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

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 17:25:20 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 12/06/2011 10:37 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 01:15:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:33:22 -0400, wrote:

HAHAHAHAH american taxes are teh lowest they've been in FOURTY YEARS!!


Yet you support a half trillion dollar Obama tax cut.

Is it just because he isn't white?

yep. because the middle class hasnt had a pay increase in 30 years

while the richest 1% have had their wages go up by 500%

want to know why we're in a depression?

read those numbers

When government gets bigger, people get smaller.

hey moron

then why have the richest 1% gotten so much bigger?

DUH!!

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:28:11 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:35 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:52:55 -0600,
wrote:


and you went to canada

socialized medicine

more bank regulations than the US

golly.

Hardly, I don't look forward to the day I have to use care up here.

HAHAHAHAH try getting it in the US if you have no health insurance!!


As for banks, not my much. Mostly a monopoly. 5 key names, but all
agree on everything.

and here in the US, with a 14 trillion economy?

10 banks control 80% of assets

you were saying?

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:28:54 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:35 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:54:32 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 10:06 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 02:13:37 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 23:53:16 -

sure is. healthcare for the middle class...financial regulation...as
much as the GOP will let him get

obama proposed a tax cut ONLY for those making less than 250K


The $250k and above tax may be nice symbolism but it is insignificant.

gee. then why does the GOP say only THEY can drive the economy and
only THEY deserve a tax cut?

Roman empire fell when they targeted the rich. Smart ones left, the
others perished and good time were over for everyone.

HAHAHAHA

the rich owned egypt

how'd that work out?

Think, some Roman thought just like you.

and in 1937, some italian thought like you

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 12:53:19 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...


What, because we don't care about a popularity contest? Pfffftt. You
obviously don't have any real argument...

let's see...you guys run the country

no wonder you dont care about 'popularity' contests

Still more bull****. The democrats have had majorities in the three
corners of washington for the last 40 years.... So, you are still full
of ****..

really? 22 years of GOP presidents in the last 30 is a majority?

gee. who could have imagined!

Please look back and see who controlled congress during those terms.
Rarely did the repubs even hold two sides of the triangle, never all
three like the dems have done several times... You don't get it I know,
cause if you did, you would even call me more names.

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:04:16 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

no wonder you dont care about 'popularity' contests

Still more bull****. The democrats have had majorities in the three
corners of washington for the last 40 years.... So, you are still full
of ****..

really? 22 years of GOP presidents in the last 30 is a majority?

gee. who could have imagined!

Please look back and see who controlled congress during those terms.
Rarely did the repubs even hold two sides of the triangle, never all
three like the dems have done several times... You don't get it I know,
cause if you did, you would even call me more names.

again, who controlled the presidency

the dems rarely controlled BOTH houses of congress like the GOP did
for 6 years under bush

and look what they did with it.

bankrupted the country.

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.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:25:20 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 12/06/2011 10:37 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 01:15:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:33:22 -0400, wrote:

HAHAHAHAH american taxes are teh lowest they've been in FOURTY YEARS!!


Yet you support a half trillion dollar Obama tax cut.

Is it just because he isn't white?

yep. because the middle class hasnt had a pay increase in 30 years

while the richest 1% have had their wages go up by 500%

want to know why we're in a depression?

read those numbers

When government gets bigger, people get smaller.

hey moron

then why have the richest 1% gotten so much bigger?

DUH!!

They are smarter than you.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:33:44 -0400, wrote:


That would encourage more long term investment.
I think I would but an extra tax on any financial instrument that was
kept less than a month to make flash trading less attractive.

let's get one thing straight

we dont need more INVESTMENT

we need more CONSUMPTION.

although investment is a form of consumption, ONLY MIDDLE CLASS
CONSUMPTION can pull us out of the depression

and wall street is NOT gonna let that happen