OutSourcedNews-Group » NOTHING

A Generation Hobbled [Enslaved] by the Soaring Cost of College

admin — Sat, 19 May 2012 15:29:46 +0000

> In article
> <4ca841fc-88ba-4571-bde8-c261e735f650 @&*$?%d6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>
>> On May 16, 10:49 am, “Eddie Haskell” wrote:
>>> “Juris Diction” wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:iwas-C16E17.16465415052012 @&*$?%news.shawcable.net…
>>>
>>>> In article ,
>>>> “Leroy N. Soetoro” wrote:
>>>
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/business/student-loans-weighing-dow…
>>>>> generation-with-heavy-debt.html?src=me&ref=general
>>>
>>>>> By ANDREW MARTIN and ANDREW W. LEHREN
>>>
>>>>> ADA, Ohio ‹ Kelsey Griffith graduates on Sunday from Ohio Northern
>>>>> University. To start paying off her $120,000 in student debt,
>>>
>>>> Republicans vote down bill not to raise interest rates on student loans.
>>>
>>> Because democrats irresponsibly refuse to pay for it so they will have a
>>> campaign issue after the Goebbels MSM refuses to tell the public that fact.
>>>
>>> DNC shameless butt f&*$?%g lie #42467475:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Eddie Haskell
>>
>> Nope it is a Repubican shameless butt fu*king truth #666
>>
>> Every college student will be voting for Obama.

And getting the Worthless education they deserve, just like Obama’s
worthless Harvard Education.

Learning NOTHING but Socialism that always fails, is a waste of time, so
far Obama’s education hasn’t helped him fix any problems we have and
that will be the case in every government subsidized and affirmative
action Socialist education.

The whole educational cornerstone is based on values that are known
failures, and like anything built on a faulty foundation it will fail
and be useless just like Obama.

Did you see where France will be Socialist run….

admin — Wed, 09 May 2012 15:20:20 +0000

On 5/6/2012 12:00 AM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “somadisk” wrote in message
> news:jo480k$udg$4 @&*$?%dont-email.me…
>> Sid9 wrote:
>>>
>>> “somadisk” wrote in message
>>> news:jo3j4n$28t$4 @&*$?%dont-email.me…
>>>> Clave wrote:
>>>>> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
>>>>> message news:4FA4719A.1080902 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>>>>>> On 5/4/2012 3:05 PM, Clave wrote:
>>>>>>> “BeamMeUpScotty” >>>>>>> wrote in
>>>>>>> message news:4FA42145.9070802 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2012 2:30 PM, Clave wrote:
>>>>>>>>> “somadisk” wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:jo15h5$mrm$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me…
>>>>>>>>>> Clave wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> the GOP has no interest in putting people back to
>>>>>>>>>>> work,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why not?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While Obama’s in office, anything good for the country is bad for
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> GOP.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Simple as that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cutting the deficit would be good for the country and good for
>>>>>>>> Republicans that have been promoting it for a long time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What utter pigshit. Like austerity is working so well everywhere
>>>>>>> else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jim
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It only needs to work here to be of value to us…
>>>>>
>>>>> Except it doesn’t work.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> How would anyone know, given that we have not tried it?
>>>>
>>>> Why are you terrified of not being able to borrow us into Chinese
>>>> slavery?
>>>
>>> Austerity has been tried and is a total failure.
>>
>> The US has not tried austerity, you lie.
>>
>>> Austerity means
>>
>> It means you will have to decide which programs we can all afford.
>> That’s why it terrifies you.
>
> Austerity leads to recession and depression when the economy id not well.
> See the examples in Spain and the UK…Conservatives did the damage.

Austerity is the result of recession and depression when the economy is
not well. See the examples in Spain and the UK…Conservatives did
NOTHING to damage the economy yet Socialist Spending has destroyed their
economies.

You will have between 3 and 10 years of depressed housing markets, and
higher taxes won’t sell any of those houses any faster….

[" South Florida tops nation in distressed mortgages
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/business/realestate/housekeys/blog/2012/05/south_florida_tops_nation_in_d_1.html
By Paul Owers May 9, 2012 12:05 AM

South Florida leads the nation in distressed home mortgages, signaling a
lengthy recovery even if the housing market has hit bottom, as many
experts say.

Nearly a quarter of home mortgages in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade
counties are at least 90 days overdue or in foreclosure, according to
data released Wednesday. The percentage has declined over the past year.

The report comes from Foreclosure-Response.org, a joint project of
national nonprofit groups Local Initiatives Support Corp., Urban
Institute and the Center for Housing Policy.

As of December, 23.6 percent of loans in the three counties are in the
foreclosure process or seriously delinquent. That’s down from 24.6
percent at year-end 2010.

South Florida has topped the nation in the share of distressed homes for
the past seven quarters.

With so many foreclosures in the pipeline, some analysts worry that
bank-owned homes could flood the market and drive down prices. But many
other observers expect values to remain stable because eager buyers,
attracted in part by low interest rates, are competing for a limited
supply of properties.

The large number of troubled loans is the result of jammed courts in
states like Florida, where judges must approve foreclosures, according
to the Foreclosure-Response.org report.

It takes an average of 861 days for a lender to repossess a property in
Florida, says RealtyTrac Inc., a California foreclosure listing firm.

Florida and other states need to balance approving foreclosures in a
more timely manner with giving struggling homeowners their due process,
said Rob Pitingolo, a research assistant at the Urban Institute.

“It’s tough because we do want to make sure there are protections for
borrowers,” he said. “But we also need to clear out the foreclosure
inventory if we want to stabilize neighborhoods.”

Florida dominates the list of distressed mortgages nationwide."]

Did you see where France will be Socialist run….

admin — Tue, 08 May 2012 15:54:23 +0000

Why is it that you think jacking up the price of energy and adding TAXES
for Global Warming will do NOTHING to the economy and yet you say
cutting government and government spending will destroy the economy?

You Socialists are funny….

Did you see where France will be Socialist run…. just wait till they
go bankrupt like Spain, it’ll be great for a few years and then wham
they’ll hit the deepest depression they have ever seen when the bill for
all those good Socialist times comes due.

Did you see where France will be Socialist run….

admin — Sun, 06 May 2012 19:31:34 +0000

Austerity is the result of recession and depression when the economy is
not well. See the examples in Spain and the UK…Conservatives did
NOTHING to damage the economy yet Progressive-Socialist Spending has
destroyed the economies.

You Socialists are funny….

Did you see where France will be Socialist run…. just wait till they
go bankrupt, it will be great for a few years and then “wham” they’ll
hit the deepest depression they have ever seen when the bill for all
those good Socialist times comes due.

Remember that Socialism is great until you run out of other peoples
money. Greece ran out of other peoples money and they have to go with
hat in hand to the IMF and others…. to change sources of other
peoples money. But the newly borrowed money will be coming with more
and more strings attached and the people of Greece will be the ones
paying the cost of those strings.

Did you see where France will be Socialist run….

admin — Sun, 06 May 2012 19:22:33 +0000

Austerity is the result recession and depression when the economy is not
well. See the examples in Spain and the UK…Conservatives did NOTHING
to damage the economy yet Socialist Spending has destroyed the economies.

You Socialists are funny….

Did you see where France will be Socialist run…. just wait till they
go bankrupt, it will great for a few years and then wham they will hit
the deepest depression they have ever seen when the bill for all those
good Socialist times comes due.

How much shit does it take in YOUR bowl of ice cream to ruinthewhole bowl?

admin — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:39:01 +0000

On 4/23/2012 7:29 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>> On 4/23/2012 3:55 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The private sector did cause the mortgagee debacle.
>>>>> And Mortgage debt was only 25% of the $45 trillion in
>>>>> private sector debt that caused the economic crash.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/HMLBSHNO?cid=32258
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> yet it was Democrats that urged all that money be loaned to the
>>>>>> poor…..
>>>>>
>>>>> The money loaned to the poor was a drop in the bucket
>>>>
>>>> That was Leveraged because of it being mixed in with the lower RISK
>>>> loans. When the subprime loans went down, there were no buyers for any
>>>> loans in those bundles, hence the frozen mortgage markets…
>>>
>>> Your fairy tale is getting more loony every time you tell it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> the High
>>>> risk loans that failed took the good Low risk loans with them as
>>>> everyone stopped buying the entire mortgage packages that were rife with
>>>> High Risk loans to the poor
>>>
>>> Loans to the poor were not the high risk loans.
>>> They have proven to be the loans with the least risk.
>>> Loans to low income neighborhoods have a lower default
>>> rate than the rest of the residential real estate market.
>>>
>>
>> Why make up or repeat these lies…?
>
> You are the one spouting lies.
>
> In an a study of CRA lending by the independent law form of
> Traiger & Hinckley LLP they concluded that CRA loans had a
> lower rate of foreclosure and were less likely to be bundled
> and sold on the secondary market than non-CRA loans. This was
> because these loans were subject to tighter regulation and more
> regulatory scrutiny than the rest of the market was.
>

And you still ignore that even if fewer subprime loans were created….
and we know there were fewer created. It didn’t stop them from
initiating the collapse of the market. Your numbers are suspect and
your conclusions are fantasy.

> Another conclusion from that study:

They start with stupidity and get worse from there.

Why limit “LEVERAGING” in markets if a “little” money can do NOTHING to
the entire market. Obviously a little dab of s&*$?%t in “YOUR” ice cream
bowl doesn’t bother you…. but many many more people will stop eating
the ice cream if just a tiny spec of s&*$?%t is tossed into their bowl.

I keep telling you that it only took a very small smattering of subprime
loans to destroy confidence in Fannie and Freddie and others selling
derivatives and Mortgage Backed Securities and bundles of mortgages that
contained high risk loans like subprime. The fact you don’t understand
it, doesn’t make it any less true.

I won’t be buying any ice cream (investments) that have a little or a
lot of s&*$?%t (Subprime high risk loans) tossed into the mix.

If you like eating s&*$?%t then by all means add enough to suit your taste.

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

admin — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 01:24:02 +0000

On 4/20/2012 8:46 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Apr 20, 6:20 pm, “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>> “Josh” wrote in message
>>
>> news:jmsme4$i4s$1 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 4/20/2012 5:39 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:58 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:05 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:32 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:08 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 12:45 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Spending went down as a % of GDP in 2010 and 2011 relative to a
>>>>>>>>> baseline in 2009 (Bush’s last budget). Your confusion (and all of
>>>>>>>>> your mistaken analysis snipped below) stems from using 2008 as the
>>>>>>>>> baseline year to evaluate Obama. 2009, not 2008, is Bush’s last
>>>>>>>>> budget.
>>
>>>>>>>> the deficit went up by 100% after Obama, Bushes $1 trillion dollars
>>>>>>>> became Obama’s $2 trillion dollars and now you suggest that cutting
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> by 1% is an accomplishment?
>>
>>>>>>> 2009 (Bush’s last budget): deficit $1.4T
>>>>>>> 2010 and 2011 (Obama): deficit $1.3T
>>
>>>>>>> Why do you keep saying that Obama increased Bush’s $1T to $2T?
>>
>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/…
>>
>>>>> That link claims the spending increases under Obama are much smaller
>>>>> than they were under Bush.
>>
>>>> Thanks for Noticing, even you catch the WILD Liberal lies….. Now the
>>>> question is why did Obama propose 1.5 trillion in NEW TAXES to cover his
>>>> 1.5 trillion in NEW SPENDING?
>>
>>>> The Federal/National debt is up from $9 trillion at the Obama coronation
>>>> to $16 trillion in 3.5 years? If that isn’t debt what is it? That is
>>>> roughly $7 trillion of NEW OBAMA DEBT. That amounts to an average of $2
>>>> trillion per year in the last 3.5 years. Bush was in office 8 years,
>>>> had he run the debt up 2 trillion a year it would have been 16 trillion
>>>> and Obama’s would NOW be at $23 trillion in debt.
>>
>>> I can only conclude you are too stupid to understand why 2009 is the last
>>> Bush budget year, since you keep ignoring that fact.
>>
>> It doesn’t matter. The debt under Obama is greater than under Bush, and by a
>> huge percentage. Let’s give the 2009 budget to Bush. Let’s give him the 2010
>> budget while we are passing stuff around. Obama STILL has ballooned the
>> national debt.
>>
>> Obama is making a claim, and by extension you are making it too, that he was
>> divorced and the judge told him to pay his wife’s credit card bill, and told
>> her to stop using it. He is bitching today that he inherited a balance of
>> $10,000 but now it is $25,000, and unmanageable. THEN he attempts to make
>> the claim that it’s ALL her fault.
>
> the debt from drunken sailor spending, and out right crank policies,
> does not disappear the very next day after a election. if you put a
> idiot in power, and most conservatives are. do not be to surprised if
> you have to live with the results for decades to come.

