Discussion:
Why Obama Is Even Worse Than Stalin And Hitler
(too old to reply)
* US *
2010-05-01 12:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class envy,
the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race. Hitler only did one
way, the Soviet communists only did one way, Obama is combining these
two techniques, and you see it right before your very eyes.
* US *
2010-05-01 13:11:17 UTC
Permalink
Weakness.
The PHANTOM
2010-05-01 13:55:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by * US *
Weakness.
Ignorant useful idiot OboZombie
F***@Vetzer.com
2010-05-01 13:59:39 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 May 2010 06:55:48 -0700 (PDT), The PHANTOM
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by * US *
Weakness.
Ignorant useful idiot OboZombie
WHich has what to do with Mad-hatter, tea-whackoffs being akin to
Hitler, Stalin and other assorted rightwing ideologues?
* US *
2010-05-01 14:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
On Sat, 1 May 2010 06:55:48 -0700 (PDT), The PHANTOM
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by * US *
Weakness.
Ignorant useful idiot OboZombie
WHich has what to do with Mad-hatter, tea-whackoffs being akin to
Hitler, Stalin and other assorted rightwing ideologues?
He was busy trying to avoid that fact.
* US *
2010-05-01 14:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Weakness.
Ignorant useful idiot ...
You'd already introduced yourself.
hal
2010-05-01 13:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by * US *
Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class envy,
the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. By cutting taxes on the
wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who have
most of it anyway. Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of wage
earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
Post by * US *
Hitler only did one
way, the Soviet communists only did one way, Obama is combining these
two techniques, and you see it right before your very eyes.
* US *
2010-05-01 13:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Yeah, that's the ticket, comrade, the wealthy's tax rate isn't high
enough already. (snicker). Let's nail the achievers even more.

You could kill all the wealthy, take all of their wealth, and it would
finance Obammy's socialist Utopian ideas three months.

And make sure you include Soros, Gates, the Hollywood Jews, the black
athletes, Oprah,and the rest of the limousine liberals.

Problem is that Obama's tentacles will grab the middle class too.

Gee, I did well during Reagan and Bush years; sorry you didn't.
Post by hal
Post by * US *
Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class envy,
the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. By cutting taxes on the
wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who have
most of it anyway. Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of wage
earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
Post by * US *
Hitler only did one
way, the Soviet communists only did one way, Obama is combining these
two techniques, and you see it right before your very eyes.
* US *
2010-05-01 14:03:24 UTC
Permalink
... take all of their wealth...
You're so afraid of such imaginary things.
* US *
2010-05-02 00:38:31 UTC
Permalink
Inferiority.
Frank Pittel
2010-05-02 06:27:24 UTC
Permalink
In alt.politics.usa.republican * US * <***@yomomma.> wrote:
: Yeah, that's the ticket, comrade, the wealthy's tax rate isn't high
: enough already. (snicker). Let's nail the achievers even more.

: You could kill all the wealthy, take all of their wealth, and it would
: finance Obammy's socialist Utopian ideas three months.

: And make sure you include Soros, Gates, the Hollywood Jews, the black
: athletes, Oprah,and the rest of the limousine liberals.

: Problem is that Obama's tentacles will grab the middle class too.

: Gee, I did well during Reagan and Bush years; sorry you didn't.


I've asked the looney tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dems that hate
the rich and business what there plans were for the coming day that the only
rich people in the country are the hollywood elite and lawyers and all
meaningful manufacturing has been forced out of the US? Where do you plan on
getting your money from?? Forcing the rich to support those that refuse to work
only works when there are rich to take money from. When manufacturing leaves
what do you plan to sell to get money to buy products made in Asia from?
--
-------------------
Keep working dumbo needs the money
* US *
2010-05-02 12:38:14 UTC
Permalink
... looney tune brain dead lying fascist loser...
You'd already advertised that about yourself.

http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/1603
Siobhan Medeiros
2010-05-02 22:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Pittel
: Yeah, that's the ticket, comrade, the wealthy's tax rate isn't high
: enough already.  (snicker).  Let's nail the achievers even more.
: You could kill all the wealthy, take all of their wealth, and it would
: finance Obammy's socialist Utopian ideas three months.
: And make sure you include Soros, Gates, the Hollywood Jews, the black
: athletes, Oprah,and the rest of the limousine liberals.
: Problem is that Obama's tentacles will grab the middle class too.
: Gee, I did well during Reagan and Bush years; sorry you didn't.
I've asked the looney tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dems that hate
the rich and business what there plans were for the coming day that the only
rich people in the country are the hollywood elite and lawyers and all
meaningful manufacturing has been forced out of the US?
It already has been.
Post by Frank Pittel
Where do you plan on
getting your money from?? Forcing the rich to support those that refuse to work
only works when there are rich to take money from. When manufacturing leaves
what do you plan to sell to get money to buy products made in Asia from?
--
Wake up dude. It's already happened.

The super-rich don't create jobs. They destroy them.
Mitchell Holman
2010-05-01 13:41:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
Post by * US *
Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class envy,
the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. By cutting taxes on the
wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who have
most of it anyway. Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of wage
earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".


"How much is enough?"
Bud Fox to Gordon Gekko, Wall Street, 1987
'sHouse. (* US *)
2010-05-01 13:53:22 UTC
Permalink
In 1963, the out of wedlock and single-parent rates were 8% for
whites and 25% for blacks. Then Uncle LBJ came along and said, "Y'all
don't have to worry about chasing down ya baby daddies for support,
the guvmint will support ya." The OOW /SP rates rose to 25% white and
70% blacks. The left's "Great Society" in action. Cradle-to-grave
entitlement. Obama's making LBJ look like a far right-wing fiscal
conservative.












On Sat, 01 May 2010 08:41:44 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by hal
Post by * US *
Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class envy,
the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. By cutting taxes on the
wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who have
most of it anyway. Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of wage
earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
"How much is enough?"
Bud Fox to Gordon Gekko, Wall Street, 1987
* US *
2010-05-01 14:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by 'sHouse. (* US *)
the guvmint will support ya
Just ask Halliburton.
Siobhan Medeiros
2010-05-02 22:34:17 UTC
Permalink
In 1963, the out of wedlock and  single-parent rates were 8% for
whites and 25% for blacks.  Then Uncle LBJ came along and said, "Y'all
don't have to worry about chasing down ya baby daddies for support,
the guvmint will support ya."  The OOW /SP rates rose to 25% white and
70% blacks.  The left's "Great Society" in action.  Cradle-to-grave
entitlement.  Obama's making LBJ look like a far right-wing fiscal
conservative.
Racist AND irrelevant. Your mama must be so proud of you.
On Sat, 01 May 2010 08:41:44 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Obama is dividing this country two ways.  Dividing it on class envy,
the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did.  By cutting taxes on the
wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who have
most of it anyway.  Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of wage
earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
   The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
    "How much is enough?"
Bud Fox to Gordon Gekko, Wall Street, 1987
* US *
2010-05-02 22:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
... entitlement...
Racist AND irrelevant. Your mama must be so proud of you.
Ha!
Nobody
2010-05-02 23:36:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 2 May 2010 15:34:17 -0700 (PDT), Siobhan Medeiros
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
... entitlement...
Racist AND irrelevant. Your mama must be so proud of you.
Ha!
You are replying to the class clown from can.politics. He got run out
of there for being a dumbass and has been hiding in other groups ever
since. His mommy may cut off his account again if he isn't careful.
* US *
2010-05-03 01:16:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nobody
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
... entitlement...
Racist AND irrelevant. Your mama must be so proud of you.
Ha!
You are replying to the class clown from can.politics. He got run out
of there for being a dumbass and has been hiding in other groups ever
since. His mommy may cut off his account again if he isn't careful.
Thanks for the head's up.

Siobhan's cool.

That fake's just a laughingstock idiot.
The PHANTOM
2010-05-01 13:58:42 UTC
Permalink
Obama is dividing this country two ways.  Dividing it on class envy,
the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did.  By cutting taxes on the
wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who have
most of it anyway.  Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of wage
earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
    The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
     "How much is enough?"
Bud Fox to Gordon Gekko, Wall Street, 1987
This isn't 1950 asshole. You progressives never get it. Look at
Greece. That's EXACTLY where we're headed if we don't get a handle on
the tax/spend/spread the wealth/marxists currently running the country.
* US *
2010-05-01 14:08:29 UTC
Permalink
... asshole....never get it...
You'd already introduced yourself.
Frank Pittel
2010-05-02 06:30:44 UTC
Permalink
In alt.politics.usa.republican The PHANTOM <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: On May 1, 8:41??am, Mitchell Holman <***@comcast.net> wrote:
: > hal wrote innews:***@news.newsguy.com:
: >
: > > On Sat, 01 May 2010 12:49:04 GMT, ***@MyHouse. (* US *) wrote:
: >
: > >>Obama is dividing this country two ways. ??Dividing it on class envy,
: > >>the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
: >
: > > Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. ??By cutting taxes on the
: > > wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who have
: > > most of it anyway. ??Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of wage
: > > earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
: >
: > ?? ?? The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
: > boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
: > the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
: > and "crippling".
: >
: > ?? ?? ??"How much is enough?"
: > Bud Fox to Gordon Gekko, Wall Street, 1987

: This isn't 1950 asshole. You progressives never get it. Look at
: Greece. That's EXACTLY where we're headed if we don't get a handle on
: the tax/spend/spread the wealth/marxists currently running the country.

At the rate dumbo is running up debt we'll be where Greece is financially before
dumbo is out of office.
--
-------------------
Keep working dumbo needs the money
* US *
2010-05-02 12:38:14 UTC
Permalink
"1.Bush's tax cuts for the rich have reduced annual tax revenue available for public needs
by $300 billion each year.

2.BushCheney's occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has cost $700 billion, according to the
Congressional Research Service. That's about $400 million a day. Nobel Prizewinning
economist Joseph Stiglitz says the tab is well over $2 trillion when you add
rehabilitation for injured vets, replacement of military hardware, and the value of things
we could have produced (but didn't) with that money over the past seven years.

3.Bushites have finished off the deregulation of banking that began in earnest during Bill
Clinton's presidency. This ideological madness has caused the collapse of investment
funds, banks, and the stock value of corporations that depend on them (which is to say
most of Wall Street and much of the financial world), as well as a steep decline in the
value of most homes in America and a sharp rise in the cost of living in them."

http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/1603
Siobhan Medeiros
2010-05-02 22:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by The PHANTOM
Obama is dividing this country two ways.  Dividing it on class envy,
the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did.  By cutting taxes on the
wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who have
most of it anyway.  Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of wage
earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
    The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
     "How much is enough?"
Bud Fox to Gordon Gekko, Wall Street, 1987
This isn't 1950 asshole. You progressives never get it. Look at
Greece. That's EXACTLY where we're headed if we don't get a handle on
the tax/spend/spread the wealth/marxists currently running the country.
Shame you didn't think of it a few years ago when it was Bush spending
like a drunken sailor.
* US *
2010-05-02 22:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
...if we don't get a handle on
the tax/spend...
Shame you didn't think of it a few years ago when it was Bush spending
like a drunken sailor.
Indeed
* US *
2010-05-01 14:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
"How much is enough?"
Bud Fox to Gordon Gekko, Wall Street, 1987
Indeed.
John Galt
2010-05-01 14:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by hal
Post by * US *
Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class envy,
the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. By cutting taxes on the
wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who have
most of it anyway. Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of wage
earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
1) The 1950's and today are not comparable vis a vis the need for
capital. Those were the "Leave it to Beaver" days, when Ward could be a
middle manager at a bank but still make enough to live in a very nice
middle class suburb while June drank coffee and wore housecoats all day.
Then hyperinflation hit in the 70's and ended all that. The US is not a
low-cost-of-living country anymore.

2) The tax code prior to Reagan also included significant tax shelters
that were designed for the rich to utilize to lower their effective tax
rates. Effective tax rates before Reagan were the same as after Reagan,
even though top marginal dropped from 70% to 28%.

3) But, more to the point, the *people* will decide what tax rates are
"too much", not pundits or politicians. They will make their analysis
based on their *current* disposable-income situation, not ancient
history, and the current condition of the US consumer WRT disposable
income is not good; politicians arguing to the contrary will end up in
the trash bin in this environment.

