Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:42:58 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 20/02/2011 3:38 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:59:59 -0700,
wrote:

On 20/02/2011 11:38 AM, wrote:

You moved back to Canada because you were thrown out of the US.

And I took my job with me!

You mean your unemployment. Job /= sitting on couch.

No. When I said I needed to return to Canada for personal reasons, they
said I should report to the Canadian office. Never even changed bosses.
Part of the reasons were the Canadian investments needed some
attention I couldn't do in the US, and I could see the US was headed for
the wall.

Right. Sure. You were booted out and you can't get back in.


loonies traded at 1.013 -- I like.

I wouldn't trade a moron for a loonie.

Your not even a moron, so you have nothing to trade.

I'm not a moron and you're right, I wouldn't trade anything I have for
anything you have.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:54:39 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:41:26 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:49:27 -0500, wrote:


Oops... Ford abolished the AEC. Nice try. FYI, Carter was a nuclear
engineer.

DoE was a Carter invention. Nobody said ERDA was a good idea either
but it was not the same huge bureaucracy DoE became.
I was in DC at the time, working in those buildings. I saw what
happened. Each time they changed the name, another office was started
up and the existing office just got a new sign. The joke at GSA was
they were going to hang the signs with thumb screws.

Sure... DoE... created by a Dem, therefore it's horrible. What total
nonsense. You just want to eliminate anything that doesn't directly
involved profit.

No it was bad because it was an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of
an already redundant layer on an agency that was working well.

According to you. So, no coordination among the disparate groups is
needed?? That's what you're claiming...

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:57:11 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:41:26 -0800, wrote:

It might help a little but the rich don't really have that much money.
I already showed you the total net worth of the Forbes 400 would only
handle our current deficit for about 18 months. Bear in mind that is
their unrealized profit on securities that the can't really write a
check for.
Get a calculator, go to Forbes and add it up yourself if you are
bored.

Go get a calculator and figure out how much of an increase of 4% for
those making over $250K will have on deficit reduction.

What do you think the median income of that group is?
$500,000? $1M?
Lets take the best case scenario and say $1M
They would pay an extra $40,000 times 1.9 million households ... $80
billion, not a small number but still chump change compared to the
$1.1 trillion deficit.

Go "figure" your math some more. You're not even close.

Facts please?
You can't just say no it isn't without some facts. Which part is
wrong?


I've done that several times. Most recently that the top 400 have more
than the bottom 50%. Yet, the Republicans want to tax the bottom half
and GOD FORBID touch any money from the top.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:59:43 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 20/02/2011 3:43 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 13:13:33 -0700,
wrote:

On 20/02/2011 11:43 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:11:28 -0700,
wrote:

On 18/02/2011 12:11 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, wrote:

You think using a majority to supress the people and
votes of the opposition is fair play?

Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck
it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were
obstructionists.
Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government?
Where is your outrage?
I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon
their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real
life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the
lobby to demonstrate that they are still working.

We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really
knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they
discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't
just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print
some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just
going to tell their debtors to sue them?

We better get used to questions like this because the whole country
has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful
as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the
populace is better armed. ;-)

There's no "Greece" or Egypt "moment" coming. That's a paranoid
fantasy.

Agreed, it will be at least a generation of poverty.

Agreed, you're an idiot with no business acumen.

Tell that to my accountant.

Tell her yourself. Oh wait, you don't need an accountant, since you're
on the dole.

Actually it is a he. Has been doing my taxes since 1994 or so, just got
too complex, gain this rate, dividend that rate, this type of dividend
is foreign tax credits, currency exchange...50 sheets at least.

Something you will never have a problem with.

Too complex? That's funny. He is, I'm sure, a figgy of your
imagination.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On 2/20/2011 8:57 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:41:26 -0800, wrote:

It might help a little but the rich don't really have that much money.
I already showed you the total net worth of the Forbes 400 would only
handle our current deficit for about 18 months. Bear in mind that is
their unrealized profit on securities that the can't really write a
check for.
Get a calculator, go to Forbes and add it up yourself if you are
bored.
Go get a calculator and figure out how much of an increase of 4% for
those making over $250K will have on deficit reduction.
What do you think the median income of that group is?
$500,000? $1M?
Lets take the best case scenario and say $1M
They would pay an extra $40,000 times 1.9 million households ... $80
billion, not a small number but still chump change compared to the
$1.1 trillion deficit.
Go "figure" your math some more. You're not even close.
Facts please?
You can't just say no it isn't without some facts. Which part is
wrong?