Obama and democrats had the House the Senate and the Presidency, they
could pass any law they please… they had 2 years of being all
powerful and *ALL* they did was run up the Debt.

They fixed NOTHING.

Republicans controlling the House are eying big cuts to food stamps

admin — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:49:54 +0000

On 4/17/2012 10:24 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:
> On 4/17/2012 9:16 AM, Sid9 wrote:
>> April 17, 2012
>>
>> GOP to Cut Food Stamps in Deficit-Reduction Drive
>
> It figures. Food stamps are the number one most effective economic
> stimulus.

Still selling that snake oil are you?

You have “All” this trillions of dollars of government stimulus and yet
the economy is crashing and burning. It has become obvious that
government stimulus is useless. NOTHING has been fixed by stimulus.

But that said, the cuts in government should start in education where
its instant savings hurts people the least and hurts the government
propaganda and control the most. CLOSE THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

The States can handle it and it is the States power NOT a POWER that has
been delegated to the Federal Government. In other words, any laws they
pass including spending laws related to education is unconstitutional.

Where did ALL these banks get ALL this excessive money to loan?,,It’smyunderstandingthat the Federal Reserve sets MONEY POLICY.

admin — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:15:17 +0000

On 4/17/2012 12:44 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Apr 16, 10:15 pm, Gary Forbis wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 5:50 pm, “Bill Graham” wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2012 9:23 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 15, 9:44 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 15, 9:34 pm, “Bill Graham” wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> and the current government deficit is the reslt of their
>>>>>>> bad spending decisions, too.
>>>>> …
>>
>>>>>> please institute austerity, then we will no longer have to listen
>>>>>> to your type.
>>
>>>>> Please don’t do it until the Fed considers tightening credit then
>>>>> do it sufficiently and only sufficiently to keep interest rates low.
>>
>>>> The damage is done and it will get worse…. spending will make it
>>>> worse but it won’t get better. Austerity will make things worse but
>>>> there will be a way out once things begin to balance out and spending
>>>> begins to come down to the level of Tax receipts.
>>
>>>>> When the Fed starts to raise interest rates then we know the
>>>>> bankers are consdered about inflation.
>>
>>>> I was concerned long before that, their spending is the cause of
>>>> inflation because someone has to pay for that spending. And they can
>>>> either raise taxes (which is inflation) or the government can print
>>>> money which devalues the dollar and creates inflation or they borrow
>>>> money which has to be paid by tax payers at some point and when they
>>>> pay it that will create inflation…. At the moment Obama has done
>>>> all three in a giant way.
>>
>>>> inflation is here and going to get worse as the cost of Obama’s short
>>>> sighted policies comes due.
>>
>>>> Notice the government figures inflation and they do it without
>>>> including “energy” “food” or “Taxes” yet all three are going up
>>>> fast, gasoline alone has inflated 100% over 3.5 years. That would
>>>> be an average 30% inflation rate.
>>
>>>>> Sure the current government deficit is the result of Bush era
>>>>> bad spending decisions.
>>
>>>> Obama has done the same and worse than Bush did.
>>
>>>>> These things can’t be corrected on
>>>>> a dime without negatively affecting the economy.
>>
>>>> They can’t be fixed at all if you ignore the problem which is
>>>> Government spending.
>>
>>>>> Good spending
>>>>> decisions take time to correct bad spending decisions.
>>
>>>> Obama has NOT made any good spending decisions.
>>
>>>>> The
>>>>> economy still isn’t recovering very well and it won’t until the
>>>>> middle class starts getting raises and income distribution starts
>>>>> returning to more rational norms.
>>
>>>> The economy is still in the process of crashing and burning. Obama
>>>> has fixed NOTHING, Obama is making it worse. We the tax payers will
>>>> pay for this, and that will cause the inflation and the deeper
>>>> collapse that is coming.
>>
>>> I agree that Obama has made it worse. You can’t spend your way out of debt,
>>> in spite of the Keneysian Economy idiots. I have been listening to their
>>> whacko theories all of my adult life. They were worng when I was in college
>>> back in the 70′s and they are still wrong today.
>>
>> I wonder how businesses spend their way out of debt? It seems to me
>> that
>> business contraction when retooling is needed isn’t a good idea.
>> There is
>> good debt and bad debt. Speculative production involves capital and
>> operational
>> expenses up front and profit down the road.
>
> it takes money to make money. have you ever worked at a company that
> has a severe cash flow shortage? it ain’t fun. now think about that
> situation in a whole country. there is no reason for that to happen to
> a country, unless its in the grip of conservative fanatics.

HAVE YOU ever worked for a company that had to borrow money to pay their
employees?

It ain’t fun…. they’re always one payment from *NOT* being able to
pay you and laying you off because they didn’t get paid by just one
customer on time.

Then you NOT only worry but you also are very likely to be permanently
out of work there, as the entire business collapses and shuts down.

It’s better when the company quits paying for all the cable TV for the
office and cut back on a phone line and put the least used person on
part time….. don’t buy tools you can put off for a few years, and
don’t schedule any out of town sales rallies or education seminars.

Planning expansion in a time when you have no cash flow, would sound
like a Liberal plan.

The government could learn from that, cut the education department. And
cut the Propaganda budget and cut the Regulations and inspections….
at least for 5 or 10 years. Stop being a NANNY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and
let the States do their job. Cancel and quit taking over items that
aren’t Federal Powers, that cost trillions like ObamaCare.

Democrats are just plain old BIG GOVERNMENT idiots, they will happily
cost people their jobs and houses and see them hungry, just so the
Democrats can avoid losing the ground they have taken in micromanaging
our lives.

Where did ALL these banks get ALL this excessive money to loan?,,It’smyunderstandingthat the Federal Reserve sets MONEY POLICY.

admin — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:11:21 +0000

On 4/16/2012 11:15 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
> On Apr 16, 5:50 pm, “Bill Graham” wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 4/16/2012 9:23 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:
>>>> On Apr 15, 9:44 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 15, 9:34 pm, “Bill Graham” wrote:
>>
>>>>>> and the current government deficit is the reslt of their
>>>>>> bad spending decisions, too.
>>>> …
>>
>>>>> please institute austerity, then we will no longer have to listen
>>>>> to your type.
>>
>>>> Please don’t do it until the Fed considers tightening credit then
>>>> do it sufficiently and only sufficiently to keep interest rates low.
>>
>>> The damage is done and it will get worse…. spending will make it
>>> worse but it won’t get better. Austerity will make things worse but
>>> there will be a way out once things begin to balance out and spending
>>> begins to come down to the level of Tax receipts.
>>
>>>> When the Fed starts to raise interest rates then we know the
>>>> bankers are consdered about inflation.
>>
>>> I was concerned long before that, their spending is the cause of
>>> inflation because someone has to pay for that spending. And they can
>>> either raise taxes (which is inflation) or the government can print
>>> money which devalues the dollar and creates inflation or they borrow
>>> money which has to be paid by tax payers at some point and when they
>>> pay it that will create inflation…. At the moment Obama has done
>>> all three in a giant way.
>>
>>> inflation is here and going to get worse as the cost of Obama’s short
>>> sighted policies comes due.
>>
>>> Notice the government figures inflation and they do it without
>>> including “energy” “food” or “Taxes” yet all three are going up
>>> fast, gasoline alone has inflated 100% over 3.5 years. That would
>>> be an average 30% inflation rate.
>>
>>>> Sure the current government deficit is the result of Bush era
>>>> bad spending decisions.
>>
>>> Obama has done the same and worse than Bush did.
>>
>>>> These things can’t be corrected on
>>>> a dime without negatively affecting the economy.
>>
>>> They can’t be fixed at all if you ignore the problem which is
>>> Government spending.
>>
>>>> Good spending
>>>> decisions take time to correct bad spending decisions.
>>
>>> Obama has NOT made any good spending decisions.
>>
>>>> The
>>>> economy still isn’t recovering very well and it won’t until the
>>>> middle class starts getting raises and income distribution starts
>>>> returning to more rational norms.
>>
>>> The economy is still in the process of crashing and burning. Obama
>>> has fixed NOTHING, Obama is making it worse. We the tax payers will
>>> pay for this, and that will cause the inflation and the deeper
>>> collapse that is coming.
>>
>> I agree that Obama has made it worse. You can’t spend your way out of debt,
>> in spite of the Keneysian Economy idiots. I have been listening to their
>> whacko theories all of my adult life. They were worng when I was in college
>> back in the 70′s and they are still wrong today.
>
> I wonder how businesses spend their way out of debt? It seems to me
> that
> business contraction when retooling is needed isn’t a good idea.
> There is
> good debt and bad debt. Speculative production involves capital and
> operational
> expenses up front and profit down the road.

So you want government to speculate? When they get it wrong as with
the mortgage speculation of Loans to the poor, who will pay?

Government is different, when they go broke we still have government but
when a business goes broke, someone else just opens a business but will
survive if they don’t make the same mistakes. I don’t pay for the
failures that the failed company has made, unless Obama bails them out
like GM and Fannie Mae.

The problem is we will continue to pay for the Federal government
speculation for several generations.