JG
Post by Mitchell Holman
"How much is enough?"
Bud Fox to Gordon Gekko, Wall Street, 1987
* US *
2010-05-01 14:15:00 UTC
Permalink
...the *people* will decide ...
Not with electronic 'voting', they won't.
F***@Vetzer.com
2010-05-01 17:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
1) The 1950's and today are not comparable vis a vis the need for
capital. Those were the "Leave it to Beaver" days,
Of course they aren't. The Executive-Employee ratio of compensation
was about 200:1 at the time. Today---around 2000:1 Today, instead of
working--those with spendable income above living costs "make money"
by investing--not working. Nothing is produced by investing in money
being gambled with and so more and more in the pyramid scheme is
needed.
Post by John Galt
2) The tax code prior to Reagan also included significant tax shelters
that were designed for the rich to utilize to lower their effective tax
rates. Effective tax rates before Reagan were the same as after Reagan,
even though top marginal dropped from 70% to 28%.
Which did nothing for the bottom 2/3rds, but funneled more and more to
the top
Post by John Galt
3) But, more to the point, the *people* will decide what tax rates are
"too much", not pundits or politicians.
When the "people" are propagandized by billions of dollars worth of
lies and distortions, the Hitler model of propaganda is proven to have
merit.
John Galt
2010-05-01 17:58:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
1) The 1950's and today are not comparable vis a vis the need for
capital. Those were the "Leave it to Beaver" days,
Of course they aren't. The Executive-Employee ratio of compensation
was about 200:1 at the time. Today---around 2000:1 Today, instead of
working--those with spendable income above living costs "make money"
by investing--not working. Nothing is produced by investing in money
being gambled with and so more and more in the pyramid scheme is
needed.
On this point we have some level of agreement.
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Post by John Galt
2) The tax code prior to Reagan also included significant tax shelters
that were designed for the rich to utilize to lower their effective tax
rates. Effective tax rates before Reagan were the same as after Reagan,
even though top marginal dropped from 70% to 28%.
Which did nothing for the bottom 2/3rds, but funneled more and more to
the top.
Obviously, any across-the board in marginal tax rates will send the
greatest PERCENTAGE increase to the lower brackets, but the greatest
GROSS increase to the upper. You think that's by definition a bad thing;
I disagree.
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Post by John Galt
3) But, more to the point, the *people* will decide what tax rates are
"too much", not pundits or politicians.
When the "people" are propagandized by billions of dollars worth of
lies and distortions, the Hitler model of propaganda is proven to have
merit.
Calling things "propaganda" simply shows that you have a lack of ability
to understand the way most Americans think. You are locked into your own
world view, and insist that anyone who doesn't share it is "stupid" or
has been "propagandized."

You have no business governing people you scorn.

JG
F***@Vetzer.com
2010-05-02 14:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Galt
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
When the "people" are propagandized by billions of dollars worth of
lies and distortions, the Hitler model of propaganda is proven to have
merit.
Calling things "propaganda" simply shows that you have a lack of ability
to understand the way most Americans think.
Ignoring the fact that there IS a reason why over-night inheritor
Billionare Richard Scaife has spent nearly 1/2 billion of his money
(over 30 yrs) to set up, fund, or prop up "foundations" like the
Heritiage foundation, American Enterprise Foundation---and that would
be to provide a medium to sway idiots like you.

More than likely, the data, conclusions, and talking points you spout
here everyday have been assembled and crafted by one or more of his
specialized outlets---giving you a sense of authenticity.

I doubt that you, at any given instant, can pick out a logical fallacy
in any press release, statement, or authoritiative position even if
your life depended on it.

Worse, is your inconsistent position on government authority---for it
when the "logic" of the propaganda feeds your predisposed biases, and
against government power when the opposit occurs.

Scaife's money promotes a political party and ideology----the dozens
of major propaganda mills feed you bullshit about economics, Oil, and
dozens of policy positions

And you lap them up.
* US *
2010-05-02 14:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Hahahahaha.

Scaife Paranoia Syndrome still plaguing ya, eh missy?

Even the most dedicated of moonbats never heard of the dude.

Worry more about the damage done by the limousine socialists: Soros,
Gates, Doprah, the Hollywood Jews ...
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Post by John Galt
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
When the "people" are propagandized by billions of dollars worth of
lies and distortions, the Hitler model of propaganda is proven to have
merit.
Calling things "propaganda" simply shows that you have a lack of ability
to understand the way most Americans think.
Ignoring the fact that there IS a reason why over-night inheritor
Billionare Richard Scaife has spent nearly 1/2 billion of his money
(over 30 yrs) to set up, fund, or prop up "foundations" like the
Heritiage foundation, American Enterprise Foundation---and that would
be to provide a medium to sway idiots like you.
More than likely, the data, conclusions, and talking points you spout
here everyday have been assembled and crafted by one or more of his
specialized outlets---giving you a sense of authenticity.
I doubt that you, at any given instant, can pick out a logical fallacy
in any press release, statement, or authoritiative position even if
your life depended on it.
Worse, is your inconsistent position on government authority---for it
when the "logic" of the propaganda feeds your predisposed biases, and
against government power when the opposit occurs.
Scaife's money promotes a political party and ideology----the dozens
of major propaganda mills feed you bullshit about economics, Oil, and
dozens of policy positions
And you lap them up.
* US *
2010-05-02 15:11:04 UTC
Permalink
... the most dedicated of moonbats
You want everyone else to have to pay for the
damage done by your neocon gods.
John Galt
2010-05-02 14:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Post by John Galt
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
When the "people" are propagandized by billions of dollars worth of
lies and distortions, the Hitler model of propaganda is proven to have
merit.
Calling things "propaganda" simply shows that you have a lack of ability
to understand the way most Americans think.
Ignoring the fact that there IS a reason why over-night inheritor
Billionare Richard Scaife has spent nearly 1/2 billion of his money
(over 30 yrs) to set up, fund, or prop up "foundations" like the
Heritiage foundation, American Enterprise Foundation---and that would
be to provide a medium to sway idiots like you.
And you have the analogous creature (Soros) on the socialist side.
What's your point? That rich people are political?
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
More than likely, the data, conclusions, and talking points you spout
here everyday have been assembled and crafted by one or more of his
specialized outlets---giving you a sense of authenticity.
It would be nice, wouldn't it, to think that the only one able to come
to an inddependent conclusion was you, eh? It would make some sense out
of your miserable life.
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
I doubt that you, at any given instant, can pick out a logical fallacy
in any press release, statement, or authoritiative position even if
your life depended on it.
I;m sorry it pisses you off when I flag your consistent use of them.
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Worse, is your inconsistent position on government authority---for it
when the "logic" of the propaganda feeds your predisposed biases, and
against government power when the opposit occurs.
Such as?
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Scaife's money promotes a political party and ideology----the dozens
of major propaganda mills feed you bullshit about economics, Oil, and
dozens of policy positions
And you lap them up.
No, it's fools like YOU I lap up.

JG
* US *
2010-05-02 15:15:33 UTC
Permalink
... socialist side ...
Make sure you don't use public networks.
...an inddependent [sic] conclusion ...
Learn how to spell it, learn what it means,
then give it a try!
I;m sorry ...
You sure are one sorry specimen.
... fools like ... lap up.
You sure do.
Siobhan Medeiros
2010-05-02 22:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Galt
Post by John Galt
    The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
1) The 1950's and today are not comparable vis a vis the need for
capital. Those were the "Leave it to Beaver" days,
Of course they aren't.  The Executive-Employee ratio of compensation
was about 200:1 at the time.  Today---around 2000:1  Today, instead of
working--those with spendable income above living costs "make money"
by investing--not working.  Nothing is produced by investing in money
being gambled with and so more and more in the pyramid scheme is
needed.
On this point we have some level of agreement.
Post by John Galt
2) The tax code prior to Reagan also included significant tax shelters
that were designed for the rich to utilize to lower their effective tax
rates. Effective tax rates before Reagan were the same as after Reagan,
even though top marginal dropped from 70% to 28%.
Which did nothing for the bottom 2/3rds, but funneled more and more to
the top.
Obviously, any across-the board in marginal tax rates will send the
greatest PERCENTAGE increase to the lower brackets, but the greatest
GROSS increase to the upper. You think that's by definition a bad thing;
I disagree.
What makes you think it's an "across the board" tax cut? Who do you
think was the biggest winner when the top tax rate was cut by 40
points? THE ONES MAKING THE MOST MONEY.
Post by John Galt
Post by John Galt
3) But, more to the point, the *people* will decide what tax rates are
"too much", not pundits or politicians.
When the "people" are propagandized by billions of dollars worth of
lies and distortions, the Hitler model of propaganda is proven to have
merit.
Calling things "propaganda" simply shows that you have a lack of ability
to understand the way most Americans think. You are locked into your own
world view, and insist that anyone who doesn't share it is "stupid" or
has been "propagandized."
What else do you call Fox News or National Review? What else would
you call the over-the-top sensationalism practiced by the TeaBaggers?
Low on facts, big on hype..the perfect definition of propaganda.
Post by John Galt
You have no business governing people you scorn.
Well, the rightards do plenty of scorning themselves, so I surmise
they have no business governing us.
* US *
2010-05-02 23:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
... across-the board ...
What makes you think it's an "across the board" tax cut? Who do you
think was the biggest winner when the top tax rate was cut by 40
points? THE ONES MAKING THE MOST MONEY.
Not necessarily by working for it ...
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
... "stupid" or
has been "propagandized."
What else do you call Fox News or National Review? What else would
you call the over-the-top sensationalism practiced by the TeaBaggers?
Low on facts, big on hype..the perfect definition of propaganda.
Indeed.

That's also why we change misleading subject lines.
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
You have no business governing people you scorn.
Well, the rightards do plenty of scorning themselves, so I surmise
they have no business governing us.
Good call.
John Galt
2010-05-03 00:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Post by John Galt
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
1) The 1950's and today are not comparable vis a vis the need for
capital. Those were the "Leave it to Beaver" days,
Of course they aren't. The Executive-Employee ratio of compensation
was about 200:1 at the time. Today---around 2000:1 Today, instead of
working--those with spendable income above living costs "make money"
by investing--not working. Nothing is produced by investing in money
being gambled with and so more and more in the pyramid scheme is
needed.
On this point we have some level of agreement.
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Post by John Galt
2) The tax code prior to Reagan also included significant tax shelters
that were designed for the rich to utilize to lower their effective tax
rates. Effective tax rates before Reagan were the same as after Reagan,
even though top marginal dropped from 70% to 28%.
Which did nothing for the bottom 2/3rds, but funneled more and more to
the top.
Obviously, any across-the board in marginal tax rates will send the
greatest PERCENTAGE increase to the lower brackets, but the greatest
GROSS increase to the upper. You think that's by definition a bad thing;
I disagree.
What makes you think it's an "across the board" tax cut? Who do you
think was the biggest winner when the top tax rate was cut by 40
points? THE ONES MAKING THE MOST MONEY.
A quick look at the statistics posted to you in the other thread prove
that this is an incorrect assumption.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Post by John Galt
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Post by John Galt
3) But, more to the point, the *people* will decide what tax rates are
"too much", not pundits or politicians.
When the "people" are propagandized by billions of dollars worth of
lies and distortions, the Hitler model of propaganda is proven to have
merit.
Calling things "propaganda" simply shows that you have a lack of ability
to understand the way most Americans think. You are locked into your own
world view, and insist that anyone who doesn't share it is "stupid" or
has been "propagandized."
What else do you call Fox News or National Review?
Center-right leaning journalism. (Just because journalism has a "lean"
doesn't mean it's not journalism.)

What else would
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
you call the over-the-top sensationalism practiced by the TeaBaggers?
I am unaware of any "over-the-top sensationalism" practiced by the Tea
PARTIERS, to which I assume you are referring. The TPers are garden
variety economic conservatives, who are generally disassociated from
politics, which is why more Americans identify with them than do with
either of the political parties.

Do you have a cite as to any sort of "over the top sensationalism"?
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Low on facts, big on hype..the perfect definition of propaganda.
Post by John Galt
You have no business governing people you scorn.
Well, the rightards do plenty of scorning themselves, so I surmise
they have no business governing us.
Not sure what that means. Are you suggesting that only the conservatives
are factionalized?

