"...They are currently trying to run this country into the ground at full speed and succeeding...." - DJ
I truely don't understand how you can say that after the Bush years. There is very little 'ground' left to run into. All the money was given to the military industrial complex....and then the banks...and then the largest corps. ..and then.... This was the neocon plan all along. This is not conjecture. It is clearly stated in many of their manafestos. They wanted to spend all of the public wealth (read: give it to the 'haves') and leave the funds dry. That way there would be nothing left for any sort of social welfare. I'd say they were quite successful. What little tinkering the Dems are doing seems to at least share the additional debt being racked up with haves and have-nots.. since the latter have been ignored for way too long I see little harm in comparison. If I had a dollar for every time I heard 'the middle class'.....I'd be rich. The notion of the common good has waxed and all but disappeared. On Mar 3, 5:55 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > Republican majority, yes. Republican controlled, um, I think not. > Semantics, perhaps, but the Dems did some damage and were a general > nuisance with what passes for a filibuster these days. Repubs don't > have enough to filibuster now. We actually have a Dem. controlled > Congress. They are currently trying to run this country into the > ground at full speed and succeeding. I'm on pins and needles waiting > to see what moonbats get appointed as supreme court justices. > Conservatives don't have the votes to block anything. > > Please don't mistake me for a fan of Bush. Clinton, despite being a > lying hound dog, was the better president. I would not have admitted > that in 2004, but I freely admit it now. He absolutely deserved the > impeachment but even back then I was glad he wasn't removed from > office. > > dj > > > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > "...In fact, at the beginning of Bush's administration, he brought > > the > > problem before the then democratic controlled congress...." - Craig > > > Before we revise history too much, when bush took office, the House > > was controlled by the Republicans and was throughout his > > administration. The Senate started out controlled by Cheney...the tie > > breaker of 50/50.....later a republican switched to independent. And > > it switched back and forth. So, historically, the congress was > > Republican controlled when Bush took office. > > For those who have forgotten, the vote to impeach Clinton was made by > > a Republican controlled branch too. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/107th_United_States_Congress#Party_summary > > > On Mar 3, 10:04 am, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Slip, > >> Are you serious? You think its the financial institutions fault? You > >> really think they would have lent to people that they knew wouldn't > >> pay them back out of their own free will? The institutions were > >> coerced to do what they did. Equal Housing Opportunity, imposed by > >> the government, is what brought this whole thing to fruition. The > >> institutions would not have lent to people that could not afford to > >> pay the institutions back. They are in the business of making money, > >> not throwing it away. > >> In fact, at the beginning of Bush's administration, he brought the > >> problem before the then democratic controlled congress. They gave him > >> a big middle finger and told him not to mess with their Equal Housing > >> Opportunity pet project. He backed off, and that is why we are in the > >> mess we are in now. If he would have went after that as aggressively > >> as he did Iraq we might not be in as big of economic mess now. > > >> On Mar 2, 9:27 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > I apologize for the belated welcome but nevertheless, Welcome! > >> > What you have to understand, wood, is that many people have not the > >> > slightest idea of financial calculation and are "told" by financial > >> > experts that they "can" afford the house, the car, the credit card. > >> > We cannot blame the people alone but more so the financial > >> > institutions that have taken advantage of those who cannot perceive > >> > their own financial worth and capability of repayment. The US > >> > unfortunately is full of sharks that have taken control of government, > >> > taken control of the poor situations in which people live. > >> > Who of you out there would not want to have a better home, car, and > >> > other amenities in life? > >> > What is happening now is an "Atrocity" perpetrated by the wealthy in > >> > control of the government. > > >> > On Mar 2, 8:02 pm, wood <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > As much as I would love to blame, the government for this mess, but > >> > > the government is not entirely to blame—The problem is closer to home. > >> > > People only have themselves to blame for putting themselves into > >> > > situation they could have avoid only if they were mentally stronger, > >> > > and not be blinded by false dreams and value. In trying to live the > >> > > “American dreams” people makes premature decision; buying house they > >> > > know they cannot afford, cars they can’t maintain… All for what? > >> > > People need to change their outlook on life and stop falling victim to > >> > > mind imprisonment. In the drive to establish independency and > >> > > individuality, everyone has become the same. > > >> > > On Feb 26, 4:17 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > "... Now our government is trying to keep deadbeats in houses they > >> > > > can't afford and shouldn't have gotten loans for in the first place. > >> > > > It's asinine." - DJ > > >> > > > What is even more 'asinine' and is not being talked about at ALL in > >> > > > any media is that those of us who don't even own a house, whether