| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
OT bush top ten
[
Top Ten Reasons Bush is Not Hitler 10. Hitler was renowned for his public speaking abilities. 9. When Hitler came to power, he actually improved his country's economy. 8. Before he revoked elections, Hitler actually was elected; and after Hitler formed his evil cabinet, he told them what to do. 7. Hitler was a self-made man. 6. When Germany called Hitler to battle in WWI, he actually showed up. 5. Hitler was a Nazi Dictator, and he never tried to dress himself up as a fighter pilot, or working class rancher. 4. Hitler never claimed to actually respect Jews, Blacks, Gays, Gypsies, Atheists, or the Disabled. (After Hitler formed his evil cabinet, he told them what to do.) 3. When Hitler invaded countries, he never pretended he did it because they were going to attack his country. Disclaimer on # 3: While technically true, he did claim that German citizens in other countries were 'threatened' by the politics, leaders and philosophies of host countries. 2. Hitler was actually pretty damn competent at invading other countries. And the #1 reason that Bush is Not Hitler... 1. When Hitler had finally succeeded at screwing up the planet and destroying his own country, he at least had the common courtesy to blow his own sick, twisted brains out. So no, my moderately liberal friends, Bush falls far short of Hitler in many respects. Thank God. ] |
"Dixon" wrote in message ... [ Top Ten Reasons Bush is Not Hitler 10. Hitler was renowned for his public speaking abilities. 9. When Hitler came to power, he actually improved his country's economy. 8. Before he revoked elections, Hitler actually was elected; and after Hitler formed his evil cabinet, he told them what to do. 7. Hitler was a self-made man. 6. When Germany called Hitler to battle in WWI, he actually showed up. 5. Hitler was a Nazi Dictator, and he never tried to dress himself up as a fighter pilot, or working class rancher. 4. Hitler never claimed to actually respect Jews, Blacks, Gays, Gypsies, Atheists, or the Disabled. (After Hitler formed his evil cabinet, he told them what to do.) 3. When Hitler invaded countries, he never pretended he did it because they were going to attack his country. Disclaimer on # 3: While technically true, he did claim that German citizens in other countries were 'threatened' by the politics, leaders and philosophies of host countries. 2. Hitler was actually pretty damn competent at invading other countries. And the #1 reason that Bush is Not Hitler... 1. When Hitler had finally succeeded at screwing up the planet and destroying his own country, he at least had the common courtesy to blow his own sick, twisted brains out. So no, my moderately liberal friends, Bush falls far short of Hitler in many respects. Thank God. You forgot: Bush gets to shape the future of his country by selecting 2 Supreme Court judges. :-) |
You forgot: Bush gets to shape the future of his country by selecting 2 Supreme Court judges. :-) Would that Bush left no other fingerprints on the future of the country. Aside from fulfilling his pledge to cut taxes for the richest Americans, I struggle to think of a single thing he has attempted that he hasn't screwed up. It will take a generation or more to recover, fiscally, from his imcompetant lack of oversight for federal spending. We may never return to the point where our civil liberties are presumed and granted by the Constitution, rather than doled out at a whim and in restricted measures by members of the temporarily ruling party. Our government is bigger than it has ever been, our budget is the most out of whack it has ever been, and the "nose of the camel" is under the tent in a gradual erosion of individual liberties that will make it easier for our bigger, more invasive, more costly government to run roughshod over the populace and suppress dissent. Darn shame that his war on terror really turned out to be a war on democracy, and a lot less successful than his war on the environment. Good going, George. When we run out of oil, take a coil of wire and a couple of magnets out to where one of the strict constitutionalist founders is buried. I'm sure we can light half the country on the juice we can generate as he is spinning in his grave. |
The economy is very strong, if you have not noticed. Growing at a steady rate. Tax cuts did this (all while tax receipts are up too)... |
Dan J.S. wrote: The economy is very strong, if you have not noticed. Growing at a steady rate. Tax cuts did this (all while tax receipts are up too)... That's ridiculous. The economy moves into and out of recession without tax cuts. Prior to GWB's tax cut, how many recessions subsided *without* any tax cuts? Plenty. Right now our government is like a couple of hillbillies who accidentally acquire $200,000 in credit cards. As they're spending each card to the max and hauling home truck loads of useless consumer junk, they can't believe how "rich" they suddenly are. If tax receipts are up, government spending is up far, far, far more. Train wreck, dead ahead. |
wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: The economy is very strong, if you have not noticed. Growing at a steady rate. Tax cuts did this (all while tax receipts are up too)... That's ridiculous. The economy moves into and out of recession without tax cuts. Prior to GWB's tax cut, how many recessions subsided *without* any tax cuts? Plenty. Right now our government is like a couple of hillbillies who accidentally acquire $200,000 in credit cards. As they're spending each card to the max and hauling home truck loads of useless consumer junk, they can't believe how "rich" they suddenly are. If tax receipts are up, government spending is up far, far, far more. Train wreck, dead ahead. Tax receipts *are* up. Which means that from now on it will be awfully hard for Democrats to whine that tax cuts cause deficits. Increased spending...from wars, and military build-ups, and natural disasters...cause deficits. But not tax cuts. |
Right now our government is like a couple of hillbillies who
accidentally acquire $200,000 in credit cards. As they're spending each card to the max and hauling home truck loads of useless consumer junk, they can't believe how "rich" they suddenly are. Sounds like John Q. American to me...... |
|
Dan J.S. wrote:
The economy is very strong, if you have not noticed. Growing at a steady rate. Tax cuts did this (all while tax receipts are up too)... Do you believe in the Easter Bunny too? A *tremendous* increase in gov't spending has booted the economy somewhat... after a significant lag (about 3 years)... and is a lower marginal gain per deficit dollar than observed in history. DSK |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: The economy is very strong, if you have not noticed. Growing at a steady rate. Tax cuts did this (all while tax receipts are up too)... That's ridiculous. The economy moves into and out of recession without tax cuts. Prior to GWB's tax cut, how many recessions subsided *without* any tax cuts? Plenty. Right now our government is like a couple of hillbillies who accidentally acquire $200,000 in credit cards. As they're spending each card to the max and hauling home truck loads of useless consumer junk, they can't believe how "rich" they suddenly are. If tax receipts are up, government spending is up far, far, far more. Train wreck, dead ahead. Tax receipts *are* up. Which means that from now on it will be awfully hard for Democrats to whine that tax cuts cause deficits. Increased spending...from wars, and military build-ups, and natural disasters...cause deficits. But not tax cuts. Running a business I try to maximize profits by choosing a cost for product that will bring in the most revenue. Taxes should be treated the same way but should be "calculated" to do the least damage to the economy but bring in the NEEDED monies. A well thought out tax cut WILL stimulate the economy but will it stimulate it enough to more than pay back the costs that the tax cut created in the governments revenue. In this case YES. Capital gains taxes of 30% depress the economy. Capital gains taxes of 10% stimulate the economy. Somewhere between the 10 and 30 percent figures is the amount that will bring in the most revenue. In the figures from the IRS are the volume of tax revenue generated with each of the incremental tax breaks (capital gains taxes were slowly dropped over 5 years). Some one can look at those numbers and come up with a recommendation for congress for a final figure for capital gain taxes. Now why do I always hear from the left that the rich were given a tax break by Bush? He did it to stimulate the economy! Does everyone on the left have such bias that they can't think straight. DO they think the rest of us are idiots? |
Jeff Rigby wrote:
... Does everyone on the left have such bias that they can't think straight. DO they think the rest of us are idiots? No, we think the idiots are the people who believe in WMDs, "the insurgency is on it's last legs," tax cuts for the rich stimulate the economy (sure they do, after 5 years and huge increased gov't spending), that the Vice President has a "right" to keep national policy meetings totally secret, etc etc. There are already many fascist governments in the world. Why don't you people move there, instead of trying to change the United States? DSK |
Dixon wrote:
So no, my moderately liberal friends, Bush falls far short of Hitler in many respects. Sure. Adolf Hitler enlisted in his country's army and actually fought in a war. Hitler was a talented public speaker. Hitler wrote a book. Bush can barely read. Hitler announced his political principles, and stood by them. The differences are obvious. DSK |
"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message ... Now why do I always hear from the left that the rich were given a tax break by Bush? He did it to stimulate the economy! Does everyone on the left have such bias that they can't think straight. DO they think the rest of us are idiots? Liebrals tend to be static thinkers......they think that any change in policy.....tax, minimum wage etc, will not have any effect on the economy except for the change itself......i.e. a tax hike will simply bring in more $$$, a minimum wage hike will simply raise the standard of living for the minimum wage earner. Unfortunately for the liebrals, the economy is dynamic......if you raise taxes on one segment, market forces will simply move the money to where it is taxed less. Raise the minimum wage and you simply increase prices across the board and or move jobs overseas where the labor is cheaper..........freeze prices and suddenly "new" (repackaged, renamed) products appear on the shelves with higher prices. Only the brain dead left don't get it. |