Jessica de plume does as she pleases. She will also keep arguing after
she loses. Don't ever expect her to acknowledge she's been defeated.
You're beginning to sound like the guy that expects "different results".
Move on.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On 2/20/2011 9:37 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:38:21 -0700,
wrote:

On 20/02/2011 3:36 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:41:45 -0700,
wrote:

On 19/02/2011 7:09 PM, wrote:

Did you know 74% of Whitehouse staff got a 9% raise last year? Piggies
are having a feast while others suffer.
Cutting half of the DoD budget is a good start but if you ignore
SS/Medicare you will never get a handle on the deficit.

The rest may be good symbolism but they are insignificant.
Agreed. The cuts have to go deep and *no* sacred cows spared. Even
congressional, senate and administration budgets need the big axe.
Duplicated agencies collapsed into one with massively reduced budgets.
What, is there 5 or 7 housing agencies? Why not one that is color
blind? Or why even have a housing agency as states/cities do their own
civic planning?

The cuts will need to be deep to be effective.

But it is also why I am betting they will not do it. Sad to say, US
government bankruptcy is inevitable as I don't believe in politicians
being this "American" to save the country from eventual currency based
bankruptcy. $60 billion is hardly a scratch. Thy need another $1,600
billion. The cuts are not even 5% of what is needed to balance up. A
joke really.

Now if congress refuses the debt/money expansion say for 3 months and DC
government checks bounce to send the message... I will re-assess the
politicians desire to remain solvent.

Until then people need to start thinking of currency as a rapidly
depreciating asset. $1 today is effectively $0.95 next week in
purchasing power.
Fortunately, you have no say in what happens in this great country.
Suits me fine. I realized some time ago I am 1/7,000,000,000 of the
higher order predators on this planet, and by luck being born in North
American and by getting off my arse, I didn't pretty good.

First lesson is you or I are not going to change a damn thing. But how
we work with what is presented to us is key for our own successes.

So how is that Obama sized debt work'in for ya?
Suits me even more. You're about as much a predator as is a
hummingbird. You're a loser and useless human being who sits on his
butt and complains.

You are __certainly__ not going to change anything. I agree with that!
Dumb, Jessie. Really dumb.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On 2/20/2011 9:38 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:39:33 -0700,
wrote:

On 20/02/2011 3:37 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:55:20 -0700,
wrote:

On 19/02/2011 9:05 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:23:49 -0700,
wrote:

On 18/02/2011 4:21 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:20:04 -0700,
wrote:

On 18/02/2011 9:15 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
On Feb 18, 11:01 am, need wrote:
In , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...



On 2/18/11 10:44 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
The Obamanations are not interested in democracy as shown by what is
happening in Wisconsin. When the other side wins the election, they
engage in an illegal walkout to prevent legislation. Remember "Card
Check" where they tried to deny people the right to vote on
unionization? They have no interest in Democracy, they are interested
in raw power.
Winning the election was not good enough because they do not recognize
who won. When that happens, the next step is..................
...right-wing racist-birthers like you move to another country?
Yes, we know you are trying to clear this group for your 2012 propaganda
run. Remember how each and every Progressive here answered Tim's call
for civility with a defined, NO, NO, NO!?

Here is your story.
Democrats, being thugs...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gsn...layer_embedded

Here is another "brave" liberal, attacking old women...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVFdaz_VUJE

Here is another advocate of "free speech"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBDqG...1&feature=fvwp

I wonder if our friend Donnie was in this crowd?

http://www.breitbart.tv/hate-rally-p...ca-with-trash-
left-behind/

Oh, did you notice Tim doesn't post here anymore?
The lefties do not recognize elections and routinely attack any
dissent and then blame everyone else. Their own shot Gifford and they
blamed Palin. Lefties eventually always resort to mass murder as
Obama's best friend Bill Ayers said he wanted when he said he wanted
to kill 20 million Americans.
The liberal lefties up here are the same. Irrational zealots of telling
others they will pay for their welfare. Nosy types too.
I think you should move to Yemen immediately. I'm sure they'd welcome
your dislike of gov't.
Have more peaceful places to consider. I wouldn't move to a Muslim
country for any reason.
Don't worry, they won't let you in. Either would Panama or Costa Rica
if they find out what you'd be doing/saying about their gov't.
Funny, I have already been told I more than qualify and the bank already
provided me with the reference I need. Looking at some properties now.
And I didn't say anything bad about Panama or Costa Rica...

