Re: McCain's Big Backfire: Majority of Americans Like the Idea of Spreading the Wealth

[Maax Well]

On Nov 1, 5:56 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maax,
>
> I know, and you are correct.
>
> Why do you think I'm voting Democratic?

I don't know anything about you other than you are in this group.  I
would have to guess you are either livin off the state and are excited
to get the pay raise or you are a mind numb liberal who thinks you are
winning at something here and you just can't believe the Obama plan
will cost you anything.  Haven't figured it for sure yet.

>
> On Nov 1, 2:40 pm, Maax Well <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Do you understand that the big government creates an enviroment that
> > limits competition for big corps.  If the government gets out of the
> > way natural competition keeps the corps in check.  They have to be
> > competitive to survive.  The salaries would be naturally kept in check
> > from one company to the next, until another guy figures out to do more
> > faster, cheaper or better or all of the above.  Corporations buy
> > government officials so they can make more money, golf more & so on.
> > Voting big government is a vote for bigger salaries and more abuse.
> > Is this so tough to understand?
>
> > On Nov 1, 8:42 am, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > mark,
>
> > > So, you have no problems with pension funds of working people being
> > > looted at will? I didn't see you argueing with or refuting that
> > > statement, did I?
>
> > > On Nov 1, 9:05 am, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > at least the "evil" billionaires run businesses that provide products
> > > > that make your life easier, healthier, and better.  while the people
> > > > nobama wants to give my hard earned money too provide nothing to
> > > > society except a huge blackhole.
>
> > > > On Nov 1, 8:15 am, margareth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > They are even more impressed with the way that the republicans have
> > > > > collected money from those workers who fear for their high paying
> > > > > factory jobs to give to the billionaire bankers who have already run
> > > > > through their pension funds. lol. .
>
> > > > > On Nov 1, 5:34 am, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > the majority of crackheads, layabouts, black teenage mothers, and 
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > typical liberal.  real people who work for a living, however, do not
> > > > > > like the idea of barry taking their money and giving it to the
> > > > > > clueless.
>
> > > > > > On Nov 1, 6:16 am, "mike [move on] 532" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > McCain's Big Backfire: Majority of Americans Like the Idea of
> > > > > > > Spreading the Wealthhttp://www.alternet.org/democracy/105652/
> > > > > > > It must come as a surprise to the Republicans that the public 
> > > > > > > favors
> > > > > > > Obama's style of wealth spreading by a whopping margin. John 
> > > > > > > McCain
> > > > > > > and Joe the Plumber are campaigning for Barack Obama, and they 
> > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > even know it. The more McCain has ramped up his attacks on Obama 
> > > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > "spreader of wealth," the more the country has lined up behind the
> > > > > > > Democrat's plan to spread the wealth. If McCain's economic agenda 
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > a gun and his attacks on Obama's agenda the bullets, the old 
> > > > > > > soldier
> > > > > > > would have shot both his feet clean off a long time ago.
>
> > > > > > > Watching the GOP's coordinated if increasingly delirious attacks 
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > Obama's economic plan, it's clear that the party is even further 
> > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > of touch with the America of 2008 than previously imagined. After
> > > > > > > eight years of establishing and then extending America's lead as 
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > most unequal of all industrialized countries, Republicans thought 
> > > > &

Re: McCain's Big Backfire: Majority of Americans Like the Idea of Spreading the Wealth

[Maax Well]

Do you understand that the big government creates an enviroment that
limits competition for big corps.  If the government gets out of the
way natural competition keeps the corps in check.  They have to be
competitive to survive.  The salaries would be naturally kept in check
from one company to the next, until another guy figures out to do more
faster, cheaper or better or all of the above.  Corporations buy
government officials so they can make more money, golf more & so on.
Voting big government is a vote for bigger salaries and more abuse.
Is this so tough to understand?