Where did ALL these banks get ALL this excessive money to loan?,,It’smyunderstandingthat the Federal Reserve sets MONEY POLICY.

admin — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:02:32 +0000

On 4/16/2012 11:22 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Apr 16, 7:50 pm, “Bill Graham” wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 4/16/2012 9:23 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:
>>>> On Apr 15, 9:44 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 15, 9:34 pm, “Bill Graham” wrote:
>>
>>>>>> and the current government deficit is the reslt of their
>>>>>> bad spending decisions, too.
>>>> …
>>
>>>>> please institute austerity, then we will no longer have to listen
>>>>> to your type.
>>
>>>> Please don’t do it until the Fed considers tightening credit then
>>>> do it sufficiently and only sufficiently to keep interest rates low.
>>
>>> The damage is done and it will get worse…. spending will make it
>>> worse but it won’t get better. Austerity will make things worse but
>>> there will be a way out once things begin to balance out and spending
>>> begins to come down to the level of Tax receipts.
>>
>>>> When the Fed starts to raise interest rates then we know the
>>>> bankers are consdered about inflation.
>>
>>> I was concerned long before that, their spending is the cause of
>>> inflation because someone has to pay for that spending. And they can
>>> either raise taxes (which is inflation) or the government can print
>>> money which devalues the dollar and creates inflation or they borrow
>>> money which has to be paid by tax payers at some point and when they
>>> pay it that will create inflation…. At the moment Obama has done
>>> all three in a giant way.
>>
>>> inflation is here and going to get worse as the cost of Obama’s short
>>> sighted policies comes due.
>>
>>> Notice the government figures inflation and they do it without
>>> including “energy” “food” or “Taxes” yet all three are going up
>>> fast, gasoline alone has inflated 100% over 3.5 years. That would
>>> be an average 30% inflation rate.
>>
>>>> Sure the current government deficit is the result of Bush era
>>>> bad spending decisions.
>>
>>> Obama has done the same and worse than Bush did.
>>
>>>> These things can’t be corrected on
>>>> a dime without negatively affecting the economy.
>>
>>> They can’t be fixed at all if you ignore the problem which is
>>> Government spending.
>>
>>>> Good spending
>>>> decisions take time to correct bad spending decisions.
>>
>>> Obama has NOT made any good spending decisions.
>>
>>>> The
>>>> economy still isn’t recovering very well and it won’t until the
>>>> middle class starts getting raises and income distribution starts
>>>> returning to more rational norms.
>>
>>> The economy is still in the process of crashing and burning. Obama
>>> has fixed NOTHING, Obama is making it worse. We the tax payers will
>>> pay for this, and that will cause the inflation and the deeper
>>> collapse that is coming.
>>
>> I agree that Obama has made it worse. You can’t spend your way out of debt,
>> in spite of the Keneysian Economy idiots. I have been listening to their
>> whacko theories all of my adult life. They were worng when I was in college
>> back in the 70′s and they are still wrong today.
>
> have fun explaining away the period from 1933-1981. and you can’t:)))

33-41 was Depression….. 1941-62 was higher taxes and lower GDP and
the economic spike from a war that we won and were no physically damaged
other than Perl Harbor.

Much of the world civilization was destroyed we were hardly even effected.

In 1962 Kennedy lowered income taxes. And the economy took off again.
Then it was a series of slowly lowering taxes to keep the economy
growing and a series of Liberal-Socialist welfare programs bleeding away
that enhanced productivity. In the end we have been trying to
maintain the huge government and welfare base, it is NOW to a point that
the economy can’t support all the government give away programs because
of government interference and all the misc. fees and taxes.

Cut the government….. Cut the taxes…… cut the regulations…

That will stop Liberal-Socialists from cutting my opportunity.

Where did ALL these banks get ALL this excessive money to loan?,,It’smyunderstandingthat the Federal Reserve sets MONEY POLICY.

admin — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:09:49 +0000

On 4/16/2012 9:23 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:
> On Apr 15, 9:44 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>> On Apr 15, 9:34 pm, “Bill Graham” wrote:
>
>>> and the current government deficit is the reslt of their
>>> bad spending decisions, too.
> …
>>
>> please institute austerity, then we will no longer have to listen to
>> your type.
>
> Please don’t do it until the Fed considers tightening credit then
> do it sufficiently and only sufficiently to keep interest rates low.
>

The damage is done and it will get worse…. spending will make it
worse but it won’t get better. Austerity will make things worse but
there will be a way out once things begin to balance out and spending
begins to come down to the level of Tax receipts.

> When the Fed starts to raise interest rates then we know the
> bankers are consdered about inflation.

I was concerned long before that, their spending is the cause of
inflation because someone has to pay for that spending. And they can
either raise taxes (which is inflation) or the government can print
money which devalues the dollar and creates inflation or they borrow
money which has to be paid by tax payers at some point and when they pay
it that will create inflation…. At the moment Obama has done all
three in a giant way.

inflation is here and going to get worse as the cost of Obama’s short
sighted policies comes due.

Notice the government figures inflation and they do it without including
“energy” “food” or “Taxes” yet all three are going up fast, gasoline
alone has inflated 100% over 3.5 years. That would be an average 30%
inflation rate.

> Sure the current government deficit is the result of Bush era
> bad spending decisions.

Obama has done the same and worse than Bush did.

> These things can’t be corrected on
> a dime without negatively affecting the economy.

They can’t be fixed at all if you ignore the problem which is Government
spending.

> Good spending
> decisions take time to correct bad spending decisions.

Obama has NOT made any good spending decisions.

> The
> economy still isn’t recovering very well and it won’t until the middle
> class starts getting raises and income distribution starts returning
> to more rational norms.

The economy is still in the process of crashing and burning. Obama has
fixed NOTHING, Obama is making it worse. We the tax payers will pay for
this, and that will cause the inflation and the deeper collapse that is
coming.

Where did ALL these banks get ALL this excessive money to loan?,,It’smyunderstanding that the Federal Reserve sets MONEY POLICY.

admin — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:45:31 +0000

On 4/13/2012 11:36 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> Conservatives might interpret ?this chart to mean that the tax burden
> became so heavy that ?the economy stumbled. However, another
> explanation is ?entirely plausible. Recall E.H. Carr’s analogy about
> road ?systems: at the turn of the 20th century, there were so few
> road signs and traffic laws because there were so few cars. ?However,
> as roads became more heavily traveled, more traffic ?lights and laws
> became necessary to maintain safety and ?smooth functioning. And this
> has happened to our economy as ?well: it has become larger, faster,
> more complex and ?interdependent. As long as government could grow to
> provide ?it with the traffic lights and laws to ensure smooth
> functioning, it could continue to grow. Once government ?stopped
> growing, the economy followed suit five years later, ?as indicated by
> the above chart.

SO bigger government is the only way out?

But tell us what area will the Government organize and grow, in order to
grow the economy…. They could micromanage your sex life to stop you
from wasting money on dates and Valentines gifts. Maybe they can tell
you how to spend your entire paycheck and NOT give you any disposable
income to waste on your Gucci Shoes.

What you want is irrelevant because the Federal government under the
facade of the courts and the welfare clause and the commerce clause as
dictated by the courts is unlimited.

NOTHING could be more unconstitutional than pretending the courts can
give the Federal Government unlimited powers.

Doing NOTHING like Harry Reid has done, isn’t a solution.

admin — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 03:03:27 +0000

On 4/10/2012 10:46 PM, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> “RD Sandman” wrote in message
> news:XnsA03177C642E3Ahopewell @&*$?%216.196.121.131…
>> “Sid9″ wrote in news:jm1jj7$vvh$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me:
>
>>> Republicans have not offered a viable alternative.
>
>> Well, that may be true……but none of their stuff has even had a vote
>> in the Senate. Harry Reid keeps tabling it.
>
> That’s a consequence of offering such incredibly non-viable solutions -
> you don’t get taken seriously by your peers.
> It’s not because of anything the Democrats have done that Americans have
> lost all respect for Republicans.
> It’s because of what the Republicans themselves have done.
>

Liberals don’t want solutions, they just want their way.

Doing NOTHING like Harry Reid has done, isn’t a solution.

More Lies About Gas Prices In Canada And Its Superior Economy

admin — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:55:52 +0000

On 3/29/2012 10:42 PM, Alan Brown wrote:
> As we all know, the USA is a socialist s&*$?%t hole because of Obama and he’s
> allowing gas prices to grow too high for rugged, independent Republican
> capitalists to handle. The economy will surely be in the s&*$?%r compared to
> Canada‘s in no time.
>
> In Canada, the average price of gas stood at $1.30 per litre.
>
> That’s in US gallons, in $US dollars, $4.92!
>
> Canada is destroyed! They have all the oil! They have Obamacare! They have
> Gay Marriage! They have a capitalist Conservative government!
>
>
> How can their economy be so good compared to the USA’s?

Europe pays $10.00 a gal. and look how good they have it.

I mean besides the street riots and no jobs and bankruptcy and…

You only pay about $1.00 more than the U.S. Average at the moment. And
yes your GDP is NOTHING to crow about either, considering you have all
that oil and Natural resources/energy that you can actually drill dig
mine and use. We have Alaska that our Feds won’t let us leave a boot
print on and the Gulf that can’t be anything but pristine.

Our EPA and other regulations are killing our economy and that means
$1.00 more in gas prices is very hard on this economy.

Remember the La cross team>>>> You ignore the facts and promote the hate….

admin — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:34:14 +0000

On 3/29/2012 12:33 AM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:18:06 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/28/2012 11:34 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:11:53 -0500, First. Post
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Evidently there are a few black folks out there that aren’t so quick to want to
>>>> turn the case into the biggest issue in the US.
>>>
>>> Evidently, there are a few dismal racists like you clutching at
>>> straws.
>>>
>>> New Video show NOTHING wrong with Zimmerloon in police surveillance
>>> video.
>>
>>
>> Remember the La cross team that was charged with rape, that was also a
>> three ring circus…
>
> Anecdotal nonsense
>
> The mountain of racist policy of the old south is historical

You ignore the facts and promote the hate….

You want a racially charged presidential election don’t you, you figure
you have most of the population in your politically correct pocket?

Maybe… or maybe NOT?

Remember the La cross team that was charged with rape, that was also a three ring circus…

admin — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:18:06 +0000

On 3/28/2012 11:34 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:11:53 -0500, First. Post
> wrote:
>
>> Evidently there are a few black folks out there that aren’t so quick to want to
>> turn the case into the biggest issue in the US.
>
> Evidently, there are a few dismal racists like you clutching at
> straws.
>
> New Video show NOTHING wrong with Zimmerloon in police surveillance
> video.

Remember the La cross team that was charged with rape, that was also a
three ring circus…

I’ll wait for the conviction this time also.

surprise surprise the austerity idiots first darling ireland contracting again:)Its economy shrank by 0.2% from October to December:following a contraction of 1.1% in the third quarter:how long will the idiot conservatives cling to failure?

