On 07/06/2011 5:50 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 15:06:06 -0600,
wrote:



AND While you are on Gov’t subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes
that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You
will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a
Gov’t welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.

notice what's missing?

the ten TRILLION we just spent on welfare for wall street.

the right wing focuses on the pennies we give the poor while ignoring
the billions we give the rich.

Hey, make me president and I would cancel that real fast. And if
corrupt senate or congress tried to jam it, I would veto it. Does not
mater be it corporate, state, civic, country or personal welfare, it is
history.

And if a banker called me, the FBI will be recording. I would even go
as far as to try to bait one in jail as an example.

For truly poor, workfare is the only social assistance left. I don't
consider earned pensions, vets and truly disabled as welfare/workfare.

Wall Street isn't the problem, corruption is. I would be so hard on
corruption, people would be going underground. Banks forging notry
publics and mortgage documents? My response is who is going to jail and
getting the 7 digit plus fine...go get them.
--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 23:15:44 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 07/06/2011 5:50 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 15:06:06 -0600,
wrote:



AND While you are on Gov’t subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes
that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You
will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a
Gov’t welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.

notice what's missing?

the ten TRILLION we just spent on welfare for wall street.

the right wing focuses on the pennies we give the poor while ignoring
the billions we give the rich.

Hey, make me president and I would cancel that real fast. And if
corrupt senate or congress tried to jam it, I would veto it. Does not
mater be it corporate, state, civic, country or personal welfare, it is
history.

they tried that in 29

ummm...how'd it work out, right winger?


Wall Street isn't the problem, corruption is.

there is no 'corruption' on wall street. the rich have the deck
stacked so nothing they do is illegal.

On 08/06/2011 3:48 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 23:15:44 -0600,
wrote:

On 07/06/2011 5:50 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 15:06:06 -0600,
wrote:



AND While you are on Gov’t subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes
that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You
will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a
Gov’t welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.

notice what's missing?

the ten TRILLION we just spent on welfare for wall street.

the right wing focuses on the pennies we give the poor while ignoring
the billions we give the rich.

Hey, make me president and I would cancel that real fast. And if
corrupt senate or congress tried to jam it, I would veto it. Does not
mater be it corporate, state, civic, country or personal welfare, it is
history.

they tried that in 29

ummm...how'd it work out, right winger?


Wall Street isn't the problem, corruption is.

there is no 'corruption' on wall street. the rich have the deck
stacked so nothing they do is illegal.

Actuality 1933 after the second crash in 1932, not 1929. 1929 they
tried the debt-spend thing and it didn't work then either.

You really should read some real economics books. Not the liberal-fraud
kinds either, they are written to suck in the gullible.

--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:11:59 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 08/06/2011 3:48 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 23:15:44 -0600,
wrote:

On 07/06/2011 5:50 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 15:06:06 -0600,
wrote:



AND While you are on Gov’t subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes
that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You
will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a
Gov’t welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.

notice what's missing?

the ten TRILLION we just spent on welfare for wall street.

the right wing focuses on the pennies we give the poor while ignoring
the billions we give the rich.

Hey, make me president and I would cancel that real fast. And if
corrupt senate or congress tried to jam it, I would veto it. Does not
mater be it corporate, state, civic, country or personal welfare, it is
history.

they tried that in 29

ummm...how'd it work out, right winger?


Wall Street isn't the problem, corruption is.

there is no 'corruption' on wall street. the rich have the deck
stacked so nothing they do is illegal.

Actuality 1933 after the second crash in 1932, not 1929. 1929 they
tried the debt-spend thing and it didn't work then either.

You really should read some real economics books. Not the liberal-fraud
kinds either, they are written to suck in the gullible.

You don't know anything about economics. You know a lot about being
stupid and ill-informed.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:11:59 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 08/06/2011 3:48 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 23:15:44 -0600,
wrote:

On 07/06/2011 5:50 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 15:06:06 -0600,
wrote:


they tried that in 29

ummm...how'd it work out, right winger?


Wall Street isn't the problem, corruption is.

there is no 'corruption' on wall street. the rich have the deck
stacked so nothing they do is illegal.

Actuality 1933 after the second crash in 1932, not 1929. 1929 they
tried the debt-spend thing and it didn't work then either.

You really should read some real economics books. Not the liberal-fraud
kinds either, they are written to suck in the gullible.

says the guy who insists we do the same thing they did in 29.