we > >> > > > could afford one or not ...and rent or...whatever, live on the > >> > > > street, > >> > > > at parent's home etc. are among those who are PAYING the banks to > >> > > > help > >> > > > keep people in homes! It's not even asinine, it is criminal! > > >> > > > On Feb 26, 2:42 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > Government is the problem because they manage the tax code. It's > >> > > > > so > >> > > > > confusing the guy hired to be in charge of it can't figure out how > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > pay his taxes. Let's make it easy. How about a flat tax on all > >> > > > > income and consumption? Without the loopholes that are so abundant > >> > > > > for the extremely wealthy to avoid taxes. I love the idea. Of > >> > > > > course, this would eliminate Congress's major power of > >> > > > > reward/punishment ability so it will never happen. The > >> > > > > bribes...oops, > >> > > > > I mean campaign donations... would dry up. > > >> > > > > dj > > >> > > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:45 PM, ornamentalmind > > >> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > > Yes, it is fran. Today many who pay a lot in taxes, not > >> > > > > > percentage > >> > > > > > wise, but in amount based on a large income don't mind at all. > >> > > > > > Only a > >> > > > > > select vocal few are heard in the media to the point that such > >> > > > > > propaganda about the government being the problem (Ronnie)....has > >> > > > > > become a common myth. I've said it many times...when I was a > >> > > > > > kid, my > >> > > > > > father paid 91% of his income in taxes...and, we did VERY > >> > > > > > well....no > >> > > > > > complaints. Today, in most cases, the poor pay a higher > >> > > > > > percentage of > >> > > > > > their income in taxes than the rich. Robin Hood aside, this is > >> > > > > > absurd > >> > > > > > no matter the argument. > > >> > > > > > On Feb 25, 9:28 am, frantheman <[email protected]> > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> Don's - of course - purely rhetorical suggestion about the > >> > > > > >> non-payment > >> > > > > >> of taxes seems to echo a certain US American mythology that > >> > > > > >> there's > >> > > > > >> something un-american about paying taxes, as well as there being > >> > > > > >> something inherently suspect about (central) government. > > >> > > > > >> Nobody likes paying taxes and very few would even consider > >> > > > > >> paying more > >> > > > > >> than they absolutely have to - including me. But I must also > >> > > > > >> acknowledge that taxation is the basic method for paying for > >> > > > > >> things > >> > > > > >> which a country/community/society feels need to be organised > >> > > > > >> collectively. It belongs to the basic ideas of self-definition > >> > > > > >> of a > >> > > > > >> country/community/society to decide what these collective tasks > >> > > > > >> are > >> > > > > >> and how far they should be funded by the common purse. > > >> > > > > >> Even as a non-US American, I seem to remember that the rallying > >> > > > > >> cry > >> > > > > >> for the American Revolution was not, "No taxation," but rather > >> > > > > >> "No > >> > > > > >> taxation without representation." The USA established itself on > >> > > > > >> this > >> > > > > >> basis as a representative democracy. Everything else flows from > >> > > > > >> that. > >> > > > > >> To use the language of 18th Century political thinkers, that's > >> > > > > >> the > >> > > > > >> basic social contract and there's no way to opt out of it and > >> > > > > >> back to > >> > > > > >> the "state of nature." As far as I recall, the US fought a > >> > > > > >> rather > >> > > > > >> spectacular civil war about that very issue. Those who wanted > >> > > > > >> the > >> > > > > >> right to opt out lost. > > >> > > > > >> None of this, of course, addresses problems of injustice within > >> > > > > >> particular taxation systems. But, strictly seen, that's what > >> > > > > >> has to be > >> > > > > >> sorted out within the representative democracy framework. Or, > >> > > > > >> if your > >> > > > > >> conscientious objections lead you to refuse, then you must > >> > > > > >> accept the > >> > > > > >> consequences. In my opinion, that's the kind of bravery Orn is > >> > > > > >> talking > >> > > > > >> about. > > >> > > > > >> Francis > > >> > > > > >> On 25 Feb., 16:50, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > >> > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > First, since the US stopped being serious about tariffs, > >> > > > > >> > taxes are > >> > > > > >> > needed for the common good. The IRS has been under-funded for > >> > > > > >> > years > >> > > > > >> > and the result(s) is they only go after those accounts that > >> > > > > >> > will be > >> > > > > >> > easy to collect. read: the accounts of the > >> > > > > >> > non-powerful/non-rich. > >> > > > > >> > Our founding fathers not only decided not to continue to pay > >> > > > > >> > their > >> > > > > >> > taxes, but they took action that would have resulted in their > >> > > > > >> > death if > >> > > > > >> > caught. Almost to a man, they died in poverty. Few today are > >> > > > > >> > as brave. > > >> > > > > >> > On Feb 24, 6:41 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > Sure, the Duty of Civil Disobedience, good ole Thoreau. > >> > > > > >> > > Truthfully, > >> > > > > >> > > they already have the tax money, now it's people filing > >> > > > > >> > > returns hoping > >> > > > > >> > > to get something back from the forced prepay plan. You > >> > > > > >> > > can't get a > >> > > > > >> > > job at any corporation if you tell them you will pay your > >> > > > > >> > > own taxes > >> > > > > >> > > from a 1099. The IRS spends hundreds of thousands on paper > >> > > > > >> > > alone plus > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