When I go out on a boat fishing, I will not think of you. Do have to
bone up on my Spanish though.
Funny... you should leave immediately.
Not for a bit yet. Besides, I already check, I can get Internet down
there to pester you. If we move I will give you a month or two break.
Then rub it in.
Sure. Right. You don't have the basic instinct to do more than sit and
complain.
Heh?

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On 2/20/2011 9:41 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:57:11 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:41:26 -0800, wrote:

It might help a little but the rich don't really have that much money.
I already showed you the total net worth of the Forbes 400 would only
handle our current deficit for about 18 months. Bear in mind that is
their unrealized profit on securities that the can't really write a
check for.
Get a calculator, go to Forbes and add it up yourself if you are
bored.
Go get a calculator and figure out how much of an increase of 4% for
those making over $250K will have on deficit reduction.
What do you think the median income of that group is?
$500,000? $1M?
Lets take the best case scenario and say $1M
They would pay an extra $40,000 times 1.9 million households ... $80
billion, not a small number but still chump change compared to the
$1.1 trillion deficit.
Go "figure" your math some more. You're not even close.
Facts please?
You can't just say no it isn't without some facts. Which part is
wrong?

I've done that several times. Most recently that the top 400 have more
than the bottom 50%. Yet, the Republicans want to tax the bottom half
and GOD FORBID touch any money from the top.
You're just plain crazy.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:08:05 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:36:16 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:52:46 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:37:13 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:28:20 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:01:11 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 00:17:10 -0500, wrote:



Cutting half of the DoD budget is a good start but if you ignore
SS/Medicare you will never get a handle on the deficit.

The rest may be good symbolism but they are insignificant.

Completely untrue and misleading as usual.

What is untrue? You don't think SS and Medicare are a budget buster in
the out years?

SS/MC are not in trouble right now. They will be if nothing is
changed, but NOT RIGHT NOW.


WTF? Both are paying out more than they take in. In any other business
that is called running at a loss. There is no likely scenario that
will make that get any better. One of the current proposals is to
remove the FICA tax altogether so they do not have to perpetuate this
lie of "insurance" or "an investment". SS/Medicare will just become
welfare. That will make it easier to ration, means test and alter
benefits.

So what. That's a long-term problem not a short term one.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...rming_soc.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...shortfall.html


That chart in link 2 assumes an unrealistic rise in GDP and the idea
that the salaries of the people paying in will rise that fast too.
Talk to Bob about how that has been going. The problem is demographic
and you don't have a chart to dispute that.

No matter what chart or what fact I show you, you're not going to
change your mind. So, what's the point?

You are the one who keeps changing the subject when you get backed
into a corner. I say SS and Medicare is upside down. You present a
chart that says SS and Medicare are not only upside down but will be
in the red forever and try to say that is fine.

I haven't changed the subject at all. I've said and will continue to
say that this is a long-term problem not a short one. Holding people
hostage of this (what's happening in the House as an example) is worse
than nonsense.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:17:11 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:40:46 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:54:39 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:41:26 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:49:27 -0500, wrote:


Oops... Ford abolished the AEC. Nice try. FYI, Carter was a nuclear
engineer.

DoE was a Carter invention. Nobody said ERDA was a good idea either
but it was not the same huge bureaucracy DoE became.
I was in DC at the time, working in those buildings. I saw what
happened. Each time they changed the name, another office was started
up and the existing office just got a new sign. The joke at GSA was
they were going to hang the signs with thumb screws.

Sure... DoE... created by a Dem, therefore it's horrible. What total
nonsense. You just want to eliminate anything that doesn't directly
involved profit.

No it was bad because it was an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of
an already redundant layer on an agency that was working well.

According to you. So, no coordination among the disparate groups is
needed?? That's what you're claiming...


Make up your mind, you started out saying we needed this omnibus
bureaucracy to regulate a small sector of the energy business that
runs nuclear reactors and now you are talking about disparate groups?
What groups?

There were two agencies that were disbanded. They, along with several
others were combined. For some reason you think that represents
terrible bloat.

Why should the agency that regulates the safety of our nukes have to
live under the same bloated bureaucracy that is promoting the
collection of methane from cow farts?

So, therefore, remove it. No way to fix something right? That's your
argument?

They have nothing to do with each other. IMHO putting AEC in ERDA was
a dumb idea. (a feeling shared by the AEC people I knew at the time)
Rolling that up in another larger agency was a dumb idea squared.
You can't even say they were "developing" atomic energy (the D in
ERDA). We haven't built a nuke plant since they created these
boondoggles.

Ever hear of the power grid in the US? It's got to be under some
agency. Perhaps you'd prefer it to be under the DoJ or the military?