JG
* US *
2010-05-03 01:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Galt
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Post by John Galt
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
1) The 1950's and today are not comparable vis a vis the need for
capital. Those were the "Leave it to Beaver" days,
Of course they aren't. The Executive-Employee ratio of compensation
was about 200:1 at the time. Today---around 2000:1 Today, instead of
working--those with spendable income above living costs "make money"
by investing--not working. Nothing is produced by investing in money
being gambled with and so more and more in the pyramid scheme is
needed.
On this point we have some level of agreement.
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Post by John Galt
2) The tax code prior to Reagan also included significant tax shelters
that were designed for the rich to utilize to lower their effective tax
rates. Effective tax rates before Reagan were the same as after Reagan,
even though top marginal dropped from 70% to 28%.
Which did nothing for the bottom 2/3rds, but funneled more and more to
the top.
Obviously, any across-the board in marginal tax rates will send the
greatest PERCENTAGE increase to the lower brackets, but the greatest
GROSS increase to the upper. You think that's by definition a bad thing;
I disagree.
What makes you think it's an "across the board" tax cut? Who do you
think was the biggest winner when the top tax rate was cut by 40
points? THE ONES MAKING THE MOST MONEY.
A quick look at the statistics posted to you in the other thread prove
that this is an incorrect assumption.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Post by John Galt
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Post by John Galt
3) But, more to the point, the *people* will decide what tax rates are
"too much", not pundits or politicians.
When the "people" are propagandized by billions of dollars worth of
lies and distortions, the Hitler model of propaganda is proven to have
merit.
Calling things "propaganda" simply shows that you have a lack of ability
to understand the way most Americans think. You are locked into your own
world view, and insist that anyone who doesn't share it is "stupid" or
has been "propagandized."
What else do you call Fox News or National Review?
Center-right leaning journalism. (Just because journalism has a "lean"
doesn't mean it's not journalism.)
What else would
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
you call the over-the-top sensationalism practiced by the TeaBaggers?
I am unaware of any "over-the-top sensationalism" practiced by the Tea
PARTIERS, to which I assume you are referring. The TPers are garden
variety economic conservatives, who are generally disassociated from
politics, which is why more Americans identify with them than do with
either of the political parties.
Do you have a cite as to any sort of "over the top sensationalism"?
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Low on facts, big on hype..the perfect definition of propaganda.
Post by John Galt
You have no business governing people you scorn.
Well, the rightards do plenty of scorning themselves, so I surmise
they have no business governing us.
Not sure what that means ...
Try reading it for comprehension.
John Galt
2010-05-03 01:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by * US *
Post by John Galt
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Post by John Galt
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
1) The 1950's and today are not comparable vis a vis the need for
capital. Those were the "Leave it to Beaver" days,
Of course they aren't. The Executive-Employee ratio of compensation
was about 200:1 at the time. Today---around 2000:1 Today, instead of
working--those with spendable income above living costs "make money"
by investing--not working. Nothing is produced by investing in money
being gambled with and so more and more in the pyramid scheme is
needed.
On this point we have some level of agreement.
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Post by John Galt
2) The tax code prior to Reagan also included significant tax shelters
that were designed for the rich to utilize to lower their effective tax
rates. Effective tax rates before Reagan were the same as after Reagan,
even though top marginal dropped from 70% to 28%.
Which did nothing for the bottom 2/3rds, but funneled more and more to
the top.
Obviously, any across-the board in marginal tax rates will send the
greatest PERCENTAGE increase to the lower brackets, but the greatest
GROSS increase to the upper. You think that's by definition a bad thing;
I disagree.
What makes you think it's an "across the board" tax cut? Who do you
think was the biggest winner when the top tax rate was cut by 40
points? THE ONES MAKING THE MOST MONEY.
A quick look at the statistics posted to you in the other thread prove
that this is an incorrect assumption.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Post by John Galt
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Post by John Galt
3) But, more to the point, the *people* will decide what tax rates are
"too much", not pundits or politicians.
When the "people" are propagandized by billions of dollars worth of
lies and distortions, the Hitler model of propaganda is proven to have
merit.
Calling things "propaganda" simply shows that you have a lack of ability
to understand the way most Americans think. You are locked into your own
world view, and insist that anyone who doesn't share it is "stupid" or
has been "propagandized."
What else do you call Fox News or National Review?
Center-right leaning journalism. (Just because journalism has a "lean"
doesn't mean it's not journalism.)
What else would
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
you call the over-the-top sensationalism practiced by the TeaBaggers?
I am unaware of any "over-the-top sensationalism" practiced by the Tea
PARTIERS, to which I assume you are referring. The TPers are garden
variety economic conservatives, who are generally disassociated from
politics, which is why more Americans identify with them than do with
either of the political parties.
Do you have a cite as to any sort of "over the top sensationalism"?
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Low on facts, big on hype..the perfect definition of propaganda.
Post by John Galt
You have no business governing people you scorn.
Well, the rightards do plenty of scorning themselves, so I surmise
they have no business governing us.
Not sure what that means ...
Try reading it for comprehension.
Troll.

JG
* US *
2010-05-03 01:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Galt
Post by * US *
Post by John Galt
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Post by John Galt
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
1) The 1950's and today are not comparable vis a vis the need for
capital. Those were the "Leave it to Beaver" days,
Of course they aren't. The Executive-Employee ratio of compensation
was about 200:1 at the time. Today---around 2000:1 Today, instead of
working--those with spendable income above living costs "make money"
by investing--not working. Nothing is produced by investing in money
being gambled with and so more and more in the pyramid scheme is
needed.
On this point we have some level of agreement.
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Post by John Galt
2) The tax code prior to Reagan also included significant tax shelters
that were designed for the rich to utilize to lower their effective tax
rates. Effective tax rates before Reagan were the same as after Reagan,
even though top marginal dropped from 70% to 28%.
Which did nothing for the bottom 2/3rds, but funneled more and more to
the top.
Obviously, any across-the board in marginal tax rates will send the
greatest PERCENTAGE increase to the lower brackets, but the greatest
GROSS increase to the upper. You think that's by definition a bad thing;
I disagree.
What makes you think it's an "across the board" tax cut? Who do you
think was the biggest winner when the top tax rate was cut by 40
points? THE ONES MAKING THE MOST MONEY.
A quick look at the statistics posted to you in the other thread prove
that this is an incorrect assumption.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Post by John Galt
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Post by John Galt
3) But, more to the point, the *people* will decide what tax rates are
"too much", not pundits or politicians.
When the "people" are propagandized by billions of dollars worth of
lies and distortions, the Hitler model of propaganda is proven to have
merit.
Calling things "propaganda" simply shows that you have a lack of ability
to understand the way most Americans think. You are locked into your own
world view, and insist that anyone who doesn't share it is "stupid" or
has been "propagandized."
What else do you call Fox News or National Review?
Center-right leaning journalism. (Just because journalism has a "lean"
doesn't mean it's not journalism.)
What else would
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
you call the over-the-top sensationalism practiced by the TeaBaggers?
I am unaware of any "over-the-top sensationalism" practiced by the Tea
PARTIERS, to which I assume you are referring. The TPers are garden
variety economic conservatives, who are generally disassociated from
politics, which is why more Americans identify with them than do with
either of the political parties.
Do you have a cite as to any sort of "over the top sensationalism"?
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Low on facts, big on hype..the perfect definition of propaganda.
Post by John Galt
You have no business governing people you scorn.
Well, the rightards do plenty of scorning themselves, so I surmise
they have no business governing us.
Not sure what that means ...
Try reading it for comprehension.
Troll.
JG
So you're not into reading for comprehension.

The neocons scorn you, no matter how obsequious you are to them.
Mitchell Holman
2010-05-02 00:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by hal
Post by * US *
Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class envy,
the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. By cutting taxes on the
wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who have
most of it anyway. Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of wage
earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
1) The 1950's and today are not comparable vis a vis the need for
capital. Those were the "Leave it to Beaver" days, when Ward could be a
middle manager at a bank but still make enough to live in a very nice
middle class suburb while June drank coffee and wore housecoats all day.
Actually June Cleaver wore cocktail dresses all day
and pearls. Always the pearl necklace. And we never did
learn what Ward did for living. He always just went to
"the office" or "work".
Post by John Galt
Then hyperinflation hit in the 70's and ended all that. The US is not a
low-cost-of-living country anymore.
Under Reagan the US went from being the worlds leading
creditor to the worlds leading debter, after racking up
more debt than all previous presidents combinded.
Post by John Galt
2) The tax code prior to Reagan also included significant tax shelters
that were designed for the rich to utilize to lower their effective tax
rates. Effective tax rates before Reagan were the same as after Reagan,
even though top marginal dropped from 70% to 28%.
The tax code prior to Reagan saw corporate taxes
carrying most of the load. Now they get a virtual free
ride while the middle class pays the majority.
Post by John Galt
3) But, more to the point, the *people* will decide what tax rates are
"too much", not pundits or politicians. They will make their analysis
based on their *current* disposable-income situation, not ancient
history, and the current condition of the US consumer WRT disposable
income is not good; politicians arguing to the contrary will end up in
the trash bin in this environment.
The "people" pay what the Congress tells the IRS to
collect from them.
John Galt
2010-05-02 01:48:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by hal
Post by * US *
Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class envy,
the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. By cutting taxes on the
wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who have
most of it anyway. Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of wage
earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
1) The 1950's and today are not comparable vis a vis the need for
capital. Those were the "Leave it to Beaver" days, when Ward could be a
middle manager at a bank but still make enough to live in a very nice
middle class suburb while June drank coffee and wore housecoats all
day.
Actually June Cleaver wore cocktail dresses all day
and pearls. Always the pearl necklace. And we never did
learn what Ward did for living. He always just went to
"the office" or "work".
Quite, but you never got the sense that he was rolling in dough. Wally
had to work if he had a date. >
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
Then hyperinflation hit in the 70's and ended all that. The US is not a
low-cost-of-living country anymore.
Under Reagan the US went from being the worlds leading
creditor to the worlds leading debter, after racking up
more debt than all previous presidents combinded.
The damage to the cost of living occurred prior to Reagan. The
hyperinflative state was well established by 1980, and by the time
Reagan got it under control, June had no choice but to go back to work.
Inflation kicked above 6% in 1973, went to doubledigits the follwing
year, and stayed brutal until the end of 1982.

Put another way, a dollar in 1973 was worth only 46 cents in 1982.
That's a pretty striking change for a ten year period. The ten years
ending 2007, for comparison, a dollar in 1998 was worth .79c in 2007.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
2) The tax code prior to Reagan also included significant tax shelters
that were designed for the rich to utilize to lower their effective tax
rates. Effective tax rates before Reagan were the same as after Reagan,
even though top marginal dropped from 70% to 28%.
The tax code prior to Reagan saw corporate taxes
carrying most of the load. Now they get a virtual free
ride while the middle class pays the majority.
There is a lot about the corporate tax code which you and I likely agree
on. It needs to be MUCH flatter, less complicated, be free of "corporate
welfare", and have lower rates. That's not strictly a conservative POV,
either; it's one of the few things that Larry Kudlow and Robert Reich (a
frequent guest on Larry's show) constantly agree on).

I'd say first rationalize the code, look at what happens for a few
years, and then decide if you need to rebalance it against individual
taxes. Doing both at the same time increases the risk of unintended
consequences.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
3) But, more to the point, the *people* will decide what tax rates are
"too much", not pundits or politicians. They will make their analysis
based on their *current* disposable-income situation, not ancient
history, and the current condition of the US consumer WRT disposable
income is not good; politicians arguing to the contrary will end up in
the trash bin in this environment.
The "people" pay what the Congress tells the IRS to
collect from them.
Yes, and if the Congress tells the IRS to collect so much from the
people so as to piss most of them off, you get a new Congress with a
mandate to fix it according to the people's will.

JG
Mitchell Holman
2010-05-02 02:59:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by hal
Post by * US *
Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class
envy, the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. By cutting taxes on the
wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who
have most of it anyway. Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of
wage earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
1) The 1950's and today are not comparable vis a vis the need for
capital. Those were the "Leave it to Beaver" days, when Ward could
be a middle manager at a bank but still make enough to live in a
very nice middle class suburb while June drank coffee and wore
housecoats all
day.
Actually June Cleaver wore cocktail dresses all day
and pearls. Always the pearl necklace. And we never did
learn what Ward did for living. He always just went to
"the office" or "work".
Quite, but you never got the sense that he was rolling in dough. Wally
had to work if he had a date. >
Ward was cheap, true enough.

But since his sons only dated white girls
he could afford to be so.
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
Then hyperinflation hit in the 70's and ended all that. The US is
not a low-cost-of-living country anymore.
Under Reagan the US went from being the worlds leading
creditor to the worlds leading debter, after racking up
more debt than all previous presidents combinded.
The damage to the cost of living occurred prior to Reagan. The
hyperinflative state was well established by 1980, and by the time
Reagan got it under control, June had no choice but to go back to
work. Inflation kicked above 6% in 1973, went to doubledigits the
follwing year, and stayed brutal until the end of 1982.
Put another way, a dollar in 1973 was worth only 46 cents in 1982.
That's a pretty striking change for a ten year period. The ten years
ending 2007, for comparison, a dollar in 1998 was worth .79c in 2007.
Ergo, June had to stay at work, even with the
benefits of "reaganomics".
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
2) The tax code prior to Reagan also included significant tax
shelters that were designed for the rich to utilize to lower their
effective tax rates. Effective tax rates before Reagan were the same
as after Reagan, even though top marginal dropped from 70% to 28%.
The tax code prior to Reagan saw corporate taxes
carrying most of the load. Now they get a virtual free
ride while the middle class pays the majority.
There is a lot about the corporate tax code which you and I likely
agree on. It needs to be MUCH flatter, less complicated, be free of
"corporate welfare", and have lower rates. That's not strictly a
conservative POV, either; it's one of the few things that Larry Kudlow
and Robert Reich (a frequent guest on Larry's show) constantly agree
on).
I'd say first rationalize the code, look at what happens for a few
years, and then decide if you need to rebalance it against individual
taxes. Doing both at the same time increases the risk of unintended
consequences.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
3) But, more to the point, the *people* will decide what tax rates
are "too much", not pundits or politicians. They will make their
analysis based on their *current* disposable-income situation, not
ancient history, and the current condition of the US consumer WRT
disposable income is not good; politicians arguing to the contrary
will end up in the trash bin in this environment.
The "people" pay what the Congress tells the IRS to
collect from them.
Yes, and if the Congress tells the IRS to collect so much from the
people so as to piss most of them off, you get a new Congress with a
mandate to fix it according to the people's will.
"Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss"
The Who, 1971
* US *
2010-05-02 03:12:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 01 May 2010 21:59:24 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by hal
Post by * US *
Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class
envy, the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. By cutting taxes on the
wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who
have most of it anyway. Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of
wage earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
1) The 1950's and today are not comparable vis a vis the need for
capital. Those were the "Leave it to Beaver" days, when Ward could
be a middle manager at a bank but still make enough to live in a
very nice middle class suburb while June drank coffee and wore
housecoats all
day.
Actually June Cleaver wore cocktail dresses all day
and pearls. Always the pearl necklace. And we never did
learn what Ward did for living. He always just went to
"the office" or "work".
Quite, but you never got the sense that he was rolling in dough. Wally
had to work if he had a date. >
Ward was cheap, true enough.
But since his sons only dated white girls
he could afford to be so.
Why would they want to pay for nap heads?