admin — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 14:13:58 +0000

On 3/25/2012 2:13 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Mar 25, 12:15 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>> On 3/25/2012 12:38 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 24, 11:15 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 3/24/2012 11:48 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 23, 5:44 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>>> surprise surprise the austerity idiots first darling ireland
>>>>>> contracting again:)Its economy shrank by 0.2% from October to
>>>>>> December:following a contraction of 1.1% in the third quarter:how long
>>>>>> will the idiot conservatives cling to failure?
>>
>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17474799
>>
>>>>>> 22 March 2012 Last updated at 08:53 ET
>>
>>>>>> Republic of Ireland falls back into recession
>>
>>>>>> The Republic of Ireland fell back into recession in the last three
>>>>>> months of 2011, official figures have shown.
>>>>>> Its economy shrank by 0.2% from October to December, following a
>>>>>> contraction of 1.1% in the third quarter.
>>>>>> The data from the Central Statistics Office showed that the weakness
>>>>>> in the global economy had hit Irish exports, while its domestic
>>>>>> consumer spending had continued to recover.
>>>>>> The country needed an international bailout in 2010.
>>>>>> While consumer spending in Ireland rose by 0.5% in the fourth quarter
>>>>>> of 2011, exports fell by 1.1%.
>>>>>> Irish economist Conall Mac Coille, of Davy Stockbrokers, said:
>>>>>> “Consumer spending and investment bounced back as we expected, but
>>>>>> exports contracted on the quarter, highlighting the danger that a key
>>>>>> platform for growth is being eroded by the euro area slowdown.”
>>>>>> In November 2010, the Irish government was awarded 85bn euros ($112bn;
>>>>>> £71bn) of emergency loans from the International Monetary Fund and
>>>>>> European Union, as it struggled to cope with big debts and the high
>>>>>> cost of its borrowing.
>>>>>> The Irish government also secured a loan from the UK.
>>>>>> Once known as the Celtic Tiger because of its strong economic growth,
>>>>>> fuelled by low corporation tax rates, the Republic’s financial woes
>>>>>> were centred on the bursting of a property bubble.
>>>>>> This left the country’s banks with huge liabilities, and the banks
>>>>>> subsequently had to be bailed out by the government, putting extreme
>>>>>> pressure on the state’s finances.
>>
>>>>> Things just keep getting worse and worse and I can’t figger it out!
>>>>> Phew! I’m scratchin’ my weedle noggin’ sooo hard!
>>
>>>>> Will someone please explain to me why austerity doesn’t work?
>>
>>>> Because it isn’t being implemented…. you Libs keep spending like a
>>>> w&*$?%e with a credit card in Bloomingdale’s.
>>
>>>> –
>>>> *WHO IS JOHN GALT*
>>
>>> he is a frickin commie lover.
>>
>>> the john galts of the world flocked to the most interventionist,
>>> restrictive, anti freedom communist country in the world, the exact
>>> opposite of ayn rands crank philosophy:john galts stop selling their
>>> corporate souls to China’s Communist Party.
>>
>> You didn’t get it at all…
>>
>> While them and you suckle at the Government teat, men of the mind one by
>> one keep opting out. Those that chase the government policy perks and
>> money will have less and less economic power and less and less ability
>> to create wealth.
>>
>> If all the best movie actors just walked away, You would still get
>> movies…. they just wouldn’t be worth watching.
>>
>> The ones moving to China to comply with U.S. regulations, and the ones
>> begging Obama for Money, they aren’t the ones we worry about. They can
>> leave and it was never a great loss. They had no character to begin with.
>>
>> The ones that ignore the government and you whiners and tell you to do
>> it all, they are the ones you will miss.
>
> you are a frickin commie lover.
>
>
> the Constitution created a robust central authority:stating in the
> preamble the explicit responsibility of the government to promote the
> general Welfare:

You obviously failed the reading comprehension part of all the tests you
ever took. They should have sent you back to remedial Socialist
reading classes.

The “PREAMBLE” is telling you what the “Constitution” is being designed
to hopefully accomplish. NOT what powers the Federal Government will have.

you are a simpleton….

> The document also granted the federal government broad
> domestic powers including authority to regulate interstate commerce,
> the so-called Commerce Clause

Commerce between the several States and the Indians and the foreign
governments, it says NOTHING of “all” commerce. So it’s actually a
limitation that is put on the Federal government. It stops the Federal
government from micromanaging the average persons daily commerce. And it
was conceived to stop economic/tax and international disputes NOT to
micromanage the daily lives of citizens inside a State.

The problem arises when the Federal Government creates its own authority
that’s NOT in the Constitution and they do it with courts and Judges
that have no constitutional authority to do that, since the constitution
only allows amendments to change the constitution and create new powers.

The way I see it the courts don’t really mean what “you” say they mean. All the words they and you used are NOW according to you, debatable.

admin — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 07:06:56 +0000

On 3/22/2012 8:40 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 3/15/2012 8:08 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2012 4:20 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>> So a woman needs privacy over her body which includes the woman’s uterus
>>>>>> and all the contents of that uterus. So that she can privately do what
>>>>>> ever it is that she is doing to what “she” owns. If she owns it, it is
>>>>>> her property, and I agree she should have a RIGHT to PRIVACY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if it’s NOT her property, I can think of only two other choices,
>>>>>
>>>>> That is your limitation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) it is someone else’s property like the car…
>>>>>> 2) it is a human life that everyone is banned from owning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing says that “human life” as YOU define it is something “everyone
>>>>> is banned from owning”.
>>>>
>>>> Human life is a debatable definition according to you?
>>>
>>> Every word in every language is debatable as to its definition. That
>>> is part of the nature of language.
>>
>> Isn’t that ridiculous.
>
> It is reality.
>
>> . that would mean that NOTHING ever written means anything at all,
>
> It means something. Indeed it means lots of things, with *different*
> *meanings understood by different people* .
>
>> because it could mean opposite what was being
>> said and anything in between.
>
> A few words have indeed had that happen to them. Not common, but it
> happens.
>
>> That means there is nothing that can be
>> quoted meaning anything and the Supreme court that “interprets” the
>> constitution are also according to you, using debatable words
>
> They are.
>
> One reason why legal English relies on archaic conventions is that the
> legal profession agreed to have certain phrases have a specific fixed
> meaning within a legal context.

So all words are debatable except the words defined by you?

>> and again
>> I can interpret what the court has interpreted from the constitution.
>
> You can do whatever you want, but if you guess wrong you may face the
> consequences.

[" *different meanings understood by different people* "]

You just said that it means different things to different people,
obviously the court ruling to me means something different than it means
to you… “according to you”. That begs the question “which one is
following the law”?

Looks like you hit a Catch-22 in your little Liberal scam.

Debasing the constitution is your real goal. But you can’t seem to
keep track of all the lies you tell to get to your goal, and now they’re
conflicting lies that you tell that conflict with the old lies.

You know it turns my stomach just having to point out the lies, because
it’s unseemly and just NOT all that dignified to point out the lies, but
then it has to be done, so as distasteful as it is… I’ll step up and
make the personal sacrifice for the public good.

To you…. defining a word is akin to using a hammer to drive a nail
through a marble. A real man at this point would confess his goals of
getting more Socialism at any cost including the cost of losing your
honor, just so you don’t have to get a real job and actually produce
enough of anything to pay for your own way in life. I’m confident “you”
have no such plans to pay your own way.

Take some government created and supplied Obamadol pills, they’re distributed by the Department of Social Justice and we’ll catch you in a week.

admin — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:09:23 +0000

On 3/20/2012 2:23 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:15:01 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/20/2012 10:36 AM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>
>>>> I can accept what I don’t like, I can’t accept what I don’t see in the
>>>> text. All you need to make abortion constitutional is to amend the
>>>> constitution and put it in there.
>>>
>>> Nonsense
>>>
>>> A constitution isn’t supposed to be amended for specificity—the
>>> Constitution is a framework.
>>>
>>> It’s no wonder you’re such a ditz at this.
>>
>> Yes and you think it can be changed by the courts too and NOTHING in it
>> has any meaning because it can all be “interpreted”
>
> Ya stupid f&*$?%k
>

Must be a bad day…. of the month.

That bloated Socialist feeling huh, and eating too “rich” and retaining
polluted water?

Being it’s Socialist related all of your type get it at the same time
each month, equally? Just around the time of the month government
checks go out isn’t it?

Take some government created and supplied Obamadol pills, they are
distributed by the Department of Social Justice and we’ll catch you in a
week.

The side effects of Obamadol are not so bad for your kind… testicles
shrivel and shrink and you mutter incoherently, your hand keeps
elevating(palm up) when people are near and there is that thing where
you suffer oral fixation but don’t worry about any of that you just take
the Obamadol. If it all happens in the correct sequence you are in
business…. And no one will be able to tell any difference in you at all.

Maybe they need a spreadsheet of lies so they can track their last lies and try harder NOT to contradict their past lies with the NEW lies.

admin — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:40:35 +0000

On 3/19/2012 11:13 AM, Eddie Haskell wrote:
> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
> message news:4F674AA8.1050703 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>> On 3/19/2012 10:41 AM, Eddie Haskell wrote:
>>> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
>>> message news:4F663394.6050909 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do Liberal-Socialists tell us that Health care costs 15% of the GDP,
>>>> they get all excited about it and call is wasted money….
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then those very same Liberal-Socialists will tell us that government
>>>> spending 23% of the GDP is NOTHING to be concerned with?
>>>
>>> Humm.. Because they can’t keep their lies straight?
>>>
>>> -Eddie Haskell
>>
>> That’s all I could come up with…. It’s typical Liberal duplicitous
>> lies.
>
> I think it may be kinda like when gas was high under Bush it was because
> Bush and Cheney were “big oil men,” but now that it’s high under Hussein
> “there is no silver bullet” and the president has little control over the
> price of gas.
>
> -Eddie Haskell

They do seem to make it up as they go along, the problem there is that
they don’t keep the lies all in row and the lies start conflicting with
one another.

Maybe they need a spreadsheet of lies so they can track their last lies
and try harder NOT to contradict their past lies with the NEW lies.

Sort of a *LIARS FLOW CHART*

NOT only are Liberal-Socialists stupid but they’re also unorganized.
You’d think that given the TRILLIONS of dollars they stole from
taxpayers they could organize their s&*$?%y philosophy better then
this…. they’re probably all on drugs.

government spending 23% of the GDP is NOTHING to be concerned with?

admin — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:03:04 +0000

On 3/19/2012 10:41 AM, Eddie Haskell wrote:
> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
> message news:4F663394.6050909 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>>
>>
>>
>> Why do Liberal-Socialists tell us that Health care costs 15% of the GDP,
>> they get all excited about it and call is wasted money….
>>
>>
>> Then those very same Liberal-Socialists will tell us that government
>> spending 23% of the GDP is NOTHING to be concerned with?
>
> Humm.. Because they can’t keep their lies straight?
>
> -Eddie Haskell

That’s all I could come up with…. It’s typical Liberal duplicitous
lies.

government spending 23% of the GDP is NOTHING to be concerned with?

admin — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:26:38 +0000

On 3/18/2012 5:03 PM, T&*$?%y wrote:
> On Mar 18, 12:12 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> –
>> *WHO IS JOHN GALT*
>
> a character in a fiction novel that fools decided to worship.

*WHO IS AHAB*

And if it’s a fictional character in a fiction novel, why is it a
classic that is studied and dissected and worshiped as great literature?

“Fiction” doesn’t mean you can’t learn something from it….

Maybe you just haven’t grasped the true meaning of Atlas Shrugged.

Try something with a simple meaning first, read Hemingway’s “The Old Man
and the Sea” Maybe you can start out simple and work your way up to

*WHO IS JOHN GALT*

government spending 23% of the GDP is NOTHING to be concerned with?

admin — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:09:50 +0000

Why do Liberal-Socialists tell us that Health care costs 15% of the GDP,
they get all excited about it and call it wasted money…. Something
they and the government need to remedy.

Then those very same Liberal-Socialists will tell us that government
spending 23% of the GDP on welfare public buildings and useless
employees is NOTHING to be concerned with?

It seems silly to say that government wasted money is less of a problem
than health Industry wasted money in the Private sector, and yet the
Liberal-Socialist types have been convinced that government waste is
good and personal health waste is bad… it’s all coming from the same
place(our pockets). The place it comes from is the GDP which is a
function of the work that is done in the PRIVATE SECTOR by us.

government spending 23% of the GDP is NOTHING to be concerned with?

admin — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 19:12:20 +0000

Why do Liberal-Socialists tell us that Health care costs 15% of the GDP,
they get all excited about it and call is wasted money….

Then those very same Liberal-Socialists will tell us that government
spending 23% of the GDP is NOTHING to be concerned with?

