The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Pittsburgh
Next: Incompatible jpeg?
From: mikey4 on 18 Sep 2009 10:13 <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:h8uvvd$d18$1(a)news.albasani.net... > Bill Graham wrote: > >> We have been over this ground too many times already. Let's just look at >> the present and near future. > > Well you might need to look at what Obama was handed by GWB before you try > to blame him for where we are. > No, look at what conress and the senate handed him. You really need to learn *who* spends the money.
From: mikey4 on 18 Sep 2009 10:16 "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4ab351ee$0$1647$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>stephe_k(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>> Bill Graham wrote: >>> >>>> We have been over this ground too many times already. Let's just look >>>> at the present and near future. >>> >>> Well you might need to look at what Obama was handed by GWB before you >>> try to blame him for where we are. >>> >>>> How can any good come out of spending several trillion dollars right >>>> now? >>> >>> Have you looked around the world? We are NOT the only Gov pumping money >>> into their economy trying to avoid a Depression. >> >>Yep. In Australia, the government pumped a ton of cash into stimulus >>payments for just about everybody, & told us to go spend it. We did, & >>it kept us out of a recession by the skin of our teeth. In fact, we're >>the only G20 nation that has avoided recession. The only thing Obama has >>done wrong is not give /enough/ money to people who'd go straight out & >>spend it. > > What the rightards and politicians don't seem to grasp is that giving > tons of money to rich people doesn't do squat for the economy, and > most likely makes things even worse because they often ship their > money out of the country. Give stimulus money to the poor and middle > classes and the money will get spent and will get spent in the > country. > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfischer(a)sonic.net > So what do the lefttards do? They throw it at big business, banks, etc instead of suspending *all* payroll taxes for a month or more. OH YEAH the lefttards are so much better......... BS!!!
From: mikey4 on 18 Sep 2009 10:20 <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:h8v09v$dg7$1(a)news.albasani.net... > Bill Graham wrote: >> >> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message >> news:4ab2b555$0$1614$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>> Bill Graham wrote: >>> >>>> We have been over this ground too many times already. Let's just look >>>> at the present and near future. How can any good come out of spending >>>> several trillion dollars right now? You can't recover from a monetary >>>> loss by spending more money, whether you are an individual or a >>>> country. We are on a big path to certain doom. >>> >>> Spending that money will indeed devalue our currency and lead to >>> inflation. Thanks to W, the U.S. standard of living will be lower for >>> decades or even a century. >>> >>> However the alternative of letting the economy go from recession to >>> depression would have been much worse. You have to learn to look at the >>> big picture. >>> >>> There is a big difference between the reckless deficit spending of >>> Reagan and W, and the current bailout of major financial institutions >>> and manufacturers. The former was to enrich the wealthy at the expense >>> of the lower and middle class. The latter is to prevent the whole world >>> from going into a depression caused by the former. As distasteful as it >>> may be to bail out GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc., the alternative would have >>> been much worse. >>> >>> It will take many decades to undo the problems wrought by supply-side >>> economics, ignoring the threat of radical Islam, ignoring environmental >>> degradation, and alienating most of the industrialized world in the >>> process, but it isn't hopeless or certain doom. >> >> This is ridiculous. It wasn't "supply side economics" that got the banks >> lending money to people who didn't have any down payments and jobs to pay >> for their homes. It was the erroneous belief that real estate prices >> would rise forever, plus the lack of regulation that encouraged the banks >> to be so stupid. Neither Regan nor Bush, (nor Clinton) had anything to do >> with this. > > > But massive deficit spending did affect all of this. You can't spend > BILLIONS on a war and at the same time LOWER taxes. You blame the dem for > "Tax and spend" but ignore the effects of "Tax rebate but spend a lot > more". That is EXACTLY what Regan AND both Bush's did. > > And where exactly do you think we borrowed this money to go to war while > lowering taxes came from? > > Stephanie Just what do you think is happening right now????????? Why do you think people are so PISSED???????? This is *not* the dems vs the repubs, this is *us the people" vs *them*, why can't anyone see this????????? We have the government we deserve.