Paul,
The thing that amazes me is when someone who appears to be intelligent, can not figure this out. Recently someone who is strongly against sending jobs overseas made a strong sales pitch on a very nice trawler built overseas. He justified the fact that it was ok to buy a boat built overseas, because there were no US made trawlers. He failed to realize the reason there were no US Built Trawlers because any company that did not export the jobs overseas would have gone bankrupt. He failed to realize, any company who does not remain competitive in the global economy will become as extinct as the US built trawlers. This reminds me of the people who were against US companies replacing manufacturing jobs with machines during the 60's. They believed the US companies and jobs were someone protected from all foreign products. The Japanese Auto companies proved how dangerous this mentality can be. "Those who cannot remember the past are destined to repeat it." "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "Jeff Rigby" wrote in message ... Now why do I always hear from the left that the rich were given a tax break by Bush? He did it to stimulate the economy! Does everyone on the left have such bias that they can't think straight. DO they think the rest of us are idiots? Liebrals tend to be static thinkers......they think that any change in policy.....tax, minimum wage etc, will not have any effect on the economy except for the change itself......i.e. a tax hike will simply bring in more $$$, a minimum wage hike will simply raise the standard of living for the minimum wage earner. Unfortunately for the liebrals, the economy is dynamic......if you raise taxes on one segment, market forces will simply move the money to where it is taxed less. Raise the minimum wage and you simply increase prices across the board and or move jobs overseas where the labor is cheaper..........freeze prices and suddenly "new" (repackaged, renamed) products appear on the shelves with higher prices. Only the brain dead left don't get it. |
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 10:56:11 -0400, P Fritz wrote:
Only the brain dead left don't get it. Well you talk the talk, but you just can't seem to walk the walk. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Apr1.html |
NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: The economy is very strong, if you have not noticed. Growing at a steady rate. Tax cuts did this (all while tax receipts are up too)... That's ridiculous. The economy moves into and out of recession without tax cuts. Prior to GWB's tax cut, how many recessions subsided *without* any tax cuts? Plenty. Right now our government is like a couple of hillbillies who accidentally acquire $200,000 in credit cards. As they're spending each card to the max and hauling home truck loads of useless consumer junk, they can't believe how "rich" they suddenly are. If tax receipts are up, government spending is up far, far, far more. Train wreck, dead ahead. Tax receipts *are* up. Which means that from now on it will be awfully hard for Democrats to whine that tax cuts cause deficits. Increased spending...from wars, and military build-ups, and natural disasters...cause deficits. But not tax cuts. Nonsense. The government can increase spending as much as it likes, as long as it has the revenues to pay for it. Increased spending alone, and tax cuts alone, do not create deficits. Deficits result from the failure to balance income and outgo. If the government wants to spend more money, it needs to collect *enough* more money to cover the increased expenditure, (not just "some" more money). If the government wants to decrease taxation, it needs to decrease spending by as much or more than the tax cut. I have stated many times that I don't have a problem with tax cuts...provided they are coupled with spending cuts. What we have now are tax cuts and spending increases. Regardless of the excuses for increased spending, (invasion of Iraq, sort of responding to hurricanes, etc)fiscal reality says that any entity must generate enough income to cover the increased spending. Take the NOYB household. Let's say you earn $400k a year from your practice and take home $250k. (just a guess based on some dentists that I know, don't be insulted.....). Mrs. NOYB runs the household on $240k a year, so you've got enough left over for a week in the Bahamas once in a while. The next year, Mrs. NOYB comes to you with a household budget that calls for the expenditure of $350k, not $240k. You tell her that will be fine because you expect your billings to go up 15% during the year. Now you're earning $460k and taking home $300k so you can claim that you have additional income, but the household spending (not the lack of income) is going to put you in deep doo-doo before too many years go by. |
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Let me see if I understand this properly. You are bashing President Bush by extolling the virtues of Adolf Hitler who was a genocidal maniac. ??? Where in my above post did I say that *anything* Hitler did was good, much less "extoll the virtues of Adolf Hitler." There is a serious disconnect somewhere and I'm sure it's not with me because frankly, I find this so offensive I can't even describe it. Think about it some more. Maybe if it really really bothers you, you'll think before you vote next time. DSK |