Geezus, why would anybody pay for nap heads?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
Then hyperinflation hit in the 70's and ended all that. The US is
not a low-cost-of-living country anymore.
Under Reagan the US went from being the worlds leading
creditor to the worlds leading debter, after racking up
more debt than all previous presidents combinded.
The damage to the cost of living occurred prior to Reagan. The
hyperinflative state was well established by 1980, and by the time
Reagan got it under control, June had no choice but to go back to
work. Inflation kicked above 6% in 1973, went to doubledigits the
follwing year, and stayed brutal until the end of 1982.
Put another way, a dollar in 1973 was worth only 46 cents in 1982.
That's a pretty striking change for a ten year period. The ten years
ending 2007, for comparison, a dollar in 1998 was worth .79c in 2007.
Ergo, June had to stay at work, even with the
benefits of "reaganomics".
You have a problem with chronology, Shamonka.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
2) The tax code prior to Reagan also included significant tax
shelters that were designed for the rich to utilize to lower their
effective tax rates. Effective tax rates before Reagan were the same
as after Reagan, even though top marginal dropped from 70% to 28%.
The tax code prior to Reagan saw corporate taxes
carrying most of the load. Now they get a virtual free
ride while the middle class pays the majority.
There is a lot about the corporate tax code which you and I likely
agree on. It needs to be MUCH flatter, less complicated, be free of
"corporate welfare", and have lower rates. That's not strictly a
conservative POV, either; it's one of the few things that Larry Kudlow
and Robert Reich (a frequent guest on Larry's show) constantly agree
on).
I'd say first rationalize the code, look at what happens for a few
years, and then decide if you need to rebalance it against individual
taxes. Doing both at the same time increases the risk of unintended
consequences.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
3) But, more to the point, the *people* will decide what tax rates
are "too much", not pundits or politicians. They will make their
analysis based on their *current* disposable-income situation, not
ancient history, and the current condition of the US consumer WRT
disposable income is not good; politicians arguing to the contrary
will end up in the trash bin in this environment.
The "people" pay what the Congress tells the IRS to
collect from them.
Yes, and if the Congress tells the IRS to collect so much from the
people so as to piss most of them off, you get a new Congress with a
mandate to fix it according to the people's will.
"Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss"
The Who, 1971
* US *
2010-05-02 12:38:14 UTC
Permalink
... have a problem with chronology...
It's one of your many problems.

1.Bush's tax cuts for the rich have reduced annual tax revenue available for public needs
by $300 billion each year.

2.BushCheney's occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has cost $700 billion, according to the
Congressional Research Service. That's about $400 million a day. Nobel Prizewinning
economist Joseph Stiglitz says the tab is well over $2 trillion when you add
rehabilitation for injured vets, replacement of military hardware, and the value of things
we could have produced (but didn't) with that money over the past seven years.

3.Bushites have finished off the deregulation of banking that began in earnest during Bill
Clinton's presidency. This ideological madness has caused the collapse of investment
funds, banks, and the stock value of corporations that depend on them (which is to say
most of Wall Street and much of the financial world), as well as a steep decline in the
value of most homes in America and a sharp rise in the cost of living in them."

http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/1603
Sid9
2010-05-02 14:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by * US *
... have a problem with chronology...
It's one of your many problems.
1.Bush's tax cuts for the rich have reduced annual tax revenue available for public needs
by $300 billion each year.
2.BushCheney's occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has cost $700 billion, according to the
Congressional Research Service. That's about $400 million a day. Nobel Prizewinning
economist Joseph Stiglitz says the tab is well over $2 trillion when you add
rehabilitation for injured vets, replacement of military hardware, and the value of things
we could have produced (but didn't) with that money over the past seven years.
3.Bushites have finished off the deregulation of banking that began in earnest during Bill
Clinton's presidency. This ideological madness has caused the collapse of investment
funds, banks, and the stock value of corporations that depend on them (which is to say
most of Wall Street and much of the financial world), as well as a steep decline in the
value of most homes in America and a sharp rise in the cost of living in them."
http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/1603
.
.
.

Deregulation started with Reagan and his economic philosopher Grover
Norquist..."Drown the government in a bathtub"

You really hate the American government.

The government a majority of the American people elected.

,,,from yesterday's news:

Obama takes direct aim at anti-government rhetoric

By PETE YOST and MARK S. SMITH, AP Sat May 1, 9:24 PM EDT

In a blunt caution to political friend and foe, President Barack Obama said
Saturday that partisan rants and name-calling under the guise of legitimate
discourse pose a serious danger to America's democracy, and may incite
"extreme elements" to violence.

The comments, in a graduation speech at the University of Michigan's huge
football stadium, were Obama's most direct take about the angry politics
that have engulfed his young presidency after long clashes over health care,
taxes and the role of government.

Not 50 miles from where Obama spoke, the GOP's 2008 vice presidential
nominee, Sarah Palin, denounced his policies as "big government" strategies
being imposed on average Americans. "The fundamental transformation of
America is not what we all bargained for," she told 2,000 activists at a
forum in Clarkston, sponsored by the anti-tax Americans for Prosperity
Foundation.

Obama drew repeated cheers in Michigan Stadium from a friendly crowd that
aides called the biggest audience of his presidency since the inauguration.
The venue has a capacity of 106,201, and university officials distributed
80,000 tickets - before they ran out.

In his 31-minute speech, Obama didn't mention either Palin or the tea party
movement that's captured headlines with its fierce attacks on his policies.
But he took direct aim at the anti-government language so prevalent today.

"What troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is
inherently bad," Obama said after receiving an honorary doctor of laws
degree. "When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening
foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is
us."

Government, he said, is the roads we drive on and the speed limits that keep
us safe. It's the men and women in the military, the inspectors in our
mines, the pioneering researchers in public universities.

The financial meltdown dramatically showed the dangers of too little
government, he said, "when a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly
led to the collapse of our entire economy."

But Obama was direct in urging both sides in the political debate to tone it
down. "Throwing around phrases like 'socialists' and 'Soviet-style
takeover,' 'fascists' and 'right-wing nut' - that may grab headlines," he
said. But it also "closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It
undermines democratic deliberation," he said.

"At its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our
society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response."

Passionate rhetoric isn't new, he acknowledged. Politics in America, he
said, "has never been for the thin-skinned or the faint of heart. ... If you
enter the arena, you should expect to get roughed up."

Obama hoped the graduates hearing his words can avoid cynicism and brush off
the overheated noise of politics. In fact, he said, they should seek out
opposing views.

His advice: If you're a regular Glenn Beck listener, then check out the
Huffington Post sometimes. If you read The New York Times editorial page the
morning, then glance every now and then at The Wall Street Journal.

"It may make your blood boil. Your mind may not be changed. But the practice
of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship," he
said.

The speech was part of a busy weekend for the president: the White House
Correspondents' Association dinner Saturday evening near the White House and
visit the Gulf Coast on Sunday morning for a firsthand update on the massive
oil spill.

Obama's helicopter landed on a grass practice football field next to the
stadium on a damp, overcast day. Students and their families had been
streaming in since early morning, many toting rain gear.

The president's appearance in Michigan - a battleground in the 2008 White
House race that's likely to play a big role in the fall congressional
campaign - comes as the state struggles with the nation's highest
unemployment rate, 14.1 percent. It's also has an unhappy electorate to
match.

In the Republican's weekly radio and Internet address, Rep. Pete Hoekstra,
R-Mich, said Obama's visit was a chance "to show the president, firsthand,
the painful plight of the people of Michigan."

Many of the graduates Obama addresses will soon learn how tough it is to
find a job in this economy, Hoekstra said, adding that the share of young
Americans out of work is the highest it's been in more than 50 years.

Speaking before Obama was Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who's known to be on his
short list of possible Supreme Court nominees. She said Michigan residents
owe him thanks for "delivering on health care reform" and "for supporting
our auto industry. General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, they all have bright
futures now, where a year ago, much darker clouds than these loomed
overhead."

Obama's speech was the first of four he is giving this commencement season.

On May 9, he'll speak at Hampton University, a historically black college in
Hampton, Va., founded in 1868 on the grounds of a former plantation.

He's also addressing Army cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point,
N.Y., on May 22, continuing a tradition of presidents addressing graduates
at the service academies. He announced his Afghanistan troop surge at West
Post last December.

Also this year, for the first time, Obama plans a high school commencement.
It's part of his "Race to the Top" education initiative, with its goal of
boosting the United States' lagging graduation rate to the world's best by
2020.