The way I see it the courts don’t really mean what “you” say they mean. All the words they and you used are NOW according to you, debatable.

admin — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:14:49 +0000

On 3/15/2012 8:08 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 3/8/2012 4:20 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> So a woman needs privacy over her body which includes the woman’s uterus
>>>> and all the contents of that uterus. So that she can privately do what
>>>> ever it is that she is doing to what “she” owns. If she owns it, it is
>>>> her property, and I agree she should have a RIGHT to PRIVACY.
>>>>
>>>> But if it’s NOT her property, I can think of only two other choices,
>>>
>>> That is your limitation.
>>>
>>>> 1) it is someone else’s property like the car…
>>>> 2) it is a human life that everyone is banned from owning.
>>>
>>> Nothing says that “human life” as YOU define it is something “everyone
>>> is banned from owning”.
>>
>> Human life is a debatable definition according to you?
>
> Every word in every language is debatable as to its definition. That
> is part of the nature of language.
>

Isn’t that ridiculous….. that would mean that NOTHING ever written
means anything at all, because it could mean opposite what was being
said and anything in between. That means there is nothing that can be
quoted meaning anything and the Supreme court that “interprets” the
constitution are also according to you, using debatable words and again
I can interpret what the court has interpreted from the constitution.

The way I see it the courts don’t really mean what you say they mean.

The Bible Says That Women Are Men’s Property And Hence Have No Right To Abortions, Contraceptives, To Work Outside The Home Or To Vote

admin — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:34:35 +0000

On 3/13/2012 10:31 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
> message news:4F5F7309.1070106 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>> On 3/13/2012 11:25 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:39:22 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, and isn’t triage a procedure used by medical practitioners
>>>>>> which can
>>>>>> decide who shall live and who shall die?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> True indeed!
>>>>
>>>> it has nothing to do with who dies…. it is who needs and benefits
>>>> the
>>>> most from immediate care.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yet with Catagory 3…a significant number of them can be saved, albeit
>>> with extraordinary effort in time and money.
>>
>> Which doesn’t exist, just as if you are on a desert island.
>>
>> Many will die with or without help and the reason they die isn’t because
>> of neglect it is because there is NO ability to do anything to stop it
>> from happening, it is nature and some will live and some will die.
>>
>> Being able to do NOTHING is NOT the same as ACTIVELY doing something to
>> intentionally to kill the patient on purpose.
>>
>> Triage is NOT the same as abortion.
>
> Why because you want it to be, or because your double standard demands it?
>
>

You say I am using Liberal tactics of double standards? Please point
it out in detail.

Maybe then we can discuss your Constitutional double standards. I’ll
have your own words to apply to your constitutional “interpretations”

The Bible Says That Women Are Men’s Property And Hence Have No Right To Abortions, Contraceptives, To Work Outside The Home Or To Vote

admin — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:17:13 +0000

On 3/13/2012 11:25 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:39:22 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and isn’t triage a procedure used by medical practitioners which can
>>>> decide who shall live and who shall die?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> True indeed!
>>
>> it has nothing to do with who dies…. it is who needs and benefits the
>> most from immediate care.
>>
>
> Yet with Catagory 3…a significant number of them can be saved, albeit
> with extraordinary effort in time and money.

Which doesn’t exist, just as if you are on a desert island.

Many will die with or without help and the reason they die isn’t because
of neglect it is because there is NO ability to do anything to stop it
from happening, it is nature and some will live and some will die.

Being able to do NOTHING is NOT the same as ACTIVELY doing something to
intentionally to kill the patient on purpose.

Triage is NOT the same as abortion.

Hand the budget to the Federal Reserve and tell them to print themoney needed by the government. What is this ruse where we pay a tax?

admin — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:49:30 +0000

On 2/23/2012 3:34 PM, R&*$?%d wrote:
> jim” < "sjedgingN0Sp wrote
>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote
>>> jim wrote
>>>> R&*$?%d wrote
>
>>>>>> all depends on whether Congress tries to reduce the deficit.
>
>>>>> Nope, even if they do, it wont produce another great depression.
>
>>>>> The unemployment rate never got to anything like what it did during
>>>>> the great depression and wouldnt even if say Congress did decide
>>>>> to decimate the military budget and say double the tax on the rich.
>
>>>> Yes but in the great depression the Govt did not endow
>>>> the economy with taxing 40% less than it spends until the
>>>> war started and then instantly unemployment got better.
>
>>>> If the US government had maintained a balanced budget for
>>>> the last 3 years the unemploment rate in this depression
>>>> would have been far worse than it was 80 years ago
>
>>>>>>>> But whether it makes sense to you, the federal debt is going to grow as it is.
>
>>>>>>> Only because Congress is too stupid to do something about the
>>>>>>> massive deficiency in tax revenue compared with govt spending.
>
>>>> “Individuals and firms can indeed borrow their way into bankruptcy.
>>>> There is no such danger for the government when it borrows in the
>>>> same currency that it creates. In a fiat money system the government
>>>> has just as much money at its disposal under a budget deficit as
>>>> with a budget surplus.” -William F Hummel
>
>>> Didn’t post WWI Germany print money to pay debts…. and didn’t it
>>> take a wheel Barrow of German money to buy a loaf of bread and didn’t
>>> they get paid twice a day because all that printing created HYPER INFLATION?
>
>> Yup. and it is sad that you can’t see how irrelevant that is today
>
>>> SO if our government keeps printing large amounts of money,
>
>> The government is printing no where near as much money
>> as the private sector was creating just a few years ago.
>> When a bank lends, it creates a new deposit to fund the
>> loan and thus expands the money supply.
>
>> The private sector credit market debt increased by $25 Trillion from
>> 1998-2008 that was an enormous dilution in the money supply
>
> Wrong.
>
>> and created extremely high inflation in assets such as houses, gold and stocks.
>
> Wrong. Have fun explaining why the price of gold has increased
> so dramatically since the clowns imploded the world financial
> system, again, and some of that private lending stopped.
>
>> Now the private sector is no longer borrowing
>
> Completely off with the f&*$?%g fairys, as always.
>
>> and the effect that is having on the money supply is pushing
>> the economy towards deflation just like it did 80 years ago
>> when private borrowing spiked up and then collapsed
>
>> http://cdn.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/121911_0526_Movementatt5.png
>
>>> we don’t fear their bankruptcy per`se but we fear that the government
>>> will drive us all broke(by devaluing our money) and that is indeed a
>>> broke government that has no people with wealth to tax.
>
>> The private sector has devalued the money.
>
> Nope, the bubble did, just like bubbles ALWAYS do.
>
>> The mess is now being cleaned up
>
> Just like ALWAYS happens when bubbles burst.
>
>
YET NOTHING IS ANY BETTER? WHY IS THAT?

How ‘Bout That Rove? Mitt To Be GOP Nominee — Intrade

admin — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:29:54 +0000

On 12/21/2011 5:01 PM, AGWFacts wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:49:33 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>>> Intraders think Obama will win.
>
> The word “win” does not describe America’s voting process. “Be
> re-elected” does. One does not “win” a job.
>
>> And California nuts think their mother ship is coming soon.
>
> No.
>
> By the way, almost all futures markets predict President Obama
> will be re-elected, goddamn it— for example, 61.4% at IPredict.
> The idiot who believes “cold fusion” has been discovered in Utah,
> Mitt Romney, being the America Treason Party‘s nominee, is at 70%.

I’ll bet all I own against these geniuses….. because either way I
win. If Obama is re-elected, *my money will be worthless* so I will
have essentially lost NOTHING and if he is NOT re-elected I will have
beat the idiots out of their lunch money which is no real gain either.
But I will win my freedom.

> Intrade has President Obama being re-elected also, goddamn it, at
> 51%, with the next leading candidate (Mitt Romney) at 35%.

No one wins if Mitt Romney is elected so I still have no loss of any
great value. But Obama would be out and that will allow me a ray of hope.

Any way you weigh it, Obama isn’t a winner, even if he is re-elected he
will just destroy the U.S. economy and the market futures will all be in
the toilet and the money they win from me will again be worthless.

Not only are they in a lose-lose but NO one is in a win-win.

Best that we can hope is for a constant state of s&*$?%t, no matter who wins.

In 6 Weeks Obama Goes From 50% to 60% On Intrade; Prepare for Another High Tax Economic Boom!

admin — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:37:17 +0000

On 2/11/2012 12:14 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>> https://data.intrade.com/graphing/jsp/closingPricesForm.jsp?contractI…
>>
>>> If this keeps up Obama will be at 100% by Labor Day!
>>
>> If he gets a second term, what will his agenda be?
>
> Most lazy people like Obama do whatever is easiest. Right now this
> happens to be monkey wrenching the GOP so that Karl Rove is 100%
> clueless as to what Mitt’s talking points should be..
>
>> What will he do to create his “legacy”?
>
> An Emancipation Proclamation for wage slaves. This will come sooner,
> not later.
>
>> How will he be remembered?
>
> Trying to “olive branch” rightards into being less vicious.
>
> Maybe it won’t work immediately but it might kick in 50 years from
> now.
>
>
> Bret Cahill

Socialism is a failure so NOTHING Obama does will ever work.

“Nope, no southern schools stopped blacks from attendance”

admin — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:52:40 +0000

On 1/25/2012 2:27 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:51:46 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>>> Seems that was the only way an arch-conservative would agree to
>>> integration—was to march in with National Guard troops and force
>>> cooperation.
>>
>> NOT likely…
>
> Are you now saying that the National guard did not escort Black
> Children to attend a public school in Arkansas in the 50′s (after
> Brown v Board was handed down)?

Were black children integrated in the North? If so then given the
choice, why would blacks live in the South where life was so bad? Why
NOT just move north?

So the symbolism of the action in Arkansas is just that…. it is
symbolism.

To here you tell it, there is still so much racism that you have
actually accomplished NOTHING with that grandstanding.

You boast of your accomplishment and success against a *DEMOCRAT*
Governor, and then call us all racists. That is just too funny.

County Sheriffs Push Back Against Feds!!!>>>> All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States

admin — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:18:36 +0000

On 1/21/2012 7:52 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> “If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the
>>> constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction
>>> they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be
>>> answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not
>>> to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It
>>> is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to
>>> enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to
>>> that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that
>>> the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people
>>> and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter
>>> within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of
>>> the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A
>>> constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a
>>> fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its
>>> meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from
>>> the legislative body.” Federalist No. 78
>>
>> There are a lot of opinions but what counts is what actually made its
>> way into the text of the constitution. All else is just opinions.
>
> The court’s opinions count. Yours don’t.
>
>> YOU are filling in the white space with your opinions,
>
> Actually, he filled it with Hamilton’s opinion.

His opinion of Hamilton’s opinion. He supposed that Hamilton was
correct, my opinion is that Hamilton got it wrong and it’s NOT in the
constitution so I am probably correct.

We used the constitution to end Torture and the Kings violations of the
colonies by ending the KINGS misuse of the court with ex post facto laws
and many other abuses and I contend that interpretation was never added
to the constitution because it is a misuse of power.

Since you can’t find the power to torture and you likewise can’t find
the power to interpret the law given to the courts, I say that they have
neither power.

NOTHING is a “given” it is either spelled out as a power or it is NOT a
power.

Hamilton being a smart guy knew that what was NOT in the
constitution…. is NOT a government power, whether he liked it or NOT.

” A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a
fundamental law.”

Since when do judges change or write new fundamental laws?
Where is that power delegated?