wrote in message oups.com... Increased spending alone, and tax cuts alone, do not create deficits. I agree. Deficits result from the failure to balance income and outgo. Thanks for stating the obvious. If the government wants to spend more money, it needs to collect *enough* more money to cover the increased expenditure, (not just "some" more money). Of course. But Republicans believe that cutting the tax rate will increase tax receipts as the economy expands. If the government wants to decrease taxation, it needs to decrease spending by as much or more than the tax cut. A tax "cut" does not equal a decrease in tax revenue. In fact, just the opposite occurs. I have stated many times that I don't have a problem with tax cuts...provided they are coupled with spending cuts. What we have now are tax cuts and spending increases. Cap spending increases and cut the tax rate and you'll have a surplus as the economy grows. But the problem is that when the news talks about a "cut" in spending, they're really just talking about a reduction in the size of next year's increase in spending. Regardless of the excuses for increased spending, (invasion of Iraq, sort of responding to hurricanes, etc)fiscal reality says that any entity must generate enough income to cover the increased spending. Yes, eventually. But not necessarily every single year. Take the NOYB household. Let's say you earn $400k a year from your practice and take home $250k. (just a guess based on some dentists that I know, don't be insulted.....). Those are realistic numbers for dentists in their peak earning years (age 40-50). Once my practice is paid off in 4 years, I'll be 38, and my income should pretty much match your example. So no offense taken. ;-) Mrs. NOYB runs the household on $240k a year, so you've got enough left over for a week in the Bahamas once in a while. The next year, Mrs. NOYB comes to you with a household budget that calls for the expenditure of $350k, not $240k. You tell her that will be fine because you expect your billings to go up 15% during the year. Now you're earning $460k and taking home $300k so you can claim that you have additional income, but the household spending (not the lack of income) is going to put you in deep doo-doo before too many years go by. If my household were like the government, I could expect that revenues and spending will increase and decrease over time as the economy goes through cycles. I could draw on my home equity line in the lean years, and then pay it down in the stronger years. Of course, I have a limited lifespan in which to spread these fluctuations out over. But eventually it's time to pay the piper. The federal government doesn't have a finite lifespan...and can therefore borrow ad infinitum. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... Increased spending alone, and tax cuts alone, do not create deficits. I agree. Deficits result from the failure to balance income and outgo. Thanks for stating the obvious. If the government wants to spend more money, it needs to collect *enough* more money to cover the increased expenditure, (not just "some" more money). Of course. But Republicans believe that cutting the tax rate will increase tax receipts as the economy expands. If the government wants to decrease taxation, it needs to decrease spending by as much or more than the tax cut. A tax "cut" does not equal a decrease in tax revenue. In fact, just the opposite occurs. chuckie is suffering from static thinking like the typical liebral. I have stated many times that I don't have a problem with tax cuts...provided they are coupled with spending cuts. What we have now are tax cuts and spending increases. Cap spending increases and cut the tax rate and you'll have a surplus as the economy grows. But the problem is that when the news talks about a "cut" in spending, they're really just talking about a reduction in the size of next year's increase in spending. Regardless of the excuses for increased spending, (invasion of Iraq, sort of responding to hurricanes, etc)fiscal reality says that any entity must generate enough income to cover the increased spending. Yes, eventually. But not necessarily every single year. Take the NOYB household. Let's say you earn $400k a year from your practice and take home $250k. (just a guess based on some dentists that I know, don't be insulted.....). Those are realistic numbers for dentists in their peak earning years (age 40-50). Once my practice is paid off in 4 years, I'll be 38, and my income should pretty much match your example. So no offense taken. ;-) Mrs. NOYB runs the household on $240k a year, so you've got enough left over for a week in the Bahamas once in a while. The next year, Mrs. NOYB comes to you with a household budget that calls for the expenditure of $350k, not $240k. You tell her that will be fine because you expect your billings to go up 15% during the year. Now you're earning $460k and taking home $300k so you can claim that you have additional income, but the household spending (not the lack of income) is going to put you in deep doo-doo before too many years go by. If my household were like the government, I could expect that revenues and spending will increase and decrease over time as the economy goes through cycles. I could draw on my home equity line in the lean years, and then pay it down in the stronger years. Of course, I have a limited lifespan in which to spread these fluctuations out over. But eventually it's time to pay the piper. The federal government doesn't have a finite lifespan...and can therefore borrow ad infinitum. |