High schools across the country have competed for the honor, submitting
essays and videos. A vote on the White House website yielded three
finalists, and Obama will choose among them next week.
* US *
2010-05-02 14:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Post by * US *
... have a problem with chronology...
It's one of your many problems.
1.Bush's tax cuts for the rich have reduced annual tax revenue available
for public needs by $300 billion each year.
2.BushCheney's occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has cost $700 billion,
according to the Congressional Research Service. That's about $400 million
a day. Nobel Prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz says the tab is well over
$2 trillion when you add rehabilitation for injured vets, replacement of military
hardware, and the value of things we could have produced (but didn't) with
that money over the past seven years.
3.Bushites have finished off the deregulation of banking that began in
earnest during Bill Clinton's presidency. This ideological madness has caused
the collapse of investment funds, banks, and the stock value of corporations
that depend on them (which is to say most of Wall Street and much of the
financial world), as well as a steep decline in the value of most homes in
America and a sharp rise in the cost of living in them."
http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/1603
.
.
.
Deregulation started with Reagan and his economic philosopher Grover
Norquist..."Drown the government in a bathtub"
Indeed. Then see "in earnest", above.
Post by Sid9
... really hate the American government.
If you're a teabagot, anyway.
Post by Sid9
The government a majority of the American people elected.
You don't really have elections if they're electronic.
Post by Sid9
Obama takes direct aim at anti-government rhetoric
By PETE YOST and MARK S. SMITH, AP Sat May 1, 9:24 PM EDT
In a blunt caution to political friend and foe, President Barack Obama said
Saturday that partisan rants and name-calling under the guise of legitimate
discourse pose a serious danger to America's democracy, and may incite
"extreme elements" to violence.
The comments, in a graduation speech at the University of Michigan's huge
football stadium, were Obama's most direct take about the angry politics
that have engulfed his young presidency after long clashes over health care,
taxes and the role of government.
Not 50 miles from where Obama spoke, the GOP's 2008 vice presidential
nominee, Sarah Palin, denounced his policies as "big government" strategies
being imposed on average Americans. "The fundamental transformation of
America is not what we all bargained for," she told 2,000 activists at a
forum in Clarkston, sponsored by the anti-tax Americans for Prosperity
Foundation.
Obama drew repeated cheers in Michigan Stadium from a friendly crowd that
aides called the biggest audience of his presidency since the inauguration.
The venue has a capacity of 106,201, and university officials distributed
80,000 tickets - before they ran out.
In his 31-minute speech, Obama didn't mention either Palin or the tea party
movement that's captured headlines with its fierce attacks on his policies.
But he took direct aim at the anti-government language so prevalent today.
"What troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is
inherently bad," Obama said after receiving an honorary doctor of laws
degree. "When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening
foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is
us."
Government, he said, is the roads we drive on and the speed limits that keep
us safe. It's the men and women in the military, the inspectors in our
mines, the pioneering researchers in public universities.
The financial meltdown dramatically showed the dangers of too little
government, he said, "when a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly
led to the collapse of our entire economy."
But Obama was direct in urging both sides in the political debate to tone it
down. "Throwing around phrases like 'socialists' and 'Soviet-style
takeover,' 'fascists' and 'right-wing nut' - that may grab headlines," he
said. But it also "closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It
undermines democratic deliberation," he said.
"At its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our
society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response."
Passionate rhetoric isn't new, he acknowledged. Politics in America, he
said, "has never been for the thin-skinned or the faint of heart. ... If you
enter the arena, you should expect to get roughed up."
Obama hoped the graduates hearing his words can avoid cynicism and brush off
the overheated noise of politics. In fact, he said, they should seek out
opposing views.
His advice: If you're a regular Glenn Beck listener, then check out the
Huffington Post sometimes. If you read The New York Times editorial page the
morning, then glance every now and then at The Wall Street Journal.
"It may make your blood boil. Your mind may not be changed. But the practice
of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship," he
said.
The speech was part of a busy weekend for the president: the White House
Correspondents' Association dinner Saturday evening near the White House and
visit the Gulf Coast on Sunday morning for a firsthand update on the massive
oil spill.
Obama's helicopter landed on a grass practice football field next to the
stadium on a damp, overcast day. Students and their families had been
streaming in since early morning, many toting rain gear.
The president's appearance in Michigan - a battleground in the 2008 White
House race that's likely to play a big role in the fall congressional
campaign - comes as the state struggles with the nation's highest
unemployment rate, 14.1 percent. It's also has an unhappy electorate to
match.
In the Republican's weekly radio and Internet address, Rep. Pete Hoekstra,
R-Mich, said Obama's visit was a chance "to show the president, firsthand,
the painful plight of the people of Michigan."
Many of the graduates Obama addresses will soon learn how tough it is to
find a job in this economy, Hoekstra said, adding that the share of young
Americans out of work is the highest it's been in more than 50 years.
Speaking before Obama was Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who's known to be on his
short list of possible Supreme Court nominees. She said Michigan residents
owe him thanks for "delivering on health care reform" and "for supporting
our auto industry. General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, they all have bright
futures now, where a year ago, much darker clouds than these loomed
overhead."
Obama's speech was the first of four he is giving this commencement season.
On May 9, he'll speak at Hampton University, a historically black college in
Hampton, Va., founded in 1868 on the grounds of a former plantation.
He's also addressing Army cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point,
N.Y., on May 22, continuing a tradition of presidents addressing graduates
at the service academies. He announced his Afghanistan troop surge at West
Post last December.
Also this year, for the first time, Obama plans a high school commencement.
It's part of his "Race to the Top" education initiative, with its goal of
boosting the United States' lagging graduation rate to the world's best by
2020.
High schools across the country have competed for the honor, submitting
essays and videos. A vote on the White House website yielded three
finalists, and Obama will choose among them next week.
Thanks for posting that.
Sid9
2010-05-02 15:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by * US *
Post by Sid9
Post by * US *
... have a problem with chronology...
It's one of your many problems.
1.Bush's tax cuts for the rich have reduced annual tax revenue available
for public needs by $300 billion each year.
2.BushCheney's occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has cost $700 billion,
according to the Congressional Research Service. That's about $400 million
a day. Nobel Prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz says the tab is well over
$2 trillion when you add rehabilitation for injured vets, replacement of military
hardware, and the value of things we could have produced (but didn't) with
that money over the past seven years.
3.Bushites have finished off the deregulation of banking that began in
earnest during Bill Clinton's presidency. This ideological madness has caused
the collapse of investment funds, banks, and the stock value of corporations
that depend on them (which is to say most of Wall Street and much of the
financial world), as well as a steep decline in the value of most homes in
America and a sharp rise in the cost of living in them."
http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/1603
.
.
.
Deregulation started with Reagan and his economic philosopher Grover
Norquist..."Drown the government in a bathtub"
Indeed. Then see "in earnest", above.
Post by Sid9
... really hate the American government.
If you're a teabagot, anyway.
Post by Sid9
The government a majority of the American people elected.
You don't really have elections if they're electronic.
Post by Sid9
Obama takes direct aim at anti-government rhetoric
By PETE YOST and MARK S. SMITH, AP Sat May 1, 9:24 PM EDT
In a blunt caution to political friend and foe, President Barack Obama said
Saturday that partisan rants and name-calling under the guise of legitimate
discourse pose a serious danger to America's democracy, and may incite
"extreme elements" to violence.
The comments, in a graduation speech at the University of Michigan's huge
football stadium, were Obama's most direct take about the angry politics
that have engulfed his young presidency after long clashes over health care,
taxes and the role of government.
Not 50 miles from where Obama spoke, the GOP's 2008 vice presidential
nominee, Sarah Palin, denounced his policies as "big government" strategies
being imposed on average Americans. "The fundamental transformation of
America is not what we all bargained for," she told 2,000 activists at a
forum in Clarkston, sponsored by the anti-tax Americans for Prosperity
Foundation.
Obama drew repeated cheers in Michigan Stadium from a friendly crowd that
aides called the biggest audience of his presidency since the
inauguration.
The venue has a capacity of 106,201, and university officials distributed
80,000 tickets - before they ran out.
In his 31-minute speech, Obama didn't mention either Palin or the tea party
movement that's captured headlines with its fierce attacks on his policies.
But he took direct aim at the anti-government language so prevalent today.
"What troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is
inherently bad," Obama said after receiving an honorary doctor of laws
degree. "When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening
foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is
us."
Government, he said, is the roads we drive on and the speed limits that keep
us safe. It's the men and women in the military, the inspectors in our
mines, the pioneering researchers in public universities.
The financial meltdown dramatically showed the dangers of too little
government, he said, "when a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly
led to the collapse of our entire economy."
But Obama was direct in urging both sides in the political debate to tone it
down. "Throwing around phrases like 'socialists' and 'Soviet-style
takeover,' 'fascists' and 'right-wing nut' - that may grab headlines," he
said. But it also "closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It
undermines democratic deliberation," he said.
"At its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our
society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response."
Passionate rhetoric isn't new, he acknowledged. Politics in America, he
said, "has never been for the thin-skinned or the faint of heart. ... If you
enter the arena, you should expect to get roughed up."
Obama hoped the graduates hearing his words can avoid cynicism and brush off
the overheated noise of politics. In fact, he said, they should seek out
opposing views.
His advice: If you're a regular Glenn Beck listener, then check out the
Huffington Post sometimes. If you read The New York Times editorial page the
morning, then glance every now and then at The Wall Street Journal.
"It may make your blood boil. Your mind may not be changed. But the practice
of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship," he
said.
The speech was part of a busy weekend for the president: the White House
Correspondents' Association dinner Saturday evening near the White House and
visit the Gulf Coast on Sunday morning for a firsthand update on the massive
oil spill.
Obama's helicopter landed on a grass practice football field next to the
stadium on a damp, overcast day. Students and their families had been
streaming in since early morning, many toting rain gear.
The president's appearance in Michigan - a battleground in the 2008 White
House race that's likely to play a big role in the fall congressional
campaign - comes as the state struggles with the nation's highest
unemployment rate, 14.1 percent. It's also has an unhappy electorate to
match.
In the Republican's weekly radio and Internet address, Rep. Pete Hoekstra,
R-Mich, said Obama's visit was a chance "to show the president, firsthand,
the painful plight of the people of Michigan."
Many of the graduates Obama addresses will soon learn how tough it is to
find a job in this economy, Hoekstra said, adding that the share of young
Americans out of work is the highest it's been in more than 50 years.
Speaking before Obama was Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who's known to be on his
short list of possible Supreme Court nominees. She said Michigan residents
owe him thanks for "delivering on health care reform" and "for supporting
our auto industry. General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, they all have bright
futures now, where a year ago, much darker clouds than these loomed
overhead."
Obama's speech was the first of four he is giving this commencement season.
On May 9, he'll speak at Hampton University, a historically black college in
Hampton, Va., founded in 1868 on the grounds of a former plantation.
He's also addressing Army cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point,
N.Y., on May 22, continuing a tradition of presidents addressing graduates
at the service academies. He announced his Afghanistan troop surge at West
Post last December.
Also this year, for the first time, Obama plans a high school
commencement.
It's part of his "Race to the Top" education initiative, with its goal of
boosting the United States' lagging graduation rate to the world's best by
2020.
High schools across the country have competed for the honor, submitting
essays and videos. A vote on the White House website yielded three
finalists, and Obama will choose among them next week.
Thanks for posting that.
.
.
The electronic machines we vote have a hand-written ballots to back up the
results.

Any conflicts are resolved by counting the voters hand written ballots.

Earlier machines we had, had no paper backup and were suspect.

Those are gone.

The problem with our elections is campaign financing....money.

The USSC made that situation worse
* US *
2010-05-02 15:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Post by * US *
Post by Sid9
Post by * US *
... have a problem with chronology...
It's one of your many problems.
1.Bush's tax cuts for the rich have reduced annual tax revenue available
for public needs by $300 billion each year.
2.BushCheney's occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has cost $700 billion,
according to the Congressional Research Service. That's about $400 million
a day. Nobel Prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz says the tab is well over
$2 trillion when you add rehabilitation for injured vets, replacement of military
hardware, and the value of things we could have produced (but didn't) with
that money over the past seven years.
3.Bushites have finished off the deregulation of banking that began in
earnest during Bill Clinton's presidency. This ideological madness has caused
the collapse of investment funds, banks, and the stock value of corporations
that depend on them (which is to say most of Wall Street and much of the
financial world), as well as a steep decline in the value of most homes in
America and a sharp rise in the cost of living in them."
http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/1603
.
.
.
Deregulation started with Reagan and his economic philosopher Grover
Norquist..."Drown the government in a bathtub"
Indeed. Then see "in earnest", above.
Post by Sid9
... really hate the American government.
If you're a teabagot, anyway.
Post by Sid9
The government a majority of the American people elected.
You don't really have elections if they're electronic.
Post by Sid9
Obama takes direct aim at anti-government rhetoric
By PETE YOST and MARK S. SMITH, AP Sat May 1, 9:24 PM EDT
In a blunt caution to political friend and foe, President Barack Obama said
Saturday that partisan rants and name-calling under the guise of legitimate
discourse pose a serious danger to America's democracy, and may incite
"extreme elements" to violence.
The comments, in a graduation speech at the University of Michigan's huge
football stadium, were Obama's most direct take about the angry politics
that have engulfed his young presidency after long clashes over health care,
taxes and the role of government.
Not 50 miles from where Obama spoke, the GOP's 2008 vice presidential
nominee, Sarah Palin, denounced his policies as "big government" strategies
being imposed on average Americans. "The fundamental transformation of
America is not what we all bargained for," she told 2,000 activists at a
forum in Clarkston, sponsored by the anti-tax Americans for Prosperity
Foundation.
Obama drew repeated cheers in Michigan Stadium from a friendly crowd that
aides called the biggest audience of his presidency since the
inauguration.
The venue has a capacity of 106,201, and university officials distributed
80,000 tickets - before they ran out.
In his 31-minute speech, Obama didn't mention either Palin or the tea party
movement that's captured headlines with its fierce attacks on his policies.
But he took direct aim at the anti-government language so prevalent today.
"What troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is
inherently bad," Obama said after receiving an honorary doctor of laws
degree. "When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening
foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is
us."
Government, he said, is the roads we drive on and the speed limits that keep
us safe. It's the men and women in the military, the inspectors in our
mines, the pioneering researchers in public universities.
The financial meltdown dramatically showed the dangers of too little
government, he said, "when a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly
led to the collapse of our entire economy."
But Obama was direct in urging both sides in the political debate to tone it
down. "Throwing around phrases like 'socialists' and 'Soviet-style
takeover,' 'fascists' and 'right-wing nut' - that may grab headlines," he
said. But it also "closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It
undermines democratic deliberation," he said.
"At its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our
society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response."
Passionate rhetoric isn't new, he acknowledged. Politics in America, he
said, "has never been for the thin-skinned or the faint of heart. ... If you
enter the arena, you should expect to get roughed up."
Obama hoped the graduates hearing his words can avoid cynicism and brush off
the overheated noise of politics. In fact, he said, they should seek out
opposing views.
His advice: If you're a regular Glenn Beck listener, then check out the
Huffington Post sometimes. If you read The New York Times editorial page the
morning, then glance every now and then at The Wall Street Journal.
"It may make your blood boil. Your mind may not be changed. But the practice
of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship," he
said.
The speech was part of a busy weekend for the president: the White House
Correspondents' Association dinner Saturday evening near the White House and
visit the Gulf Coast on Sunday morning for a firsthand update on the massive
oil spill.
Obama's helicopter landed on a grass practice football field next to the
stadium on a damp, overcast day. Students and their families had been
streaming in since early morning, many toting rain gear.
The president's appearance in Michigan - a battleground in the 2008 White
House race that's likely to play a big role in the fall congressional
campaign - comes as the state struggles with the nation's highest
unemployment rate, 14.1 percent. It's also has an unhappy electorate to
match.
In the Republican's weekly radio and Internet address, Rep. Pete Hoekstra,
R-Mich, said Obama's visit was a chance "to show the president, firsthand,
the painful plight of the people of Michigan."
Many of the graduates Obama addresses will soon learn how tough it is to
find a job in this economy, Hoekstra said, adding that the share of young
Americans out of work is the highest it's been in more than 50 years.
Speaking before Obama was Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who's known to be on his
short list of possible Supreme Court nominees. She said Michigan residents
owe him thanks for "delivering on health care reform" and "for supporting
our auto industry. General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, they all have bright
futures now, where a year ago, much darker clouds than these loomed
overhead."
Obama's speech was the first of four he is giving this commencement season.
On May 9, he'll speak at Hampton University, a historically black college in
Hampton, Va., founded in 1868 on the grounds of a former plantation.
He's also addressing Army cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point,
N.Y., on May 22, continuing a tradition of presidents addressing graduates
at the service academies. He announced his Afghanistan troop surge at West
Post last December.
Also this year, for the first time, Obama plans a high school
commencement.
It's part of his "Race to the Top" education initiative, with its goal of
boosting the United States' lagging graduation rate to the world's best by
2020.
High schools across the country have competed for the honor, submitting
essays and videos. A vote on the White House website yielded three
finalists, and Obama will choose among them next week.
Thanks for posting that.
.
.
The electronic machines we vote have a hand-written ballots to back up the
results.
That'll be progress once they're actually secured and counted for official results.
Post by Sid9
Any conflicts are resolved by counting the voters hand written ballots.
The fraud can be contrived to avoid such conflicts.
Post by Sid9
Earlier machines we had, had no paper backup and were suspect.
The ones you have now are also suspect.