On Nov 1, 8:42 am, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mark,
>
> So, you have no problems with pension funds of working people being
> looted at will? I didn't see you argueing with or refuting that
> statement, did I?
>
> On Nov 1, 9:05 am, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > at least the "evil" billionaires run businesses that provide products
> > that make your life easier, healthier, and better.  while the people
> > nobama wants to give my hard earned money too provide nothing to
> > society except a huge blackhole.
>
> > On Nov 1, 8:15 am, margareth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > They are even more impressed with the way that the republicans have
> > > collected money from those workers who fear for their high paying
> > > factory jobs to give to the billionaire bankers who have already run
> > > through their pension funds. lol. .
>
> > > On Nov 1, 5:34 am, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > the majority of crackheads, layabouts, black teenage mothers, and your
> > > > typical liberal.  real people who work for a living, however, do not
> > > > like the idea of barry taking their money and giving it to the
> > > > clueless.
>
> > > > On Nov 1, 6:16 am, "mike [move on] 532" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > McCain's Big Backfire: Majority of Americans Like the Idea of
> > > > > Spreading the Wealthhttp://www.alternet.org/democracy/105652/
> > > > > It must come as a surprise to the Republicans that the public favors
> > > > > Obama's style of wealth spreading by a whopping margin. John McCain
> > > > > and Joe the Plumber are campaigning for Barack Obama, and they don't
> > > > > even know it. The more McCain has ramped up his attacks on Obama as a
> > > > > "spreader of wealth," the more the country has lined up behind the
> > > > > Democrat's plan to spread the wealth. If McCain's economic agenda was
> > > > > a gun and his attacks on Obama's agenda the bullets, the old soldier
> > > > > would have shot both his feet clean off a long time ago.
>
> > > > > Watching the GOP's coordinated if increasingly delirious attacks on
> > > > > Obama's economic plan, it's clear that the party is even further out
> > > > > of touch with the America of 2008 than previously imagined. After
> > > > > eight years of establishing and then extending America's lead as the
> > > > > most unequal of all industrialized countries, Republicans thought they
> > > > > could deflect a national groundswell of righteous anger by dusting off
> > > > > and hurling every insult in the conservative arsenal, including old
> > > > > favorites "extremist," "radical," "Marxist" and "socialist." One
> > > > > suspects they are saving "anarchist" and "Hessian" for McCain's last-
> > > > > gasp speech on Monday.
>
> > > > > But a funny thing happened on the way to the Republican hammer-and-
> > > > > sickle-themed haunted house: Nobody showed. The McCain campaign's
> > > > > attempts to smear Obama as a Trojan donkey for socialistic un-
> > > > > Americanism have belly-flopped, if not backfired. Obama has not only
> > > > > maintained a stable lead under the Republican barrage, he has
> > > > > increased his positives in the traditionally Republican territory of
> > > > > taxes. The final national polls before Tuesday all show a national
> > > > > hunger for national wealth redistribution downward. An Ipsos/McClatchy
> > > > > poll finds that likely voters prefer Obama's tax plan to McCain's by 8
> > > > > points. Pew says Obama added to his edge on taxes and the economy
> > > > > between mid-September and mid-October by 6 points, jumping from 44 to
> > > > > 39 earlier to 50 to 35. On Oct. 30, Gallup released results showing
> > > > > Americans favor Obama's style of wealth spreading by a whopping 58-
> > > > > to-37 margin.
>
> > > > > It appears the nation's sanity and sense of fairness has reasserted
> > > > > itself to wipe the floor with condescending GOP red-baiting.
>
> > > > > It hasn't hurt that the GOP attacks have been absurd on their face. A
> > > > > 3-point increase in the top marginal income tax rate to 39 percent is
> > > > > not easily morphed into the face of Pol Pot. For much of the 20th
> > > > > century, the top income tax rate in the United States slid between 50
> > > > > percent and 90 percent, peaking at 94 percent during the final two
> > > > > years of World War II. Most Americans would agree that the mid-ce

Re: The "Bad Luck" of Poverty

[Maax Well]

It's so sad that you want to blame the business for wanting to
succeed.  You should be angry at the government that is so corrupt
that it creates this enviroment.  Do you think it is possible that
business uses government to tilt the playing field in their favor? You
should direct your anger at big government that changes the rules in
favor of the big business.  We have people that want to succeed
already.  We need a level playing field so we can all have a chance.
Voting for more government regulation is taking us the wrong
direction.  I can't believe everyone hates Ford for wanting succeed at
building cars.  The US is the last place a start up automaker would
want to begin.


On Nov 1, 4:48 am, margareth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The current difficulty is that there is a small group of businessmen
> who would stifle creativity, in order to preserve their social
> position. They restrict access to financing, and black list those who
> show any iniative. It is they who get the most aid from the community,
> because it is they who decide. This is the origin of the entropy that
> has been plaguing the North American economy for the last forty to
> sixty years.
>
> On Nov 1, 6:18 am, "d.b.baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >     [Q] - Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man.
> > Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now
> > and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently
> > despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-
> > thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or
> > (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then
> > slip back into abject poverty.
>
> >     This is known as "bad luck." - Robert Heinlein (1907 - 1988)- Hide 
> > quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: WOW

[Maax Well]

He is promising change, what about changing the flag?  What's wrong
with that? Maybe he has a better flag for us.  He apparently has a
better idea for us, about what we should do with our money.

On Oct 31, 6:23 am, Philobealo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some might say trivial mistake. More like a pattern
>
> The 2008 DNC Convention ticket shows American flag upside down -
> amazing!
>
> Let’s see now………..
> Obama does not wear a flag pin because it does not represent 'true
> patriotism'
> Obama does not hold his hand over his heart during the
> National anthem.
> Obama's campaign remakes the Presidential seal using his
> logo and slogan in Latin.
> Obama takes the American flag off of his campaign plane.
> Obama puts the Obama logo and 'President' on his first class leather
> chair in his new campaign plane.
> Now the DNC puts the American flag upside down on its convention
> tickets.
> Coincidence? I think not.
> Anti-war protestors typically carry or display the American flag
> upside down.
> Anti-American rallies display the flag upside down…or burn it.
> The rules on display of the American flag are very specific, 'Section
> 8,…….
> The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a
> signal of dire distress in instances
> of extreme danger to life or property.'
> Is it just me………..does anyone else see a correlation here?
>
> http://amerpundit.com/2008/08/19/dnc-badges-depict-upside-down-flag/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: so who's gonna watch the new sitcom at 8:00 tonight?