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: The problem with liberals today is that they honestly believe that they, and I assume you include yourself as one, believe that anything is fair game when denigrating President Bush. You mean the way that right-wingers assumed that anything was fair game when denigrating President Clinton? Including incitement to assassination, and impeachment for getting a blowjob? I don't think there is one person in this newsgroup who will stand up and say that your comparison is fine and dandy - that you made a valid point. What *was* my point? So far, you've insisted that I've "extolled the virtues of Adolf Hitler" which I find to be a repugnant statement and an insult, and also not the truth. You seem to have avoided answering that part. DSK |
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: Not going to play your game Doug - you know what you did, Yes, I do. Apparently, you do not. ... it was offensive (probably not only to me) and I called you on it. You "called" me on something that you lied about? You "called" me on something that you refuse to answer questions about your own statements? Why are you so ashamed of your own statements? May be you should do more thinking about your own values. DSK |
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 21:12:53 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote: On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:43:48 -0400, DSK wrote: Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: Let me see if I understand this properly. You are bashing President Bush by extolling the virtues of Adolf Hitler who was a genocidal maniac. ??? Where in my above post did I say that *anything* Hitler did was good, much less "extoll the virtues of Adolf Hitler." ____________ Dixon wrote: So no, my moderately liberal friends, Bush falls far short of Hitler in many respects. Sure. Adolf Hitler enlisted in his country's army and actually fought in a war. Hitler was a talented public speaker. Hitler wrote a book. Bush can barely read. Hitler announced his political principles, and stood by them. The differences are obvious. DSK ---------------------------- There is a serious disconnect somewhere and I'm sure it's not with me because frankly, I find this so offensive I can't even describe it. Think about it some more. Maybe if it really really bothers you, you'll think before you vote next time. The problem with liberals today is that they honestly believe that they, and I assume you include yourself as one, believe that anything is fair game when denigrating President Bush. I don't think there is one person in this newsgroup who will stand up and say that your comparison is fine and dandy - that you made a valid point. If there are, then I don't belong here. Maybe *they* don't belong here! -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
PocoLoco wrote:
Maybe *they* don't belong here! If you think that lying, false accusations, insults in response to reasonable questions, and ignoring plain facts, are all *good* things then perhaps you should be the one to explain who does not "belong here" and why DSK |
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 09:47:54 -0400, DSK wrote: Do you believe in the Easter Bunny too? Why of course I do. And Santa Claus, The Great Pumpkin, The Tooth Fairy, Goofy and Pluto. Everything else is a figment of my imagination. Ship the Ranger and the Contender to me. You will not miss them as they are just figments of your mind. |
"P Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... Increased spending alone, and tax cuts alone, do not create deficits. I agree. Deficits result from the failure to balance income and outgo. Thanks for stating the obvious. If the government wants to spend more money, it needs to collect *enough* more money to cover the increased expenditure, (not just "some" more money). Of course. But Republicans believe that cutting the tax rate will increase tax receipts as the economy expands. If the government wants to decrease taxation, it needs to decrease spending by as much or more than the tax cut. A tax "cut" does not equal a decrease in tax revenue. In fact, just the opposite occurs. chuckie is suffering from static thinking like the typical liebral. I have stated many times that I don't have a problem with tax cuts...provided they are coupled with spending cuts. What we have now are tax cuts and spending increases. Cap spending increases and cut the tax rate and you'll have a surplus as the economy grows. But the problem is that when the news talks about a "cut" in spending, they're really just talking about a reduction in the size of next year's increase in spending. Regardless of the excuses for increased spending, (invasion of Iraq, sort of responding to hurricanes, etc)fiscal reality says that any entity must generate enough income to cover the increased spending. Yes, eventually. But not