If BIGGER GOVERNMENT WERE THE ANSWER ….Obama would have already fixed everything

admin — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:04:06 +0000

On 1/20/2012 10:24 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “First. Post” wrote in message
> news:2r3kh798em7la9fnlb8jcokfmq42trst7k @&*$?%4ax.com…
>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:42:26 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/20/2012 3:39 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>>>> January 19, 2012
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Taxes at the Top
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By PAUL KRUGMAN
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The main reason the rich pay so little is that most of their
>>>>>>>> income takes
>>>>>>>> the form of capital gains, which are taxed at a maximum rate of
>>>>>>>> 15 percent,
>>>>>>>> far below the maximum on wages and salaries. So the question is
>>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>> capital gains – three-quarters of which go to the top 1 percent
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> income distribution – warrant such special treatment.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> Why do capital gains warrant such special treatment?
>>>>>>> 1. The funds are invested for a long term, rather than for
>>>>>>> example, being
>>>>>>> used to flip real estate.
>>>>>>> 2. The funds are invested in a manner that the GOVERNMENT wants.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No mention was made of the taxes paid by the “rich” when spending
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> profits.
>>>>>
>>>>>> A sales tax is the same for the rich as for the poor for necessities,
>>>>>> and that’s not a rate but on a per head basis.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Land value taxation is much more progressive than a sales tax.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bret Cahill
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have $3million, why is that bad?
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes it isn’t
>>>>
>>>> That’s why we need to hike taxes on the rich. So everyone will be
>>>> closer to being worth 3 million.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Like farting in a hurricane…. Obama could have spent that deficit he
>>> created $5 trillion, by writing checks to the NON millionaires already.
>>>
>>> But he chose to give it all to the BIG CORPORATIONS.
>>
>> If you took the total of all of the stimulous bills that Obama is
>> responsible for and divided the money up among those in the workforce
>> (includes those working as well as those seeking employment) then a
>> married couple would have received roughly $40,000.
>> 150 million people each getting a $20,000 check would have stimulated
>> the economy a hell of a lot more than giving hundreds of billions each
>> to a select few banks and corporations and phoney “green” outfits like
>> Solyndra.

But then why did the government have that money in the first plsce, that
is the question. If all they did was take it abd then give it back that
is NOT the definition of taxing and “to pay the bills”.

>> The greatest stimulator of the economy is to put more money in the
>> pockets of the consumers.

Those are called jobs…. so the best thing is to encourage jobs.
Instead the government encourages *REGULATIONS AND TAXES* .

>> Progressives can piss about taxing the top,
>> the middle, hell anyone they want. But more taxation does not put a
>> single penny into the pockets of the consumers.

Exactly.

>> Higher taxes will not
>> generate demand for goods and services. Higher taxes will not promote
>> consumer spending.

TRUE.

>> You and I both know that higher taxes only promote more bureacracy and
>> government spending on c&*$?%p that does little if anything to boost the
>> economy.

*If BIGGER GOVERNMENT WERE THE ANSWER* ….Obama would have already
fixed everything as he has increased the cost and size of government.
But 3 years of Obama’s *BIG GOVERNMENT* and *NOTHING is fixed*.

> It depends on tax policy. Tax the wealthy they wont spend a nickel less.
> Step up government spending infrastructure and education, for example.
> You create jobs and permanent public capital assets.

You create useless government jobs, basically welfare…. and that is a
drag on the Private economy.

> Those assets may be bridges, water works, and such, plus educated people
> who will earn more educated than they will uneducated…

All things the private sector can create when needed…. blindly
building for what your crystal ball says is the future is silly and
wasteful. Why didn’t the government create transistors and airplanes
when we needed them….

> Therefore, they will ultimately pay more in taxes from their increased
> earnings.

Thanks to Microsoft, more millionaires pay more taxes than ever before.
So we became more efficient with the Private sector building computer
infrastructure than with the government hiring people to write software
code for massive government projects.

Cuba Has Lower Infant Mortality >> YET NO SOCIALIST MOVIE STARS GO TO CUBA TO HAVE THEIR BABIES???? WHY

admin — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 20:27:44 +0000

On 1/11/2012 3:15 PM, Bible Studies with Satan wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>> On 1/11/2012 8:06 AM, Möebius Pretzel wrote:
>>> Cuba: 4.9% infant mortality rate in 2011: The United States, which has
>>> maintained its criminal economic blockade of the country for more than
>>> 50 years, records an infant mortality rate of 7.0
>>>
>>> http://www.granma.cu/ingles/cuba-i/5ener-mortality.html
>>
>> Stop the propaganda, they count babies different, like you count a baby
>> in the uterus as NOTHING while I count it as a live human, and a person.
>>
> That’s because you’re in outer space. What do they call a pedophile that wants
> to f&*$?%k a fetus?
>

They call you….

Hey you “ s&*$?%t for brains” that says Cuba has a better infant mortality
rate.

…..and you always answer.

Cuba Has Lower Infant Mortality Than US Despite Criminal Economic Blockade

admin — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:23:00 +0000

On 1/11/2012 12:36 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> On Jan 11, 11:20 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>> On 1/11/2012 12:09 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> “jane.playne” wrote in message
>>> news:jekf49$bde$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me…
>>>> On 1/11/2012 11:33, Sid9 wrote:
>>
>>>>> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
>>>>> messagenews:4F0DB52C.3020501 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>>>>>> On 1/11/2012 8:06 AM, Möebius Pretzel wrote:
>>>>>>> Cuba: 4.9% infant mortality rate in 2011: The United States, which has
>>>>>>> maintained its criminal economic blockade of the country for more than
>>>>>>> 50 years, records an infant mortality rate of 7.0
>>
>>>>>>> http://www.granma.cu/ingles/cuba-i/5ener-mortality.html
>>
>>>>>> Stop the propaganda, they count babies different, like you count a baby
>>>>>> in the uterus as NOTHING while I count it as a live human, and a
>>>>>> person.
>>
>>>>>> CUBA is NOT a medical Paradise, that is a Socialist MYTH and proof is
>>>>>> that you don’t race off to CUBA to get better health care than you get
>>>>>> in the USA. NO millionaire Socialist Movie stars like Michael Moore
>>>>>> are down in Cuba waiting to be cured of disease or deliver their
>>>>>> babies.
>>
>>>>>> You’re so dumb it’s pitiful, and then you expose your stupidity so
>>>>>> effectively that it’s easy to see.
>>
>>>>> .
>>>>> .
>>>>> Dream on.
>>>>> Cuba trades with all the rest of the world.
>>>>> There’s no medicine or medical equipment they can’t buy from European
>>>>> countries.
>>>>> They also have a brisk income form European tourism.
>>
>>>>> Our embargo of Cuba only hurts American manufacturers and exporters.
>>
>>>>> “The relationship cultivated between Cuba and Venezuela in recent years
>>>>> has resulted in agreements in which Venezuela provides cheap oil in
>>>>> exchange for Cuban “missions” of doctors to bolster the Venezuelan
>>>>> health care system. Cuba, with the second-highest per capita number of
>>>>> physicians in the world (behind Italy), sends tens of thousands of
>>>>> doctors to other countries as aid, as well as to obtain favorable
>>>>> economic terms of trade.”
>>
>>>>> from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba
>>
>>>>> The embargo is the most stupid artifact of the cold war still in effect.
>>
>>>> I agree with you completely regarding the absurdity of the US embargo.
>>>> HOWEVER, I am in complete disagreement with you on their economy; I
>>>> have been there.
>>
>>>> “Under the scheme, according to the newspaper, more than 2.1m
>>>> pensioners will receive increases of about $2 (£1) a month, raising
>>>> minimum monthly pensions to $9.50 (£4.70).” -
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7370304.stm
>>
>>>> You said, “There’s no medicine or medical equipment they can’t buy
>>>> from European countries.” You don’t know the difference between the
>>>> words “can” and “may”. Cuba “may” buy equipment but they “can” not
>>>> buy it. The following is an excerpt from an article illustrating that
>>>> Canada is donating its obsolete medical equipment to Cuba.
>>
>>>> ” December 7th Manitouwadge General Hospital delivered a used but still
>>>> useful ultrasound machine to Medical Equipment Modernization
>>>> Opportunity (MEMO) for use in equipment poor Cuba. …In Canada it is
>>>> considered older technology but in a third world country it is
>>>> considered “State of the art”…“We are very pleased that this
>>>> obsolete equipment will find good use in Cuba.”… Cuba suffers from a
>>>> severe shortage of modern functioning medical equipment.” -
>>>> http://www.karinahunter.com/?p=21722
>>
>>>> AND from the wikipedia article that YOU referenced, a doctor makes
>>>> $700 per month:
>>>> Typical wages range from factory worker’s 400 non-convertible Cuban
>>>> pesos a month to doctor’s 700. That is only around 17-30 U.S. dollars
>>>> a month. However, the Human Development Index of Cuba still ranks much
>>>> higher than the vast majority of Latin American nations.[40] After
>>>> Cuba lost subsidies in 1991, malnutrition resulted in an outbreak of
>>>> diseases and general hunger.[41] Despite this, the poverty level
>>>> reported by the government is one of the lowest in the developing
>>>> world, ranking 6th out of 108 countries, 4th in Latin America, and
>>>> 48th among all countries.[42] Pensions are among the smallest in the
>>>> Western hemisphere at $9.50. In 2009, Raul Castro increased minimum
>>>> pensions by 2 dollars, which he said was to recompense for those who
>>>> have “dedicated a great part of their lives to working… and who
>>>> remain firm in defense of socialism”.[43]
>>
>>> I make no claim that the Cuban economic system is efficient.
>>> It isn’t.
>>> There are many poor nations in the Caribbean. Cuba is one of them.
>>
>>> However, my objection is to our embargo.
>>> Politically driven, this embargo, an artifact of the cold war does not
>>> benefit the United States.
>>
>>> I believe that the Castro brothers with their Communist system would
>>> have been long gone had our embargo ended years ago,
>>
>>> Effectively America kept Communism alive in Cuba.
>>
>> Your claims are ignorant and based on Leftist propaganda, you don’t
>> think or use your own brain to ask any questions, you just swallow that
>> garbage they feed you.
>>
>
> > They count a baby as NOT born in many parts of the world,
> > until it has survived 24 hours. We deliver unusual and premature
> > and count them as live from the moment they are born.
>
> Cite? URL? Reference? Or (most likely) lie???
>
> Your statement is an insult to science and logic. Then again, you
> baggers do not believe in such things.
>
> -Ramon
>
You are funny, I’ll let you learn something, prove me a liar…..

You’ll learn more if you do the work, and show your work when you reply.

Cuba Has Lower Infant Mortality >> YET NO SOCIALIST MOVIE STARS GO TO CUBA TO HAVE THEIR BABIES???? WHY

admin — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:13:32 +0000

On 1/11/2012 8:06 AM, Möebius Pretzel wrote:
> Cuba: 4.9% infant mortality rate in 2011: The United States, which has
> maintained its criminal economic blockade of the country for more than
> 50 years, records an infant mortality rate of 7.0
>
> http://www.granma.cu/ingles/cuba-i/5ener-mortality.html

Stop the propaganda, they count babies different, like you count a baby
in the uterus as NOTHING while I count it as a live human, and a person.

CUBA is NOT a medical Paradise, that is a Socialist MYTH and proof is
that you don’t race off to CUBA to get better health care than you get
in the USA. NO millionaire Socialist Movie stars like Michael Moore
are down in Cuba waiting to be cured of disease or deliver their babies.

You’re so dumb it’s pitiful, and then you expose your stupidity so
effectively that it’s easy to see.