See "Hursti Hack".
Post by Sid9
The problem with our elections is campaign financing....money.
Money buys electronic 'voting'.
Post by Sid9
The USSC made that situation worse
True.
Mitchell Holman
2010-05-02 13:52:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by * US *
On Sat, 01 May 2010 21:59:24 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by hal
Post by * US *
Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class
envy, the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. By cutting taxes on the
wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who
have most of it anyway. Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of
wage earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
1) The 1950's and today are not comparable vis a vis the need for
capital. Those were the "Leave it to Beaver" days, when Ward could
be a middle manager at a bank but still make enough to live in a
very nice middle class suburb while June drank coffee and wore
housecoats all
day.
Actually June Cleaver wore cocktail dresses all day
and pearls. Always the pearl necklace. And we never did
learn what Ward did for living. He always just went to
"the office" or "work".
Quite, but you never got the sense that he was rolling in dough. Wally
had to work if he had a date. >
Ward was cheap, true enough.
But since his sons only dated white girls
he could afford to be so.
Why would they want to pay for nap heads?
Geezus, why would anybody pay for nap heads?
Well, somebody does. Where do you think pimps
get all the money for all that bling?
* US *
2010-05-02 14:08:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 02 May 2010 08:52:35 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by * US *
On Sat, 01 May 2010 21:59:24 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by hal
Post by * US *
Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class
envy, the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. By cutting taxes on the
wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who
have most of it anyway. Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of
wage earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
1) The 1950's and today are not comparable vis a vis the need for
capital. Those were the "Leave it to Beaver" days, when Ward could
be a middle manager at a bank but still make enough to live in a
very nice middle class suburb while June drank coffee and wore
housecoats all
day.
Actually June Cleaver wore cocktail dresses all day
and pearls. Always the pearl necklace. And we never did
learn what Ward did for living. He always just went to
"the office" or "work".
Quite, but you never got the sense that he was rolling in dough.
Wally
Post by * US *
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
had to work if he had a date. >
Ward was cheap, true enough.
But since his sons only dated white girls
he could afford to be so.
Why would they want to pay for nap heads?
Geezus, why would anybody pay for nap heads?
Well, somebody does. Where do you think pimps
get all the money for all that bling?
Fer shure.

White men can't jump.

And Ted Danson proved that some white men have no taste ...

Can you imagine cudddling up with Whoopi Goldberg?

AAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHGGGGGG!!!
* US *
2010-05-02 14:35:36 UTC
Permalink
...Can you imagine cudddling [sic] up ...
Nobody wants you because you're a cowardly idiot filled with hate.
* US *
2010-05-02 14:35:36 UTC
Permalink
WWII didn't harm the USA as much as Bush and Cheney did.
John Galt
2010-05-02 03:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by hal
Post by * US *
Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class
envy, the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. By cutting taxes on the
wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who
have most of it anyway. Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of
wage earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
1) The 1950's and today are not comparable vis a vis the need for
capital. Those were the "Leave it to Beaver" days, when Ward could
be a middle manager at a bank but still make enough to live in a
very nice middle class suburb while June drank coffee and wore
housecoats all
day.
Actually June Cleaver wore cocktail dresses all day
and pearls. Always the pearl necklace. And we never did
learn what Ward did for living. He always just went to
"the office" or "work".
Quite, but you never got the sense that he was rolling in dough. Wally
had to work if he had a date. >
Ward was cheap, true enough.
But since his sons only dated white girls
he could afford to be so.
LOL. In those days, the only time you saw a black person was when you
went to a ball game.

It was not a healthy characteristic of the period.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
Then hyperinflation hit in the 70's and ended all that. The US is
not a low-cost-of-living country anymore.
Under Reagan the US went from being the worlds leading
creditor to the worlds leading debter, after racking up
more debt than all previous presidents combinded.
The damage to the cost of living occurred prior to Reagan. The
hyperinflative state was well established by 1980, and by the time
Reagan got it under control, June had no choice but to go back to
work. Inflation kicked above 6% in 1973, went to doubledigits the
follwing year, and stayed brutal until the end of 1982.
Put another way, a dollar in 1973 was worth only 46 cents in 1982.
That's a pretty striking change for a ten year period. The ten years
ending 2007, for comparison, a dollar in 1998 was worth .79c in 2007.
Ergo, June had to stay at work, even with the
benefits of "reaganomics".
Sure, since the only way to put June back in the kitchen would be
deflation, which we're told is even more horrible than INflation.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
2) The tax code prior to Reagan also included significant tax
shelters that were designed for the rich to utilize to lower their
effective tax rates. Effective tax rates before Reagan were the same
as after Reagan, even though top marginal dropped from 70% to 28%.
The tax code prior to Reagan saw corporate taxes
carrying most of the load. Now they get a virtual free
ride while the middle class pays the majority.
There is a lot about the corporate tax code which you and I likely
agree on. It needs to be MUCH flatter, less complicated, be free of
"corporate welfare", and have lower rates. That's not strictly a
conservative POV, either; it's one of the few things that Larry Kudlow
and Robert Reich (a frequent guest on Larry's show) constantly agree
on).
I'd say first rationalize the code, look at what happens for a few
years, and then decide if you need to rebalance it against individual
taxes. Doing both at the same time increases the risk of unintended
consequences.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by John Galt
3) But, more to the point, the *people* will decide what tax rates
are "too much", not pundits or politicians. They will make their
analysis based on their *current* disposable-income situation, not
ancient history, and the current condition of the US consumer WRT
disposable income is not good; politicians arguing to the contrary
will end up in the trash bin in this environment.
The "people" pay what the Congress tells the IRS to
collect from them.
Yes, and if the Congress tells the IRS to collect so much from the
people so as to piss most of them off, you get a new Congress with a
mandate to fix it according to the people's will.
"Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss"
The Who, 1971
My wife was singing this one today, basically. She's an immigrant who
came here to escape totalitarianism, and now she sees totalitarianism
coming here (not a partisan statement --- she's been saying this since
mid-Bush).

In fact, most of the Eastern European and Middle East immigrants that we
talk politics with on occasion (not a small group --- over a hundred
couples, I'd say) see the same thing coming.

The general thought they have is that the Dems and the GOP are in
cahoots, rigging the system to keep themselves in power and the public
in line. (It should be said that when you're raised in a culture without
a free press as they were, rumor becomes your news, and interest in and
acceptance of conspiracy theories hits rather significant heights.)

I don;t listen to them when they get into details; however, I think they
are a bit of a barometer, perhaps an early warning system on the creep
of state power towards unseemly behavior.

JG
F***@Vetzer.com
2010-05-02 14:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Galt
LOL. In those days, the only time you saw a black person was when you
went to a ball game.
It was not a healthy characteristic of the period.
Well, it WAS a conservative, (highly conservative) era, Galtloon

Entrenched reactionary conservatism ruled with an ironfist in the eras
leading up to the 60's

The "Counter-cultural revolution" was NOT about "hippies"---but the
dissolution of the power of conservatives--from southern Dixiecrats
and thousands of state/local officials who fought cultural changes
trying to protect their control and power.
John Galt
2010-05-02 14:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Post by John Galt
LOL. In those days, the only time you saw a black person was when you
went to a ball game.
It was not a healthy characteristic of the period.
Well, it WAS a conservative, (highly conservative) era, Galtloon
Entrenched reactionary conservatism ruled with an ironfist in the eras
leading up to the 60's
The "Counter-cultural revolution" was NOT about "hippies"---but the
dissolution of the power of conservatives--from southern Dixiecrats
and thousands of state/local officials who fought cultural changes
trying to protect their control and power.
How was it that the (sparsely populated and represented) Dixie states
were in control of the (heavily populated and represented) Northern states?

Please advise.

JG
* US *
2010-05-02 15:16:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Galt
Please advise.
Get a clue.
F***@Vetzer.com
2010-05-02 14:24:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Under Reagan the US went from being the worlds leading
creditor to the worlds leading debter, after racking up
more debt than all previous presidents combinded.
The damage to the cost of living occurred prior to Reagan. T
Cost of living was connected to Oil, Galtloon

The bed-fellows of OPEC was The Bush Family and Billionaires like
Richard Scaife (for example) who had massive holdings in Oil.

Carter is your scapegoat---he wasn't the cause

YOUR guys were.
John Galt
2010-05-02 14:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Under Reagan the US went from being the worlds leading
creditor to the worlds leading debter, after racking up
more debt than all previous presidents combinded.
The damage to the cost of living occurred prior to Reagan. T
Cost of living was connected to Oil, Galtloon
Ah, that myth.

JG
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
The bed-fellows of OPEC was The Bush Family and Billionaires like
Richard Scaife (for example) who had massive holdings in Oil.
Carter is your scapegoat---he wasn't the cause
YOUR guys were.
* US *
2010-05-02 15:16:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Galt
Ah, that myth.
Tell us the one about the yellowcake from Niger, again.
Siobhan Medeiros
2010-05-02 22:43:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Galt
Obama is dividing this country two ways.  Dividing it on class envy,
the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did.  By cutting taxes on the
wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who have
most of it anyway.  Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of wage
earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
    The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
1) The 1950's and today are not comparable vis a vis the need for
capital. Those were the "Leave it to Beaver" days, when Ward could be a
middle manager at a bank but still make enough to live in a very nice
middle class suburb while June drank coffee and wore housecoats all day.
Then hyperinflation hit in the 70's and ended all that. The US is not a
low-cost-of-living country anymore.
What does this have to do with tax rates on the rich? The rich have
more than enough so they don't have to worry about the cost of living.

Say, what happened in the 70's to bring on hyperinflation? Oh yeah,
Nixon was elected.
Post by John Galt
2) The tax code prior to Reagan also included significant tax shelters
that were designed for the rich to utilize to lower their effective tax
rates.
Yeah, but the thing was, you had to EARN those tax breaks by creating
jobs. If you got your money from say, corporate raiding, expect a big
fat bill from the IRS.
Post by John Galt
Effective tax rates before Reagan were the same as after Reagan,
even though top marginal dropped from 70% to 28%.
Oh, is that all? Yeah, no difference between 70% and 28%, no sirreee.
Post by John Galt
3) But, more to the point, the *people* will decide what tax rates are
"too much", not pundits or politicians. They will make their analysis
based on their *current* disposable-income situation, not ancient
history, and the current condition of the US consumer WRT disposable
income is not good; politicians arguing to the contrary will end up in
the trash bin in this environment.
Yes, I'm sure the people will be sooooooo upset that the Wall Street
crowd is getting the shit taxed out of them, considering the great
economy they've given us.
* US *
2010-05-02 23:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
...The US is not a
low-cost-of-living country anymore.
What does this have to do with tax rates on the rich? The rich have
more than enough so they don't have to worry about the cost of living.
Say, what happened in the 70's to bring on hyperinflation? Oh yeah,
Nixon was elected.
Exactly.
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
2) The tax code prior to Reagan also included significant tax shelters
that were designed for the rich to utilize to lower their effective tax
rates.
Yeah, but the thing was, you had to EARN those tax breaks by creating
jobs. If you got your money from say, corporate raiding, expect a big
fat bill from the IRS.
As it should be.
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Effective tax rates before Reagan were the same as after Reagan,
even though top marginal dropped from 70% to 28%.
Oh, is that all? Yeah, no difference between 70% and 28%, no sirreee.
Ha!
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
3) But, more to the point, the *people* will decide what tax rates are
"too much", not pundits or politicians. They will make their analysis
based on their *current* disposable-income situation, not ancient
history, and the current condition of the US consumer WRT disposable
income is not good; politicians arguing to the contrary will end up in
the trash bin in this environment.
Yes, I'm sure the people will be sooooooo upset that the Wall Street
crowd is getting the shit taxed out of them, considering the great
economy they've given us.
Then if they could actually vote, without electronic interference,
they'd get the representation they deserve.
Sid9
2010-05-02 23:36:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 2 May 2010 15:43:03 -0700 (PDT), Siobhan Medeiros
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
...The US is not a
low-cost-of-living country anymore.
What does this have to do with tax rates on the rich? The rich have
more than enough so they don't have to worry about the cost of living.
Say, what happened in the 70's to bring on hyperinflation? Oh yeah,
Nixon was elected.
Exactly.
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
2) The tax code prior to Reagan also included significant tax shelters
that were designed for the rich to utilize to lower their effective tax
rates.
Yeah, but the thing was, you had to EARN those tax breaks by creating
jobs. If you got your money from say, corporate raiding, expect a big
fat bill from the IRS.
As it should be.
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Effective tax rates before Reagan were the same as after Reagan,
even though top marginal dropped from 70% to 28%.
Oh, is that all? Yeah, no difference between 70% and 28%, no sirreee.
Ha!
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
3) But, more to the point, the *people* will decide what tax rates are
"too much", not pundits or politicians. They will make their analysis
based on their *current* disposable-income situation, not ancient
history, and the current condition of the US consumer WRT disposable
income is not good; politicians arguing to the contrary will end up in
the trash bin in this environment.
Yes, I'm sure the people will be sooooooo upset that the Wall Street
crowd is getting the shit taxed out of them, considering the great
economy they've given us.
Then if they could actually vote, without electronic interference,
they'd get the representation they deserve.
.
.
Wealthy Americans pay about 17% in federal income tax.

