short run and the long run. In the short run, those state and local cutbacks are a major drag on the economy, perpetuating devastatingly high unemployment. It's crucial to keep state and local government in mind when you hear people ranting about runaway government spending under President Obama. Yes, the federal government is spending more, although not as much as you might think. But state and local governments are cutting back. And if you add them together, it turns out that the only big spending increases have been in safety-net programs like unemployment insurance, which have soared in cost thanks to the severity of the slump. That is, for all the talk of a failed stimulus, if you look at government spending as a whole you see hardly any stimulus at all. And with federal spending now trailing off, while big state and local cutbacks continue, we're going into reverse. But isn't keeping taxes for the affluent low also a form of stimulus? Not so you'd notice. When we save a schoolteacher's job, that unambiguously aids employment; when we give millionaires more money instead, there's a good chance that most of that money will just sit idle. And what about the economy's future? Everything we know about economic growth says that a well-educated population and high-quality infrastructure are crucial. Emerging nations are making huge efforts to upgrade their roads, their ports and their schools. Yet in America we're going backward. How did we get to this point? It's the logical consequence of three decades of antigovernment rhetoric, rhetoric that has convinced many voters that a dollar collected in taxes is always a dollar wasted, that the public sector can't do anything right. The antigovernment campaign has always been phrased in terms of opposition to waste and fraud - to checks sent to welfare queens driving Cadillacs, to vast armies of bureaucrats uselessly pushing paper around. But those were myths, of course; there was never remotely as much waste and fraud as the right claimed. And now that the campaign has reached fruition, we're seeing what was actually in the firing line: services that everyone except the very rich need, services that government must provide or nobody will, like lighted streets, drivable roads and decent schooling for the public as a whole. So the end result of the long campaign against government is that we've taken a disastrously wrong turn. America is now on the unlit, unpaved road to nowhere. Might be time for another revolution. That would be a civil war, and it won't happen, dummy. |
Disintegration
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:40:12 -0500, Jim wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:52:47 -0500, Jim wrote: But Obama really ain't too smart as a strategist. now let's see...who got healthcare passed... uh...FDR? nope... hillary and bill? nope what WAS that president's name...?? It's his legacy, and a feather in his cap. But it was Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who made it happen. ROFLMAO!! no one cares 'who made it happen'. if it had failed he would be blamed. it was his idea, he pushed it and he won the battle I do agree it was a huge achievement. |
Disintegration
Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net wrote:
In articleH8KdnTwJIKIPffzRnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@giganews. com, says... YukonBound wrote: "Harry @ wrote in message m... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/op..._r=1&th&emc=th August 8, 2010 America Goes Dark By PAUL KRUGMAN The lights are going out all over America - literally. Colorado Springs has made headlines with its desperate attempt to save money by turning off a third of its streetlights, but similar things are either happening or being contemplated across the nation, from Philadelphia to Fresno. Meanwhile, a country that once amazed the world with its visionary investments in transportation, from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System, is now in the process of unpaving itself: in a number of states, local governments are breaking up roads they can no longer afford to maintain, and returning them to gravel. And a nation that once prized education - that was among the first to provide basic schooling to all its children - is now cutting back. Teachers are being laid off; programs are being canceled; in Hawaii, the school year itself is being drastically shortened. And all signs point to even more cuts ahead. We're told that we have no choice, that basic government functions - essential services that have been provided for generations - are no longer affordable. And it's true that state and local governments, hit hard by the recession, are cash-strapped. But they wouldn't be quite as cash-strapped if their politicians were willing to consider at least some tax increases. And the federal government, which can sell inflation-protected long-term bonds at an interest rate of only 1.04 percent, isn't cash-strapped at all. It could and should be offering aid to local governments, to protect the future of our infrastructure and our children. But Washington is providing only a trickle of help, and even that grudgingly. We must place priority on reducing the deficit, say Republicans and "centrist" Democrats. And then, virtually in the next breath, they declare that we must preserve tax cuts for the very affluent, at a budget cost of $700 billion over the next decade. In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble - literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education - they're choosing the latter. It's a disastrous choice in both the short run and the long run. In the short run, those state and local cutbacks are a major drag on the economy, perpetuating devastatingly high unemployment. It's crucial to keep state and local government in mind when you hear people ranting about runaway government spending under President Obama. Yes, the federal government is spending more, although not as much as you might think. But state and local governments are cutting back. And if you add them together, it turns out that the only big spending increases have been in safety-net programs like unemployment insurance, which have soared in cost thanks to the severity of the slump. That is, for all the talk of a failed stimulus, if you look at government spending as a whole you see hardly any stimulus at all. And with federal spending now trailing off, while big state and local cutbacks continue, we're going into reverse. But isn't keeping taxes for the affluent low also a form of stimulus? Not so you'd notice. When we save a schoolteacher's job, that unambiguously aids employment; when we give millionaires more money instead, there's a good chance that most of that money will just sit idle. And what about the economy's future? Everything we know about economic growth says that a well-educated population and high-quality infrastructure are crucial. Emerging nations are making huge efforts to upgrade their roads, their ports and their schools. Yet in America we're going backward. How did we get to this point? It's the logical consequence of three decades of antigovernment rhetoric, rhetoric that has convinced many voters that a dollar collected in taxes is always a dollar wasted, that the public sector can't do anything right. The antigovernment campaign has always been phrased in terms of opposition to waste and fraud - to checks sent to welfare queens driving Cadillacs, to vast armies of bureaucrats uselessly pushing paper around. But those were myths, of course; there was never remotely as much waste and fraud as the right claimed. And now that the campaign has reached fruition, we're seeing what was actually in the firing line: services that everyone except the very rich need, services that government must provide or nobody will, like lighted streets, drivable roads and decent schooling for the public as a whole. So the end result of the long campaign against government is that we've taken a disastrously wrong turn. America is now on the unlit, unpaved road to nowhere. Might be time for another revolution. That would be a civil war, and it won't happen, dummy. You can bet that if a war breaks out, I'll run with my tail between my legs like I did during Nam. That's a given. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com