From: mikey4 on 18 Sep 2009 10:21 "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4ab33441$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... > stephe_k(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> Bill Graham wrote: >>> >>> "Walter Banks" <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote in message >>> news:4AB228D8.59CB1866(a)bytecraft.com... >>>> >>>> >>>> SMS wrote: >>>> >>>>> David Ruether wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > I think you don't understand the predominant beliefs of the US > >>>>> electorate >>>>> > very well... I think few see the election of Democrats as >>>>> specifically > to >>>>> > "steal rich people's money so more can be given to (poor) me", as >>>>> > the >>>>> > unbelievably odd (to some of us) "bill of goods" the Republicans >>>>> have > sold >>>>> > to so many for so long that "supporting the interests of the rich >>>>> is > best for us >>>>> > (the poor) because, well, someday we may also be rich - which is a >>>>> > fantasy, >>>>> > but one that is widely held by Americans, especially now with > >>>>> widespread >>>>> > popular lotteries in existence. BTW, this nonsense predates the > >>>>> "anything >>>>> > socialistic is bad" myth sold also by those on the Right, who fail >>>>> to > mention >>>>> > that much of what is taken for granted as basic services *is* > >>>>> socialistic... >>>>> > Armed with these two myths, a disreputable bunch of rascals is >>>>> often > able >>>>> > to draw roughly 50% of the electorate's votes. Pushing these >>>>> myths, > with >>>>> > repeated lies and deceptions added, works for winning elections, > >>>>> alas... >>>>> >>>>> The other issue many people don't understand is how the salary >>>>> structures have evolved in the U.S. in regards to gross pay and net >>>>> pay. >>>>> A position paying $100K where $30K is paid in a combination of all >>>>> taxes >>>>> is not going to be paying $100K if the tax burden falls to $10K. Even >>>>> within the same corporation there are differentials based on cost of >>>>> living of different areas of the country (and world), and these >>>>> differentials are based on both expenses for taxes and the costs of >>>>> goods and services. >>>>> >>>>> If, after the past eight years, anyone voted Republican with the idea >>>>> that Republicans would protect their savings, investments, and job, >>>>> then >>>>> they haven't been paying attention. Yet Republicans can talk about tax >>>>> cuts (unfunded tax cuts) and there are still some naive middle and >>>>> lower >>>>> class voters that think that they'll automatically be better off >>>>> paying >>>>> slightly lower taxes. These people are unable to look at the big >>>>> picture >>>>> of how government is funded and the effects of increasing deficits. >>>>> It's >>>>> the same people that whine about how we should have just let GM and >>>>> Chrysler go into liquidation, without understanding that the cost of >>>>> liquidation would be much higher. >>>> >>>> For most of the last generation in the US fiscal reality has been >>>> almost >>>> the opposite of the rhetoric. The Democrats by an large have balanced >>>> budgets and some cases created government surpluses and invested in >>>> economic growth. The Republicans have been deficient spending and >>>> investing in special interests. >>>> >>>> w.. >>>> >>> Usually because the Republicans have had to handle the wars, (mostly >>> because they have happened to be in office when we were attacked, or >>> otherwise obligated to wage them) >> >> >> The KEY thing to note is: IF the country is at war spending BILLIONS, you >> don't give HUGE tax breaks to big business at the same time. > > You'd think that'd be common sense to anybody, but apparently not. > > -- And the stupidity of *both* parties continues.
From: mikey4 on 18 Sep 2009 10:22
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4ab30775$0$1673$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>We have been over this ground too many times already. Let's just look at >>the >>present and near future. How can any good come out of spending several >>trillion dollars right now? You can't recover from a monetary loss by >>spending more money, whether you are an individual or a country. > > Of course you can. It's done all the time and is commonly known as > "investing". Everyone, from governments to take on debt to invest and > earn more money in the future. > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfischer(a)sonic.net LMAO !!!!!!! > |