Wage earners whose income is reported on a W2 pay more.

The tax code penalizes those who work and rewards the wealthy with low
taxes.

Yet, they piss and moan about high taxes.......liars all.
* US *
2010-05-03 01:16:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Post by * US *
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
...The US is not a
low-cost-of-living country anymore.
What does this have to do with tax rates on the rich? The rich have
more than enough so they don't have to worry about the cost of living.
Say, what happened in the 70's to bring on hyperinflation? Oh yeah,
Nixon was elected.
Exactly.
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
2) The tax code prior to Reagan also included significant tax shelters
that were designed for the rich to utilize to lower their effective tax
rates.
Yeah, but the thing was, you had to EARN those tax breaks by creating
jobs. If you got your money from say, corporate raiding, expect a big
fat bill from the IRS.
As it should be.
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Effective tax rates before Reagan were the same as after Reagan,
even though top marginal dropped from 70% to 28%.
Oh, is that all? Yeah, no difference between 70% and 28%, no sirreee.
Ha!
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
3) But, more to the point, the *people* will decide what tax rates are
"too much", not pundits or politicians. They will make their analysis
based on their *current* disposable-income situation, not ancient
history, and the current condition of the US consumer WRT disposable
income is not good; politicians arguing to the contrary will end up in
the trash bin in this environment.
Yes, I'm sure the people will be sooooooo upset that the Wall Street
crowd is getting the shit taxed out of them, considering the great
economy they've given us.
Then if they could actually vote, without electronic interference,
they'd get the representation they deserve.
.
.
Wealthy Americans pay about 17% in federal income tax.
Wage earners whose income is reported on a W2 pay more.
The tax code penalizes those who work and rewards the wealthy with low
taxes.
Yet, they piss and moan about high taxes.......liars all.
Well said.
John Galt
2010-05-03 00:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Post by John Galt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by hal
Post by * US *
Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class envy,
the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. By cutting taxes on the
wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who have
most of it anyway. Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of wage
earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
and "crippling".
1) The 1950's and today are not comparable vis a vis the need for
capital. Those were the "Leave it to Beaver" days, when Ward could be a
middle manager at a bank but still make enough to live in a very nice
middle class suburb while June drank coffee and wore housecoats all day.
Then hyperinflation hit in the 70's and ended all that. The US is not a
low-cost-of-living country anymore.
What does this have to do with tax rates on the rich? The rich have
more than enough so they don't have to worry about the cost of living.
Depends on where you draw the line, eh? The upper quintile in the US
starts at a family income of 350K. Depending on where you live, that's
either filthy rich or upper middle class.

But, more to the point, the rich might not care at all, as you say.
However, what you want is that money invested back into society creating
businesses and jobs, both of whom (in a healthy tax system) would then
pay even MORE taxes than the money you were going to take from the rich
guy. That's a win/win situation, compared to the higher tax rate
situation which is much less efficient.
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Say, what happened in the 70's to bring on hyperinflation? Oh yeah,
Nixon was elected.
Yes, and Nixon was "fortunate" enough to have to deal with the fact that
LBJ was the first president ever to fight a major war without raising
taxes, a pattern dubiously followed by the prior and current presidents.
Nixon chose to inflate our way out of the problem. Bad move, IMO, but
water under the bridge.
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Post by John Galt
2) The tax code prior to Reagan also included significant tax shelters
that were designed for the rich to utilize to lower their effective tax
rates.
Yeah, but the thing was, you had to EARN those tax breaks by creating
jobs. If you got your money from say, corporate raiding, expect a big
fat bill from the IRS.
Exactly. The best tax breaks need to be in capital invested directly in
businesses, rather than given to hedge fund managers.
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Post by John Galt
Effective tax rates before Reagan were the same as after Reagan,
even though top marginal dropped from 70% to 28%.
Oh, is that all? Yeah, no difference between 70% and 28%, no sirreee.
Ok, you need proof? No problem. Brookings Institutions tax site is all
we need:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

Two tables on this page matter: Effective Individual and Effective
Social Insurance tax rates.

1979: Lowest, mid, and highest quintiles (Individual) 0/7.5/15.7%
1979: Low, mid, high (Social) 5.3/8.6/5,4 (note the middle class getting
screwed)
1979 TOTAL: 5.3/16.1/21.1%. (Notice what the upper quintile was paying
despite the 70% top marginal rate. The tax shelters were used VERY
effectively.

1988: (Individual) -1.1/5.9/14.9
1988: (Social): 6.9/9.7/6.6
1988 TOTAL: 5.8%/15.6%/21.5%

So, under the 70% marginal rate, the upper quintile paid an effective
tax rate of 21.1%. Under the 28% marginal rate, they actually paid a bit
MORE (21.5%) due to the loss of the shelters and the increase in Social
Security taxes.
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Post by John Galt
3) But, more to the point, the *people* will decide what tax rates are
"too much", not pundits or politicians. They will make their analysis
based on their *current* disposable-income situation, not ancient
history, and the current condition of the US consumer WRT disposable
income is not good; politicians arguing to the contrary will end up in
the trash bin in this environment.
Yes, I'm sure the people will be sooooooo upset that the Wall Street
crowd is getting the shit taxed out of them, considering the great
economy they've given us.
Most people are not vindictive. They don't really give a shit about Wall
Street; what they care about are their own jobs and their own standards
of living. What happens to Goldman is a sideshow compared to feeding
your family.

JG
* US *
2010-05-03 01:32:14 UTC
Permalink
Most people are not vindictive ...
They don't really want to support war crimes.
Frank Pittel
2010-05-02 06:28:37 UTC
Permalink
In alt.politics.usa.republican Mitchell Holman <***@comcast.net> wrote:
: hal wrote in news:***@news.newsguy.com:

: > On Sat, 01 May 2010 12:49:04 GMT, ***@MyHouse. (* US *) wrote:
: >
: >>Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class envy,
: >>the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
: >
: > Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. By cutting taxes on the
: > wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who have
: > most of it anyway. Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of wage
: > earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
: >


: The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
: boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
: the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
: and "crippling".

There were a lot more tax deductions back then. People didn't pay 91% on their
income. Nice lie good to see that you're dumb enough to believe it.
--
-------------------
Keep working dumbo needs the money
* US *
2010-05-02 12:38:14 UTC
Permalink
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
F***@Vetzer.com
2010-05-02 14:29:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 02 May 2010 01:28:37 -0500, Frank Pittel
Post by Frank Pittel
: The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
: boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
: the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
: and "crippling".
There were a lot more tax deductions back then. People didn't pay 91% on their
income.
Lower income earners pay a bigger percentage of their disposable
income than the wealth class.
Mitchell Holman
2010-05-02 14:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Pittel
: >
: >>Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class
: >>envy, the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
: >
: > Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. By cutting taxes on the
: > wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who
: > have most of it anyway. Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of
: > wage earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
: >
: The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
: boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
: the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
: and "crippling".
There were a lot more tax deductions back then.
Wrong. The tax code is FULL of deductions now that
didn't exist then. IRA's, Keogh's, alternative minimum
taxes, energy tax credits, disability exclusions, work
incentive (WIN) credits, child care credits, medical
insurance deductions, health saving accounts, Lifetime
Learning nonrefundable education credits - the number
and complexity of deductions has mushroomed.

Why do you think we have so many consumer tax prep
companies that didn't exist in the simpler tax era
50 years ago?



"Combined, the federal income tax code and regulations
grew from 744,000 words in 1955 to 6,929,000 today - an
increase of 831 percent. In 1954, federal income tax law
was comprised of 103 code sections. Today, there are 725
income tax code sections, a 604 percent increase"

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/9bd6c31673d5cc3023471165d273b6b3.pdf


Consider yourself corrected.
* US *
2010-05-02 15:17:18 UTC
Permalink
...The tax code is FULL of deductions now that
didn't exist then. IRA's, Keogh's, alternative minimum
taxes, energy tax credits, disability exclusions, work
incentive (WIN) credits, child care credits, medical
insurance deductions, health saving accounts, Lifetime
Learning nonrefundable education credits - the number
and complexity of deductions has mushroomed.
Why do you think we have so many consumer tax prep
companies that didn't exist in the simpler tax era
50 years ago?
"Combined, the federal income tax code and regulations
grew from 744,000 words in 1955 to 6,929,000 today - an
increase of 831 percent. In 1954, federal income tax law
was comprised of 103 code sections. Today, there are 725
income tax code sections, a 604 percent increase"
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/9bd6c31673d5cc3023471165d273b6b3.pdf
Consider yourself corrected.
Good work. Subject line updated to reflect reality.
Sid9
2010-05-02 15:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Frank Pittel
: >
: >>Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class
: >>envy, the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
: >
: > Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. By cutting taxes on the
: > wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who
: > have most of it anyway. Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of
: > wage earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
: >
: The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
: boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
: the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
: and "crippling".
There were a lot more tax deductions back then.
Wrong. The tax code is FULL of deductions now that
didn't exist then. IRA's, Keogh's, alternative minimum
taxes, energy tax credits, disability exclusions, work
incentive (WIN) credits, child care credits, medical
insurance deductions, health saving accounts, Lifetime
Learning nonrefundable education credits - the number
and complexity of deductions has mushroomed.
Why do you think we have so many consumer tax prep
companies that didn't exist in the simpler tax era
50 years ago?
"Combined, the federal income tax code and regulations
grew from 744,000 words in 1955 to 6,929,000 today - an
increase of 831 percent. In 1954, federal income tax law
was comprised of 103 code sections. Today, there are 725
income tax code sections, a 604 percent increase"
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/9bd6c31673d5cc3023471165d273b6b3.pdf
Consider yourself corrected.
.
.
Wealthy people on average pay about 17% of their income in federal tax.

Our tax system is regressive favoring those who do not earn their money by
working.

We are a low tax nation. Because of it we can’t pay our bills and must
resort to borrowing.
* US *
2010-05-02 15:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Wealthy people on average pay about 17% of their income in federal tax.
Our tax system is regressive favoring those who do not earn their money by
working.
We are a low tax nation. Because of it we can’t pay our bills and must
resort to borrowing.
True.
Mitchell Holman
2010-05-02 18:45:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Wealthy people on average pay about 17% of their income in federal tax.
Our tax system is regressive favoring those who do not earn their
money by working.
We are a low tax nation. Because of it we can’t pay our bills and must
resort to borrowing.
True.
Tax and spend is more responsible than borrow and spend.

But guess which one the "fiscal conservative" Republicans prefer?



"In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to
be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion,
the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was
$208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those
eight years, the United States moved from being the world's
largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26402-2004Jun
8.html
Miz Roselles Baby Daddy
2010-05-02 18:49:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 02 May 2010 13:45:55 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Sid9
Wealthy people on average pay about 17% of their income in federal tax.
Our tax system is regressive favoring those who do not earn their
money by working.
We are a low tax nation. Because of it we can’t pay our bills and must
resort to borrowing.
True.
Tax and spend is more responsible than borrow and spend.
Your boy is doing both.
Post by Mitchell Holman
But guess which one the "fiscal conservative" Republicans prefer?
"In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to
be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion,
the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was
$208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those
eight years, the United States moved from being the world's
largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26402-2004Jun
8.html
Sid9
2010-05-02 20:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Miz Roselles Baby Daddy
On Sun, 02 May 2010 13:45:55 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Sid9
Wealthy people on average pay about 17% of their income in federal tax.
Our tax system is regressive favoring those who do not earn their
money by working.
We are a low tax nation. Because of it we can’t pay our bills and must
resort to borrowing.
True.
Tax and spend is more responsible than borrow and spend.
Your boy is doing both.
Post by Mitchell Holman
But guess which one the "fiscal conservative" Republicans prefer?
"In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to
be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion,
the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was
$208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those
eight years, the United States moved from being the world's
largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26402-2004Jun
8.html
.
.
.
He's doing what's needed based on the mess Republicans left for him.