necessarily every single year. Take the NOYB household. Let's say you earn $400k a year from your practice and take home $250k. (just a guess based on some dentists that I know, don't be insulted.....). Those are realistic numbers for dentists in their peak earning years (age 40-50). Once my practice is paid off in 4 years, I'll be 38, and my income should pretty much match your example. So no offense taken. ;-) Mrs. NOYB runs the household on $240k a year, so you've got enough left over for a week in the Bahamas once in a while. The next year, Mrs. NOYB comes to you with a household budget that calls for the expenditure of $350k, not $240k. You tell her that will be fine because you expect your billings to go up 15% during the year. Now you're earning $460k and taking home $300k so you can claim that you have additional income, but the household spending (not the lack of income) is going to put you in deep doo-doo before too many years go by. If my household were like the government, I could expect that revenues and spending will increase and decrease over time as the economy goes through cycles. I could draw on my home equity line in the lean years, and then pay it down in the stronger years. Of course, I have a limited lifespan in which to spread these fluctuations out over. But eventually it's time to pay the piper. The federal government doesn't have a finite lifespan...and can therefore borrow ad infinitum. Nope, is not static thinking. Is the truth. Hurts does it not? The tax cuts were pulling us out of a recession that was happening at the end of the Clinton Years. Unfortunately, the Congress, and Bush have showed absolutely no fiscal restraint! The first Gulf war spending bill was 20% pork. The Highway Transportation bill was at least 26 Billion of pork. All the Congress Persons who did not stand up and complain about the pork when the bills were in discussion, should go to jail for fraud when ever they complain about the spending of money by the Federal Government. And that is both Republicans and Democrats! |
PocoLoco wrote: Maybe *they* don't belong here! Discarding personal feelings and apathy, which of the 10 points do you disagree with and why? Be specific, and be able to back your statements with facts. |
Kevin,
Do you really not understand how illogical it is to use this type of comparison (Hitler vs. Bush) to prove a theory? wrote in message oups.com... PocoLoco wrote: Maybe *they* don't belong here! Discarding personal feelings and apathy, which of the 10 points do you disagree with and why? Be specific, and be able to back your statements with facts. |
"Bill McKee" wrote in message nk.net... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... Increased spending alone, and tax cuts alone, do not create deficits. I agree. Deficits result from the failure to balance income and outgo. Thanks for stating the obvious. If the government wants to spend more money, it needs to collect *enough* more money to cover the increased expenditure, (not just "some" more money). Of course. But Republicans believe that cutting the tax rate will increase tax receipts as the economy expands. If the government wants to decrease taxation, it needs to decrease spending by as much or more than the tax cut. A tax "cut" does not equal a decrease in tax revenue. In fact, just the opposite occurs. chuckie is suffering from static thinking like the typical liebral. I have stated many times that I don't have a problem with tax cuts...provided they are coupled with spending cuts. What we have now are tax cuts and spending increases. Cap spending increases and cut the tax rate and you'll have a surplus as the economy grows. But the problem is that when the news talks about a "cut" in spending, they're really just talking about a reduction in the size of next year's increase in spending. Regardless of the excuses for increased spending, (invasion of Iraq, sort of responding to hurricanes, etc)fiscal reality says that any entity must generate enough income to cover the increased spending. Yes, eventually. But not necessarily every single year. Take the NOYB household. Let's say you earn $400k a year from your practice and take home $250k. (just a guess based on some dentists that I know, don't be insulted.....). Those are realistic numbers for dentists in their peak earning years (age 40-50). Once my practice is paid off in 4 years, I'll be 38, and my income should pretty much match your example. So no offense taken. ;-) Mrs. NOYB runs the household on $240k a year, so you've got enough left over for a week in the Bahamas once in a while. The next year, Mrs. NOYB comes to you with a household budget that calls for the expenditure of $350k, not $240k. You tell her that will be fine because you expect your billings to go up 15% during the year. Now you're earning $460k and taking home $300k so you can claim that you have additional income, but the household spending (not the lack of income) is going to put you in deep doo-doo before too many years go by. If my household were like the government, I could expect that revenues and spending will increase and decrease over time as the economy goes through cycles. I could draw on my home equity line in the lean years, and then pay it down in the stronger years. Of course, I have a limited lifespan in which to spread these fluctuations