On 11/06/2011 10:04 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 08:52:10 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In ,
says...

On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 22:20:37 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

the real problem is that the right believes supply side mythology so
insists you can cut taxes and balance the budget

The problem is liars like yourself who blame Bush for laws the
democratic house and senate wrote and passed,

hmmm...tax cuts for the rich in 2001 and 2003

the GOP controlled the congress and the presidency

t
while now that Obama is in
office, it's the House of Reps, with it's minor majority and no Senate
or Oval office behind them that's responsible.. You are a dip****, your
hypocrisy is only surpassed by the likes of John and Harry Krause...

you know zip about contemporary affairs

And you could care less about truth, just talking points...

and you dont even care about the truth

Tosk is right. Your argument is basted on bu11sh1t and fiction. Fact
is, the bubble has burst and fleabaggers fear what needs to be done to
fix it.

A massive downsize of government for starters. 50% reduction in size
minimum. The footprint of current government is far too big to support
by the society. Now it can either do it voluntarily and save a lot of
grief, or it can be forced.

But we know how greedy fleabaggers are.
--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 10:04 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 08:52:10 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In ,
says...


hmmm...tax cuts for the rich in 2001 and 2003

the GOP controlled the congress and the presidency

t
while now that Obama is in
office, it's the House of Reps, with it's minor majority and no Senate
or Oval office behind them that's responsible.. You are a dip****, your
hypocrisy is only surpassed by the likes of John and Harry Krause...

you know zip about contemporary affairs

And you could care less about truth, just talking points...

and you dont even care about the truth

Tosk is right. Your argument is basted on bu11sh1t and fiction. Fact
is, the bubble has burst and fleabaggers fear what needs to be done to
fix it.'

gee. all you have to do is prove me wrong

go ahead. i'll wait


A massive downsize of government for starters. 50% reduction in size
minimum. The footprint of current government is far too big to support
by the society. Now it can either do it voluntarily and save a lot of
grief, or it can be forced.

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 10:04 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 08:52:10 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In ,
says...


hmmm...tax cuts for the rich in 2001 and 2003

the GOP controlled the congress and the presidency

t
while now that Obama is in
office, it's the House of Reps, with it's minor majority and no Senate
or Oval office behind them that's responsible.. You are a dip****, your
hypocrisy is only surpassed by the likes of John and Harry Krause...

you know zip about contemporary affairs

And you could care less about truth, just talking points...

and you dont even care about the truth

Tosk is right. Your argument is basted on bu11sh1t and fiction. Fact
is, the bubble has burst and fleabaggers fear what needs to be done to
fix it.'

gee. all you have to do is prove me wrong

go ahead. i'll wait


A massive downsize of government for starters. 50% reduction in size
minimum. The footprint of current government is far too big to support
by the society. Now it can either do it voluntarily and save a lot of
grief, or it can be forced.

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.
--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 10:04 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 08:52:10 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In ,
says...


hmmm...tax cuts for the rich in 2001 and 2003

the GOP controlled the congress and the presidency

t
while now that Obama is in
office, it's the House of Reps, with it's minor majority and no Senate
or Oval office behind them that's responsible.. You are a dip****, your
hypocrisy is only surpassed by the likes of John and Harry Krause...

you know zip about contemporary affairs

And you could care less about truth, just talking points...

and you dont even care about the truth

Tosk is right. Your argument is basted on bu11sh1t and fiction. Fact
is, the bubble has burst and fleabaggers fear what needs to be done to
fix it.'

gee. all you have to do is prove me wrong

go ahead. i'll wait


A massive downsize of government for starters. 50% reduction in size
minimum. The footprint of current government is far too big to support
by the society. Now it can either do it voluntarily and save a lot of
grief, or it can be forced.

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

So, military spending doesn't count?? Freakin stupid little man.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:28:41 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:
meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

So, military spending doesn't count?? Freakin stupid little man.

i LOVE his view of economics. the 29 depression ended in 39. he seems
to be unaware of what happened at that time

typical right wing nut

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers

says the right winger with a reader's digest view of economics


should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers

says the right winger with a reader's digest view of economics


should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

It was something called lend lease that got the factories moving again.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:07 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers

says the right winger with a reader's digest view of economics


should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

It was something called lend lease that got the factories moving again.

So, money was spent by the US gov't. This stabilized the economy.
Thanks for the confirmation.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:07 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers

says the right winger with a reader's digest view of economics


should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

It was something called lend lease that got the factories moving again.

So, money was spent by the US gov't. This stabilized the economy.
Thanks for the confirmation.

It was just like any other business deal. The corporations were told
that if they made and sold the items now they would get some money down
the road. This loaded up the companies billables and they could use that
to borrow against.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:07 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers

says the right winger with a reader's digest view of economics


should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

It was something called lend lease that got the factories moving again.

AKA govt spending.

thanks. i already knew that