Before he leaves office we will be on the road to fiscal sanity
* US *
2010-05-02 20:44:12 UTC
Permalink
.He's doing what's needed based on the mess Republicans left for him.
Before he leaves office we will be on the road to fiscal sanity
That is quite a mess the neocons left.
Miz Roselles Baby Daddy
2010-05-02 21:01:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Post by Miz Roselles Baby Daddy
On Sun, 02 May 2010 13:45:55 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Sid9
Wealthy people on average pay about 17% of their income in federal tax.
Our tax system is regressive favoring those who do not earn their
money by working.
We are a low tax nation. Because of it we can’t pay our bills and must
resort to borrowing.
True.
Tax and spend is more responsible than borrow and spend.
Your boy is doing both.
So typical of the chicken shit lib not to hold blacks accountable.
Post by Sid9
Post by Miz Roselles Baby Daddy
Post by Mitchell Holman
But guess which one the "fiscal conservative" Republicans prefer?
"In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to
be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion,
the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was
$208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those
eight years, the United States moved from being the world's
largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26402-2004Jun
8.html
.
.
.
He's doing what's needed based on the mess Republicans left for him.
Before he leaves office we will be on the road to fiscal sanity
* US *
2010-05-02 20:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Sid9
Wealthy people on average pay about 17% of their income in federal tax.
Our tax system is regressive favoring those who do not earn their
money by working.
We are a low tax nation. Because of it we can’t pay our bills and must
resort to borrowing.
True.
Tax and spend is more responsible than borrow and spend.
But guess which one the "fiscal conservative" Republicans prefer?
"In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to
be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion,
the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was
$208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those
eight years, the United States moved from being the world's
largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26402-2004Jun8.html
Exactly.
Sid9
2010-05-02 20:59:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by * US *
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Sid9
Wealthy people on average pay about 17% of their income in federal tax.
Our tax system is regressive favoring those who do not earn their
money by working.
We are a low tax nation. Because of it we can't pay our bills and must
resort to borrowing.
True.
Tax and spend is more responsible than borrow and spend.
But guess which one the "fiscal conservative" Republicans prefer?
"In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to
be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion,
the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was
$208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those
eight years, the United States moved from being the world's
largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26402-2004Jun8.html
Exactly.
.
.
Reagan had Americans frightened by the Soviet boogeyman.
An unfounded fear of an enemy that was on the verge of internal collapse.

It was public knowledge that the Soviet Union (Communism) was a failure.

The CIA's economic unit knew it.

Nonetheless Reagan went ahead with a major armament program...all on
borrowed money.

The finishing touch was bush,jr's unnecessary and unfunded war in Iraq...all
based on lies.

What was accomplished?

bush,jr wiped out Iraq, Iran's most potent enemy in the region and America
was left with a huge debt.

Now we have the threat of a nuclear Iran.

Now we need some cooperation from the party of "NO" to help the Obama
administration resolve the mess that was created by Reagan, HW Bush, and his
incompetent son, bush,jr.
.
.
Your ranting and negativism does nothing useful.
* US *
2010-05-02 22:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Post by * US *
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Sid9
Wealthy people on average pay about 17% of their income in federal tax.
Our tax system is regressive favoring those who do not earn their
money by working.
We are a low tax nation. Because of it we can't pay our bills and must
resort to borrowing.
True.
Tax and spend is more responsible than borrow and spend.
But guess which one the "fiscal conservative" Republicans prefer?
"In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to
be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion,
the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was
$208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those
eight years, the United States moved from being the world's
largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26402-2004Jun8.html
Exactly.
.
.
Reagan had Americans frightened by the Soviet boogeyman.
An unfounded fear of an enemy that was on the verge of internal collapse.
It was public knowledge that the Soviet Union (Communism) was a failure.
The CIA's economic unit knew it.
Nonetheless Reagan went ahead with a major armament program...all on
borrowed money.
The finishing touch was bush,jr's unnecessary and unfunded war in Iraq...all
based on lies.
What was accomplished?
bush,jr wiped out Iraq, Iran's most potent enemy in the region and America
was left with a huge debt.
Now we have the threat of a nuclear Iran.
Now we need some cooperation from the party of "NO" to help the Obama
administration resolve the mess that was created by Reagan, HW Bush, and his
incompetent son, bush,jr.
Don't hold your breath.
Post by Sid9
Your ranting and negativism ...
You're imagining things.
Sid9
2010-05-02 23:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by * US *
Post by Sid9
Post by Miz Roselles Baby Daddy
On Sun, 02 May 2010 13:45:55 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Sid9
Wealthy people on average pay about 17% of their income in federal tax.
Our tax system is regressive favoring those who do not earn their
money by working.
We are a low tax nation. Because of it we can't pay our bills and must
resort to borrowing.
True.
Tax and spend is more responsible than borrow and spend.
But guess which one the "fiscal conservative" Republicans prefer?
"In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to
be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion,
the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was
$208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those
eight years, the United States moved from being the world's
largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26402-2004Jun8.html
Exactly.
.
.
Reagan had Americans frightened by the Soviet boogeyman.
An unfounded fear of an enemy that was on the verge of internal collapse.
It was public knowledge that the Soviet Union (Communism) was a failure.
The CIA's economic unit knew it.
Nonetheless Reagan went ahead with a major armament program...all on
borrowed money.
The finishing touch was bush,jr's unnecessary and unfunded war in Iraq...all
based on lies.
What was accomplished?
bush,jr wiped out Iraq, Iran's most potent enemy in the region and America
was left with a huge debt.
Now we have the threat of a nuclear Iran.
Now we need some cooperation from the party of "NO" to help the Obama
administration resolve the mess that was created by Reagan, HW Bush, and his
incompetent son, bush,jr.
Don't hold your breath.
Post by Sid9
Your ranting and negativism ...
You're imagining things.
.
.
Neither party has sufficient votes to win elections.

BOTH need voters from the center.

It cheers me to hear Limbo working at purifying the Republican Party.

The ousting of Crist by far right wing Rubio in Florida is good for America.

Bob Bennett a long time senator now faces a primary fight from the extreme
right wing of his party.

The "Middle" of America will not find these candidates acceptable.

(I hope.)
* US *
2010-05-03 01:16:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Post by * US *
Post by Sid9
Post by * US *
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Sid9
Wealthy people on average pay about 17% of their income in federal tax.
Our tax system is regressive favoring those who do not earn their
money by working.
We are a low tax nation. Because of it we can't pay our bills and must
resort to borrowing.
True.
Tax and spend is more responsible than borrow and spend.
But guess which one the "fiscal conservative" Republicans prefer?
"In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to
be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion,
the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was
$208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those
eight years, the United States moved from being the world's
largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26402-2004Jun8.html
Exactly.
Reagan had Americans frightened by the Soviet boogeyman.
An unfounded fear of an enemy that was on the verge of internal collapse.
It was public knowledge that the Soviet Union (Communism) was a failure.
The CIA's economic unit knew it.
Nonetheless Reagan went ahead with a major armament program...all on
borrowed money.
The finishing touch was bush,jr's unnecessary and unfunded war in
Iraq...all based on lies.
What was accomplished?
bush,jr wiped out Iraq, Iran's most potent enemy in the region and America
was left with a huge debt.
Now we have the threat of a nuclear Iran.
Now we need some cooperation from the party of "NO" to help the Obama
administration resolve the mess that was created by Reagan, HW Bush, and
his incompetent son, bush,jr.
Don't hold your breath.
[...]
Post by Sid9
.
Neither party has sufficient votes to win elections.
BOTH need voters from the center.
It cheers me to hear Limbo working at purifying the Republican Party.
The ousting of Crist by far right wing Rubio in Florida is good for America.
Bob Bennett a long time senator now faces a primary fight from the extreme
right wing of his party.
The "Middle" of America will not find these candidates acceptable.
(I hope.)
I think you're absolutely right, Sid9.
Frank Pittel
2010-05-03 01:55:33 UTC
Permalink
In alt.politics.usa.republican Mitchell Holman <***@comcast.net> wrote:
: Frank Pittel <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in
: news:792dnQI-***@giganews.com:

: > In alt.politics.usa.republican Mitchell Holman <***@comcast.net>
: > wrote:
: >: hal wrote in news:***@news.newsguy.com:
: >
: >: > On Sat, 01 May 2010 12:49:04 GMT, ***@MyHouse. (* US *) wrote:
: >: >
: >: >>Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class
: >: >>envy, the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
: >: >
: >: > Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. By cutting taxes on the
: >: > wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who
: >: > have most of it anyway. Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of
: >: > wage earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
: >: >
: >
: >
: >: The tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, the economy
: >: boomed and the rich got richer. Now it is at 35% and
: >: the rich are whining about how it is "confiscatory"
: >: and "crippling".
: >
: > There were a lot more tax deductions back then.



: Wrong. The tax code is FULL of deductions now that
: didn't exist then. IRA's, Keogh's, alternative minimum
: taxes, energy tax credits, disability exclusions, work
: incentive (WIN) credits, child care credits, medical
: insurance deductions, health saving accounts, Lifetime
: Learning nonrefundable education credits - the number
: and complexity of deductions has mushroomed.

How many of those would have benifited those that were in the 90+%
tax brackets of the 50s? The fact is that people paid less in taxes
during the 50s then now.
--
-------------------
Keep working dumbo needs the money
* US *
2010-05-01 14:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
Post by * US *
Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class envy,
the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. By cutting taxes on the
wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who have
most of it anyway. Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of wage
earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
That's right.
Sid9
2010-05-01 14:54:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
Post by * US *
Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class envy,
the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. By cutting taxes on the
wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who have
most of it anyway. Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of wage
earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
Post by * US *
Hitler only did one
way, the Soviet communists only did one way, Obama is combining these
two techniques, and you see it right before your very eyes.
.
.
Persons whose income is reported on a W2...those that work...are taxed at
the highest rate.
Those whose income is reported of 1099DIV and 1099INT are favored by our tax
code.

The tax code frowns on those who work for their money
* US *
2010-05-02 00:38:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Persons whose income is reported on a W2...those that work...are taxed at
the highest rate.
Those whose income is reported of 1099DIV and 1099INT are favored by our tax
code.
The tax code frowns on those who work for their money
True.
RichTravsky
2010-05-02 02:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
Post by * US *
Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class envy,
the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.
Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. By cutting taxes on the
wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who have
most of it anyway. Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of wage
earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
Post by * US *
Hitler only did one
way, the Soviet communists only did one way, Obama is combining these
two techniques, and you see it right before your very eyes.
Mr.B1ack
2010-04-30 05:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Only in self-defense from the lefties ... who are
worse than Pol Pot and Mao.
* US *
2010-05-02 12:38:14 UTC
Permalink
http://armchairsubversive.org/
* US *
2010-05-02 12:38:14 UTC
Permalink
...dividing this country...
Nah, that's wash Bush and Reagan did. By cutting taxes on the
wealthy, you distribute more wealth and power towards people who have
most of it anyway. Sharply raising taxes on the upper 5% of wage
earners will make for a fairer and more stable society.
Good subject line correction!
Mitchell Holman
2010-05-01 13:35:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by * US *
Obama is dividing this country two ways. Dividing it on class envy,
the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race. Hitler only did one
way, the Soviet communists only did one way, Obama is combining these
two techniques, and you see it right before your very eyes.
If only we had a great uniter, like Joe the Plumber.

Sheesh.............
The PHANTOM
2010-05-01 13:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Obama is dividing this country two ways.  Dividing it on class envy,
the haves and have-nots, and dividing it on race.  Hitler only did one
way, the Soviet communists only did one way, Obama is combining these
two techniques, and you see it right before your very eyes.
   If only we had a great uniter, like Joe the Plumber.
   Sheesh.............
Or Joe"The Bloviator"Biden.
F***@Vetzer.com
2010-05-01 14:00:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 May 2010 06:56:28 -0700 (PDT), The PHANTOM
Post by The PHANTOM
   If only we had a great uniter, like Joe the Plumber.
   Sheesh.............
Or Joe"The Bloviator"Biden.
Biden is rational
* US *
2010-05-01 14:09:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by F***@Vetzer.com
Biden is rational
That's a trait the teabagot can't understand and thus must fear.
* US *
2010-05-01 14:04:16 UTC
Permalink
Hitler and Stalin hated liberals.
* US *
2010-05-01 14:03:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
If only we had a great uniter, like Joe the Plumber.
Sheesh.............
Yes.
* US *
2010-05-02 00:48:09 UTC
Permalink
...Hitler ...
Wow! A quote straight from Rush-the pimple ass druggie-Limballs. Now we
know who does your thinking for you, the epileptic radio entertainer.
Good call.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...