out over. But eventually it's time to pay the piper. The federal government doesn't have a finite lifespan...and can therefore borrow ad infinitum. Nope, is not static thinking. Thinking that a tax cut automatically equals a drop in tax revenue is Static Thinking Is the truth. Hurts does it not? The tax cuts were pulling us out of a recession that was happening at the end of the Clinton Years. I agree Unfortunately, the Congress, and Bush have showed absolutely no fiscal restraint! The first Gulf war spending bill was 20% pork. The Highway Transportation bill was at least 26 Billion of pork. All the Congress Persons who did not stand up and complain about the pork when the bills were in discussion, should go to jail for fraud when ever they complain about the spending of money by the Federal Government. And that is both Republicans and Democrats! I agree |
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 18:38:24 -0400, DSK wrote:
PocoLoco wrote: Maybe *they* don't belong here! If you think that lying, false accusations, insults in response to reasonable questions, and ignoring plain facts, are all *good* things then perhaps you should be the one to explain who does not "belong here" and why DSK You have just described the behavior of yourself and several of your friends here. -- John H. "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
|
If you think that lying, false accusations, insults in response to
reasonable questions, and ignoring plain facts, are all *good* things then perhaps you should be the one to explain who does not "belong here" and why PocoLoco wrote: You have just described the behavior of yourself Hardly. Let's review... who insisted that the VA and Congress couldn't possibly have retroactively violated my guaranteed benefits? You did. Who eventually admitted that they had no idea what me benefits were and whether or not my contract was fulfilled? You did. Who tried to proclaim that I was "caught"? You did. Who has been challeneged to provide examples of President Bush's successful leadership? You have. Who has failed to provide even one example? You have. Who has repeatedly lied, posted false info, and hurled insults at those who disagree? You have. ... and several of your friends here. I'm not responsible for anybody but me. And I'm not the one who cowers under the shelter of a "me too!" support group here in this newsgroup. DSK |
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 13:58:33 -0400, DSK wrote:
If you think that lying, false accusations, insults in response to reasonable questions, and ignoring plain facts, are all *good* things then perhaps you should be the one to explain who does not "belong here" and why PocoLoco wrote: You have just described the behavior of yourself Hardly. Let's review... who insisted that the VA and Congress couldn't possibly have retroactively violated my guaranteed benefits? You did. Who eventually admitted that they had no idea what me benefits were and whether or not my contract was fulfilled? You did. Who tried to proclaim that I was "caught"? You did. Wrong. I asked you to back up some of your ridiculous statements. You couldn't. Who has been challeneged to provide examples of President Bush's successful leadership? You have. Who has failed to provide even one example? You have. Who has repeatedly lied, posted false info, and hurled insults at those who disagree? Show me. You have. ... and several of your friends here. I'm not responsible for anybody but me. And I'm not the one who cowers under the shelter of a "me too!" support group here in this newsgroup. DSK Again, lying, false accusations, insults in response to reasonable questions, and ignoring plain facts, are all descriptions of the behavior of you, Harry, Kevin, jps, and a few others left unnamed. -- John H "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
PocoLoco wrote:
Wrong. I asked you to back up some of your ridiculous statements. You couldn't. Wrong And what's really funny about this is that you began insisting that I back up my statements *after* I'd already posted a half dozen or so links proving my point. What's not funny is that *if* the VA were assiduously fulfilling it's obligations to the veterans, it would be easy to find people saying 'gee what are you complaining about, I got every bit of what they promised me." But most of the people suggesting such things are not vets themselves, and are far outnumbered by the returned veterans who are getting shafted by Uncle Sam. Again, lying, false accusations, insults in response to reasonable questions, and ignoring plain facts, are all descriptions of the behavior of you Wrong. Again. And proven wrong... again! No wonder you have a hard time facing facts. Harry, Kevin, jps, and a few others left unnamed. Again: I am responsible for nobody but myself. When will these facts beging to sink in? Probably never. DSK |
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 14:58:24 -0400, DSK wrote:
PocoLoco wrote: Wrong. I asked you to back up some of your ridiculous statements. You couldn't. Wrong And what's really funny about this is that you began insisting that I back up my statements *after* I'd already posted a half dozen or so links proving my point. You posted three links, none of which proved you had been promised anything nor that any supposed promises were broken. What's not funny is that *if* the VA were assiduously fulfilling it's obligations to the veterans, it would be easy to find people saying 'gee what are you complaining about, I got every bit of what they promised me." But most of the people suggesting such things are not vets themselves, and are far outnumbered by the returned veterans who are getting shafted by Uncle Sam. Gee, what are you complaining about, I got everything they promised me, except that which was impossible because of the Clinton drawdowns! Again, lying, false accusations, insults in response to reasonable questions, and ignoring plain facts, are all descriptions of the behavior of you Wrong. Again. And proven wrong... again! Your 'proof' wouldn't even convince a Texas Grand Jury! No wonder you have a hard time facing facts. Harry, Kevin, jps, and a few others left unnamed. Again: I am responsible for nobody but myself. When will these facts beging to sink in? Probably never. DSK Then be responsible. -- John H "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
And what's really funny about this is that you began insisting that I
back up my statements *after* I'd already posted a half dozen or so links proving my point. PocoLoco wrote: You posted three links Can't count either, huh? DSK |
OT bush top ten
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:09:17 -0400, DSK wrote:
And what's really funny about this is that you began insisting that I back up my statements *after* I'd already posted a half dozen or so links proving my point. PocoLoco wrote: You posted three links Can't count either, huh? DSK Well, I *did* leave out the Kevinesque Google site with 34,000+ links. Sorry. Now you're up to 34003 (+/-). -- John H "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
OT bush top ten
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 07:36:44 -0400, Dixon wrote:
[ Top Ten Reasons Bush is Not Hitler I worked for a time with someone who grew up in Germany while Hitler was in power, and she painted a FAR different picture than the history books do. The Germans loved him. Why? He turned the country around in 10 years, from a wasted, demoralized mess that it was after WWI to a world power. He invented the Volkswagon. He basically created the "precise German Engineering" mystique that's still thriving today. As this post shows, the difference is huge: Hitler was brilliant, Bush is incompetent (AND an Idiot). And you know, I'd choose Brilliant megalomania over Incompetent Idiocy any day. Lloyd |
OT bush top ten
Lloyd,
You would chose Hitler over Bush? Wow, that is more fanatical than Harry. "Lloyd Sumpter" wrote in message ... On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 07:36:44 -0400, Dixon wrote: [ Top Ten Reasons Bush is Not Hitler I worked for a time with someone who grew up in Germany while Hitler was in power, and she painted a FAR different picture than the history books do. The Germans loved him. Why? He turned the country around in 10 years, from a wasted, demoralized mess that it was after WWI to a world power. He invented the Volkswagon. He basically created the "precise German Engineering" mystique that's still thriving today. As this post shows, the difference is huge: Hitler was brilliant, Bush is incompetent (AND an Idiot). And you know, I'd choose Brilliant megalomania over Incompetent Idiocy any day. Lloyd |
OT bush top ten
The "Bush is stupid" mantra.........are the liebrals ever going to wake
up??? "Starbuck's Words of Wisdom" wrote in message ... Lloyd, You would chose Hitler over Bush? Wow, that is more fanatical than Harry. "Lloyd Sumpter" wrote in message ... On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 07:36:44 -0400, Dixon wrote: [ Top Ten Reasons Bush is Not Hitler I worked for a time with someone who grew up in Germany while Hitler was in power, and she painted a FAR different picture than the history books do. The Germans loved him. Why? He turned the country around in 10 years, from a wasted, demoralized mess that it was after WWI to a world power. He invented the Volkswagon. He basically created the "precise German Engineering" mystique that's still thriving today. As this post shows, the difference is huge: Hitler was brilliant, Bush is incompetent (AND an Idiot). And you know, I'd choose Brilliant megalomania over Incompetent Idiocy any day. Lloyd |
OT bush top ten
Lloyd Sumpter,
It was probably the syphilis that made her crazy. I hope you didn't have sex with that woman. JIMinFL "Lloyd Sumpter" wrote in message ... On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 07:36:44 -0400, Dixon wrote: [ Top Ten Reasons Bush is Not Hitler I worked for a time with someone who grew up in Germany while Hitler was in power, and she painted a FAR different picture than the history books do. The Germans loved him. Why? He turned the country around in 10 years, from a wasted, demoralized mess that it was after WWI to a world power. He invented the Volkswagon. He basically created the "precise German Engineering" mystique that's still thriving today. As this post shows, the difference is huge: Hitler was brilliant, Bush is incompetent (AND an Idiot). And you know, I'd choose Brilliant megalomania over Incompetent Idiocy any day. Lloyd |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:56 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com