Obama’s 11% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE compared ot Bush’s 4.4 %

admin — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:49:21 +0000

On 1/10/2012 12:47 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:45:20 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/10/2012 2:00 AM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:06:34 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obama and his ilk are manipulating all the economic data.
>>>>
>>>> –
>>>
>>> Just when we thought you couldn’t get more stupid—off you go
>>> again…
>>
>>
>> Wasn’t it you who said Bush was Manipulating the information coming from
>> the CIA?
>
> Considering it’s a proven fact now, yep.
>
>> So Bush didn’t manipulate the CIA data….
>
> He did. Else why was NOTHING Bush claimed proven to be true?
>
> CIA intel is under a whole different set of secrecy rules and laws,
> you mindless idiot. Some of which constitutes treason for ignoring
>
> Not so general economic data.
>
Obama is manipulating the economic DATA.

That’s what separates me from the Animals in the forest and the Liberals that walk among us, I respect the constitution.

admin — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:02:02 +0000

On 1/6/2012 12:57 PM, Wayne wrote:

>>
>> With polls a day before the Iowa caucuses showing him getting a late
>> surge as he tries to coalesce the evangelical vote, Rick Santorum is now
>> pushing something we’ve been told is anathema to conservative values:
>> forcibly breaking up marriages — plunging families into chaos — as well
>> as giving “special privileges” to people based on sexual orientation.
> -
> An entirely reasonable position, and it removes “special privileges”
> erroneously given to homosexuals.

It is ex post facto law and unconstitutional, IF they were legally
Married then there is NOTHING that can be passed to undo it.

> If homosexuals want equal legal rights, they are available (or should
> be) via legal unions, not via sham “marriages”.

That is reasonable and should be what happens, but you can’t make a
legal marriage un-legal.

I beat up the gay “marriage” idea all the time but I have to follow the
constitution. That’s what separates me from the Animals in the forest
and the Liberals that walk among us, I respect the constitution.

Why growth is more important that worrying about deficits

admin — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:26:19 +0000

On 1/5/2012 7:25 PM, @&*$?%anony.net">habshi @&*$?%anony.net wrote:
> Consider a trillion dollar economy like Britain if given a
> $30b stimulus , say $10b a year to build 100 miles of 200mph
> underground rail network linking all cities and ports , so within a
> decade all heavy traffic is taken off the motorways for EVER, just how
> much would that save in oil costs if you powered the trains by wind or
> solar farms , and India should build these underground rail networks
> as well

Save NOTHING because no one will ride them……

> Now if that $30 raised production by just 1% ie 1% of
> 1,000b or $10b a year , then within three years you have recovered
> your money and the economy will keep paying an extra $10b a year from
> then on. That is why the Republican candidates droning on mindlessly
> about deficits are economic ignoramii.
> Last weeks TIME article showed that if the USA raised its
> growth from 2 to 3% as it is doing under Obama and under Raegan who
> spent like there was no tomorrow! then in a decade or so it would add
> a TRILLION dollars to the economic output and wealth of the nation.

Wealth of US Citizens Fell as Obama & Congress’s Tripled

admin — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 06:48:14 +0000

On 12/28/2011 11:55 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> On 12/27/2011 12:22 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 12/27/2011 2:16 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>>> On 12/27/2011 8:11 AM, ØBAMAGGØT ØCCUTARDS wrote:
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078964/Growing-wealth-gap-members-Congress-rule-survey-reveals.html#ixzz1hk8pAfrq
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another Abomination from the Hussein Administration!
>>>
>>> I was unaware that the Obama administration had been in power for 25
>>> years.
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you unaware that Progressive-Socialists have been pursuing
>> /Obama/Pelosi/Reid/ policies for about 100 years?
>>
>
> Nope. But then again the spread between rick and poor was about as wide
> a century ago as it is now.

That indicates that *ALL* the hundreds of thousands of
Progressive-Socialist laws and regulation enacted over the last 100
years to correct that have *FAILED*

Another Progressive-Socialist Failure, All the taxes and other
regulation that accomplished ZIP NADA NOTHING.

Former ATF head blamed aides for not informing him of Fast and Furious

admin — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:28:21 +0000

On 12/26/2011 3:18 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
> Report: Former ATF head blamed aides for not informing him of Fast and
> Furious
> By Meghashyam Mali – 12/25/11 11:13 AM ET
>
> Kenneth Melson, then-head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
> and Explosives blasted subordinates in a deposition taken in July
> claiming they failed to inform him of a controversial gun-tracking
> program which may have led to the death of a Border Patrol agent.

Doesn’t this amount to saying that your kid stole your gun from the top
of a night stand, and then used it to kill 18 students?

In those cases the Attorney general “usually” then goes after the parent
for contributing to the deaths by leaving the gun accessible to
children…..

Why is it suddenly when in government….. that idea of the same
person NOT protecting the public from governments deadly weapons and
force it’s NO longer legitimate?

*NOTHING LESS THAN JAIL TIME IS ACCEPTABLE*
(90% of the Obama administration belongs in prison)

Corporations and everyone paying as much tax as Warren Buffett’s Secretary.

admin — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:44:14 +0000

On 12/19/2011 2:40 PM, P&*$?%s wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 11:35 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/19/2011 10:38 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/2011 1:02 PM, P&*$?%s wrote:
>>>>> On 12/18/2011 9:09 AM, cpt banjo wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 17, 9:05 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The owner can buy insurance protection and also offset his
>>>>>>> liability by
>>>>>>> hiding assets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there were no insulation of corporate shareholders there would be
>>>>>> no insurance to buy, since no one would invest in an insurance
>>>>>> company. Would YOU invest in a company that insured an oil company
>>>>>> like BP if you knew all of your personal assets were at risk in the
>>>>>> event of an oil spill?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. This would therefore lead BP to practice safely and securely in
>>>>> order to foster investment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider the existing alternative:
>>>>>
>>>>> Invest with impunity; in the event of a spill, the general public
>>>>> picks
>>>>> up the tab and deals with the consequence.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except BP paid Billions in reparations and clean up.
>>>
>>> What percentage of the total cost was their part?
>>>
>>>> It cost those
>>>> investors billions in profits and cost BP by dropping their value and
>>>> their marketability and people were hesitant to buy their stock or
>>>> invest in BP….. It showed them to be less than Well run. Why
>>>> invest
>>>> in a poorly run and risky company when there are other better
>>>> investments?
>>>
>>> Irrelevant to discussion.
>>>
>>>>> I suggest that if the investor /had been/ at risk for the BP
>>>>> (actually:
>>>>> Transocean) spill, there would have either been: more safeguards in
>>>>> place, including insurance OR the risky operation would not have taken
>>>>> place.
>>>>
>>>> The failure was management NOTHING more.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>>
>>>> That failure means that I am NOT interested in investing there.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>>
>>>>> So, with your insulation of liability, who won and who lost? The
>>>>> owners
>>>>> won, the public lost. That doesn’t sound reasonable to me, does it
>>>>> to you?
>>>>
>>>> Owners lost Billions and the company lost any growth potential due to
>>>> the fact their management is questionable and people don’t want to
>>>> invest and lose their principal.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>>
>>>> If you lost more than your principal then the markest would shrivel and
>>>> die, no one would invest their extra cash, for fear of losing it and
>>>> more for simply putting your own money into use.
>>>
>>> So, who picks up the tab when the consequences exceed the liability
>>> limit?
>>>
>>> It doesn’t just disappear, you know.
>>>
>>>> That would suggest that buying a quart of oil makes you also liable
>>>> when
>>>> BP has a spill because your money was used by BP to drill.
>>>
>>> No. I’m not an owner when I purchase a product. I am a consumer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yet you wanted the owners to be reimbursed by taxpayers for their loss
>> when they sold a mortgage to a consumer that you hold liable for having
>> been duped into buying the mortgage they couldn’t pay…..
>
> What are you talking about?!

*KEEP PLAYING DUMB, IT LOOKS GOOD ON YOU*

Corporations and everyone paying as much tax as Warren Buffett’s Secretary.

admin — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:35:35 +0000

> On 12/19/2011 10:38 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 12/19/2011 1:02 PM, P&*$?%s wrote:
>>> On 12/18/2011 9:09 AM, cpt banjo wrote:
>>>> On Dec 17, 9:05 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The owner can buy insurance protection and also offset his
>>>>> liability by
>>>>> hiding assets.
>>>>
>>>> If there were no insulation of corporate shareholders there would be
>>>> no insurance to buy, since no one would invest in an insurance
>>>> company. Would YOU invest in a company that insured an oil company
>>>> like BP if you knew all of your personal assets were at risk in the
>>>> event of an oil spill?
>>>
>>> Nope. This would therefore lead BP to practice safely and securely in
>>> order to foster investment.
>>>
>>> Consider the existing alternative:
>>>
>>> Invest with impunity; in the event of a spill, the general public picks
>>> up the tab and deals with the consequence.
>>>
>>
>> Except BP paid Billions in reparations and clean up.
>
> What percentage of the total cost was their part?
>
>> It cost those
>> investors billions in profits and cost BP by dropping their value and
>> their marketability and people were hesitant to buy their stock or
>> invest in BP….. It showed them to be less than Well run. Why invest
>> in a poorly run and risky company when there are other better
>> investments?
>
> Irrelevant to discussion.
>
>>> I suggest that if the investor /had been/ at risk for the BP (actually:
>>> Transocean) spill, there would have either been: more safeguards in
>>> place, including insurance OR the risky operation would not have taken
>>> place.
>>
>> The failure was management NOTHING more.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> That failure means that I am NOT interested in investing there.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>>> So, with your insulation of liability, who won and who lost? The owners
>>> won, the public lost. That doesn’t sound reasonable to me, does it
>>> to you?
>>
>> Owners lost Billions and the company lost any growth potential due to
>> the fact their management is questionable and people don’t want to
>> invest and lose their principal.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> If you lost more than your principal then the markest would shrivel and
>> die, no one would invest their extra cash, for fear of losing it and
>> more for simply putting your own money into use.
>
> So, who picks up the tab when the consequences exceed the liability limit?
>
> It doesn’t just disappear, you know.
>
>> That would suggest that buying a quart of oil makes you also liable when
>> BP has a spill because your money was used by BP to drill.
>
> No. I’m not an owner when I purchase a product. I am a consumer.

Yet you wanted the owners to be reimbursed by taxpayers for their loss
when they sold a mortgage to a consumer that you hold liable for having
been duped into buying the mortgage they couldn’t pay…..

Something is wrong, when you want to help the Business and you ignore
and let the liability and cost hit the consumer, that purchased loans
and created the disaster?

You are making the consumer pay for the disaster and NOT making the
corporations pay for the disaster….. Which is opposite of what you
are saying now.

You supported Obama/Democrats making taxpayers help the CORPORATIONS.

YOU are a flip-flopper….
You are a hypocrite
You are a liar
OR
you are an idiot
the choice is yours

Because we “all” know it wasn’t to really help anyone but the Democrats
and Obama re-election, it was in reality a money laundering scheme.

Corporations and everyone paying as much tax as Warren Buffett’s Secretary.

admin — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:17:19 +0000

On 12/19/2011 2:05 PM, P&*$?%s wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 10:38 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 12/19/2011 1:02 PM, P&*$?%s wrote:
>>> On 12/18/2011 9:09 AM, cpt banjo wrote:
>>>> On Dec 17, 9:05 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The owner can buy insurance protection and also offset his
>>>>> liability by
>>>>> hiding assets.
>>>>
>>>> If there were no insulation of corporate shareholders there would be
>>>> no insurance to buy, since no one would invest in an insurance
>>>> company. Would YOU invest in a company that insured an oil company
>>>> like BP if you knew all of your personal assets were at risk in the
>>>> event of an oil spill?
>>>
>>> Nope. This would therefore lead BP to practice safely and securely in
>>> order to foster investment.
>>>
>>> Consider the existing alternative:
>>>
>>> Invest with impunity; in the event of a spill, the general public picks
>>> up the tab and deals with the consequence.
>>>
>>
>> Except BP paid Billions in reparations and clean up.
>
> What percentage of the total cost was their part?
>
>> It cost those
>> investors billions in profits and cost BP by dropping their value and
>> their marketability and people were hesitant to buy their stock or
>> invest in BP….. It showed them to be less than Well run. Why invest
>> in a poorly run and risky company when there are other better
>> investments?
>
> Irrelevant to discussion.
>
>>> I suggest that if the investor /had been/ at risk for the BP (actually:
>>> Transocean) spill, there would have either been: more safeguards in
>>> place, including insurance OR the risky operation would not have taken
>>> place.
>>
>> The failure was management NOTHING more.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> That failure means that I am NOT interested in investing there.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>>> So, with your insulation of liability, who won and who lost? The owners
>>> won, the public lost. That doesn’t sound reasonable to me, does it
>>> to you?
>>
>> Owners lost Billions and the company lost any growth potential due to
>> the fact their management is questionable and people don’t want to
>> invest and lose their principal.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> If you lost more than your principal then the markest would shrivel and
>> die, no one would invest their extra cash, for fear of losing it and
>> more for simply putting your own money into use.
>
> So, who picks up the tab when the consequences exceed the liability limit?

The same people as when it exceeds, all the investors assets.

In the end, there is no guarantee and there NEVER WAS and who paid for
Chernobyl when the Government created a disaster?

Who is responsible for an earthquake and a tidal wave?

Who is responsible when a BUS runs off a cliff?

> It doesn’t just disappear, you know.

Nor does any risk but without accepting risk the Society will stagnate
and die.

Pompeii was too close to a Volcano, they took a risk and NO one had to
live there.

Do we have to have a Department of Meteor Deflection?

We managed to live through the Danger for 200 years without a Department
of Meteor Deflection. Human disasters on the Magnitude you suggest are
just as rare if NOT more than a meteor of that magnitude.

Corporations and everyone paying as much tax as Warren Buffett’s Secretary.

admin — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:38:41 +0000

On 12/19/2011 1:02 PM, P&*$?%s wrote:
> On 12/18/2011 9:09 AM, cpt banjo wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 9:05 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The owner can buy insurance protection and also offset his liability by
>>> hiding assets.
>>
>> If there were no insulation of corporate shareholders there would be
>> no insurance to buy, since no one would invest in an insurance
>> company. Would YOU invest in a company that insured an oil company
>> like BP if you knew all of your personal assets were at risk in the
>> event of an oil spill?
>
> Nope. This would therefore lead BP to practice safely and securely in
> order to foster investment.
>
> Consider the existing alternative:
>
> Invest with impunity; in the event of a spill, the general public picks
> up the tab and deals with the consequence.
>

Except BP paid Billions in reparations and clean up. It cost those
investors billions in profits and cost BP by dropping their value and
their marketability and people were hesitant to buy their stock or
invest in BP….. It showed them to be less than Well run. Why invest
in a poorly run and risky company when there are other better investments?

> I suggest that if the investor /had been/ at risk for the BP (actually:
> Transocean) spill, there would have either been: more safeguards in
> place, including insurance OR the risky operation would not have taken
> place.

The failure was management NOTHING more.

That failure means that I am NOT interested in investing there.

> So, with your insulation of liability, who won and who lost? The owners
> won, the public lost. That doesn’t sound reasonable to me, does it to you?

Owners lost Billions and the company lost any growth potential due to
the fact their management is questionable and people don’t want to
invest and lose their principal.

If you lost more than your principal then the markest would shrivel and
die, no one would invest their extra cash, for fear of losing it and
more for simply putting your own money into use.

That would suggest that buying a quart of oil makes you also liable when
BP has a spill because your money was used by BP to drill.

DO NOTHING Obama and the do nothing Democrats

admin — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:40:00 +0000

DO NOTHING Obama and the do nothing Democrat run Senate refuses to pass
a tax cut for working America, because they refuse to build an oil
pipeline which will also create more jobs for the unemployed.

Democrat-Socialists are against JOBS and TAX CUTS for working Americans.

( Capitalist America) vs (Socialist America)

admin — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 20:11:50 +0000

Making everyone responsible and partners and dependent on success of the
Nation(They live in Capitalist America) THE REST GETTING FREE GOVERNMENT
MONEY(They live in Socialist America).

On 12/9/2011 1:54 PM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> On Dec 9, 9:38 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>> On 12/8/2011 11:45 PM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 8, 8:24 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/5a79bfb7fd8ce74b
>>
>>> laughing, wow i suspect gingrich will break/melt down in the same
>>> manner you did above, when he is confronted with his own idiocy.
>>
>> How much income and sales and other miscellaneous tax did you pay this
>> month so that you could buy your cable TV….
>>
>> How much did the actual cable service cost, not including the tax you
>> paid when you earned the money and when you spent the money.
>>
>> You paid
>>
>> Income tax 20-38%
>> SS tax 7.5%
>> medicare tax 2%
>> unemployment tax ?
>> state income tax 7%
>> state sales tax 8%
>> corporate income…. tax a reasonable 8% profit at 35%
>> misc tele-comm tax 7%
>>
>> You had to earn enough money to pay all these taxes for the privilege of
>> buying your cable.
>>
>> take your cable bill and calculate what each cost you.
>>
>> Then deduct it from your cable bill, what is left is what actual cable
>> with NO government costs.

> First, you are *assuming* that reduction of fixed costs associated
> with an entity would 100% directly translate to reduction of a price
> charged for a service, that is very doubtful.

NO, I was showing you how much tax you pay….. by showing how much
you have to earn, to pay for $100 of product.

Not that the price was going to be more or less dependent on taxes being
more or less. You are out in the weeds with your suggestion.

The problem is government NOT the corporation.

> In my opinion the first
> thing that would likely happen is such reductions would be factored
> into market expectations i.e. performance per share.

Why do I care? I was showing you one thing, your fear took you down this
road.

> You have not
> produced a reduced price schedule from a company based on such a tax
> scheme, you only have theoretical market responses offered by
> political hacks or right wing think tanks.

I predict NOTHING… I was showing how many dollars you had to earn so
that you could buy $100 of product.

I did it for mine and I need to earn $150 to buy $92 worth of cable TV.

That is about a 50% tax rate.

> Secondly, reduction of
> government revenues would have a negative impact by shrinking the
> social safety net during a time of global recession.

Are you sure? Why would you be so defensive when I was simply showing
you what part of that product is NOT the cost of the product but is the
cost of government. You must be worried at the conclusion others will
take from this fact.

> Maintaining a
> strong social safety net keeps a workforce employable, and able to
> market their skills in todays information based workplace when the
> economy picks up.

It also holds back the economy.

> Thirdly the infrastructure used by corporations
> (internet, and non-internet) to conduct commerce is possible because
> of the national investments made from the tax revenues you want to
> eliminate.

Texas instruments created the technology….. Computers are NOT
government and neither is TV or telephone and neither is manned flight.
CHEAP COMPUTERS WERE NOT GOVERNMENT PRODUCED but
*without cheap computers* there would be NO private sector internet.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Government stole the technology and used it poorly and tried to make an
indestructible military network. That “plan” or idea was expanded and
improved and redesigned by the private market and PORNOGRAPHY and became
the internet. So before you spread the LIE that government created
everything, remember that they stole most of it from private industry.

The government pays the private sector to build their stuff because
Government hasn’t got the smarts to make the things they ask for.

Who invented DRONES….. was it R/C model airplane builders or
government?

> Elimination of such revenues would reduce the ability to
> invest and repair infrastructure.

And eliminate waste and theft and misuse.

Obama already got trillions of tax dollars to repair infrastructure and
he has NOTHING to show for it and wants trillions more for
infrastructure to fix what he has already been paid to fix but didn’t.

> Lastly, elimination of state sales
> tax in states like california would be devastating to local schools,

Yet raising and adding taxes doesn’t devastate “Private business” and
the private sector economy? Interesting how YOU BELIEVE that taxes are
a one way street. Taxes are GOOD for everyone? Taxes can’t devastate
the private sector but less taxes will absolutely devastate the
government?

*What a crock of s&*$?%t you are peddling*

> and public services. Your type of economics favors the very wealthy,
> and hurts our country.

MY PLANS help the Nation while making everyone responsible and partners
and dependent on success of the Nation(They live in Capitalist America).

Your plan DIVIDES THE NATION and makes half the Nation have zero
interest in the economy and the success of the National economy because
they get government money regardless of economic health(They live in
Socialist America).

John Edwards was correct, there are TWO AMERICAS, he was wrong on what
they are. One is Capitalist America where we participate in the
economy, the other America is Socialist America where they Live off the
Government.

making everyone responsible and partners and dependent on success of the Nation(They live in Capitalist America) THE REST GETTING FREE GOVERNMENT MONEY(They live in Socialist America).

admin — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 19:49:40 +0000

Making everyone responsible and partners and dependent on success of the
Nation(They live in Capitalist America) THE REST GETTING FREE GOVERNMENT
MONEY(They live in Socialist America).

> First, you are *assuming* that reduction of fixed costs associated
> with an entity would 100% directly translate to reduction of a price
> charged for a service, that is very doubtful.

NO, I was showing you how much tax you pay….. by showing how much
you have to earn, to pay for $100 of product.

Not that the price was going to be more or less dependent on taxes being
more or less. You are out in the weeds with your suggestion.

> In my opinion the first
> thing that would likely happen is such reductions would be factored
> into market expectations i.e. performance per share.

Why do I care? I was showing you one thing, your fear took you down this
road.

> You have not
> produced a reduced price schedule from a company based on such a tax
> scheme, you only have theoretical market responses offered by
> political hacks or right wing think tanks.

I predict NOTHING… I was showing how many dollars you earned so that
you could buy $100 of product.

I did it for mine and I need to ear $150 to buy $92 worth of cable TV.

That is about 50% tax rate.

> Secondly, reduction of
> government revenues would have a negative impact by shrinking the
> social safety net during a time of global recession.

> Maintaining a
> strong social safety net keeps a workforce employable, and able to
> market their skills in todays information based workplace when the
> economy picks up.

It also holds back the economy.

Texas instruments created the technology….. Computers are NOT
government and neither is TV or telephone and neither is manned flight.

Government stole the technology and used it poorly and tried to make an
indestructible military network. That plan was expanded and improved
and redesigned by the private market and PORNOGRAPHY and became the
internet. So before you spread the LIE that government created
everything, remember that they stole most of it from private industry.

The government pay the private sector to build their stuff because
Government hasn’t got the smart to make the things they ask for.

> Elimination of such revenues would reduce the ability to
> invest and repair infrastructure.

And eliminate waste and theft and misuse.

Obama got trillions of tax dollars to repair infrastructure and he has
NOTHING to show for it and wants trillions more for infrastructure to
fix what he has already been paid to fix but didn’t.

> Lastly, elimination of state sales
> tax in states like california would be devastating to local schools,

> and public services. Your type of economics favors the very wealthy,
> and hurts our country.

MY PLANS help the Nation while making everyone responsible and partners
and dependent on success of the Nation(They live in Capitalist America).

John Edwards was correct, there are TWO AMERICAS, he was wrong on what
they are. One is Capitalist America where we participate in the
economy, the other America is Socialist America where they Live off the
Government.