[Maax Well]

It is apparently OK to be sexist in this country, but certainly if you
criticize a person of color you are a racist.  Of the four candidates
running. Palin would be the most likely to be decisive and actuate
some change.  She is the only one of them that is not an insider and
she has definitely not been afraid to shake it up in her duties so
far. She is not the first vice presidential candiate or would not be
the first president to have the same resume of governing to fall back
on.  The media has succeeded at making a joke of her.  It amazes me
the women in the country let it stand.  She is self made, she was not
married to a previous president. Her husband appears to support her
decision to serve.  She is the only one of them that inspires any hope
for me.

> It is a sad
> time in our election history when we have to choose among such
> assholes. I think they are all a waste of time.

Here is something to consider.  Of the two parties there is only a
very small percentage that will consider an alternative.  Most people
feel they have to vote the party their dad's told them to or the party
their dad told them not to. Whatever, they only vote one way and will
only vote one way.  There are other candidates running and they are
offering ideas to bring REAL change. They are not bought and paid
for.  These are the candidates we need to be considering.  The reason
is that if you believe in an idea that will work and we can get enough
support for it and it would not take that much by the way, the robots
will have to bring it into their campaigns.  It is not an overnight
solution, but how about getting to work on it so the prevailing
attitudes is not;

>It is a sad
> time in our election history when we have to choose among such
> assholes. I think they are all a waste of time.

The state of California will elect Obama by a wide margin regardless.
People here can vote their conscience and they are not going to do
anymore than make their beliefs known!  We need to be sending a
message.


On Oct 29, 6:15 pm, WarpTen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point is that Mark starts out this post without even the slightest
> notion of what is going to be seen. This is like vigilante justice.
> Prejudge and Hang!
> This only serves to show that some people are just predisposed without
> basis.  Its prejudice and discrimination without basis. Its bullshit
> period.
> This is not discussion but merely a vent for people to trash the
> opposition and if that is what this forum is about I find it another
> sad situation. Whether I agree or disagree I would surely not make
> comment on something I have not yet personally witnessed.
> Having watched it now I could say that I found it a bit Disney but
> there are some pertinent points that are being presented. Obama is not
> totally wrong and neither is McCain, however, weighing out the two
> parties I would only rule out McCain for his blunder of the Palin
> choice. She just doesn't strike me as someone who has the all of it to
> take over.  Palin is, as First Lady Laura Bush stated, a quick study.
> If only McCain would have picked someone else but even so he seems a
> bit senile at times and I'm not sure he is all together. It is a sad
> time in our election history when we have to choose among such
> assholes. I think they are all a waste of time.
>
> On Oct 29, 7:30 pm, Maax Well <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I plan to watch, but will keep barf bags close by.  I hope to hear
> > some detail regarding the depth he plans to bury the old stinger in
> > the tailpipe.  I am not counting on any details until he has taken the
> > throne, though. Wouldn't want to ruin the buzz he's got with this
> > batch of Koolaid.
>
> > On Oct 29, 5:18 pm, WarpTen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > One thing I never have any respect for is close minded people who
> > > merely speak from their ignorance. If we are to make any decisions in
> > > the world it should be based upon the knowledge of all aspects of the
> > > issues.
> > > Your display of prejudice and discrimination are highly apparent in
> > > your posts. Your high school mentality needs overhauling and tutoring
> > > to get you to the next level of understanding.
> > > You are immature in the history of this country and therefore are not
> > > capable of exuding any level of understanding other than blatant
> > > attacks against that which you do not understand.
> > > You are biased to the point of blindness.
> > > Open your eyes to the larger image.
> > > This is not 1959.
> > > This country has struggled to grow, and so has grown because we are a
> > > people of will, so grow with it.
> > > You want

Re: so who's gonna watch the new sitcom at 8:00 tonight?

[Maax Well]

If no one had ever heard a word he said up to this point other than to
see him physically, what you're saying would be valid.  The problem is
that if you have paid any attention so far, it is a given that Obama
wants to raise taxes and increase the size of government.  What is
left to find out are the details of this plan.  For many of us this is
really hard to watch, painfull maybe a better way to put it.  As
predicted he promised far more than he will be able to pay for even
with the increase in taxes he is admitting to.

On Oct 29, 6:15 pm, WarpTen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point is that Mark starts out this post without even the slightest
> notion of what is going to be seen. This is like vigilante justice.
> Prejudge and Hang!
> This only serves to show that some people are just predisposed without
> basis.  Its prejudice and discrimination without basis. Its bullshit
> period.
> This is not discussion but merely a vent for people to trash the
> opposition and if that is what this forum is about I find it another
> sad situation. Whether I agree or disagree I would surely not make
> comment on something I have not yet personally witnessed.
> Having watched it now I could say that I found it a bit Disney but
> there are some pertinent points that are being presented. Obama is not
> totally wrong and neither is McCain, however, weighing out the two
> parties I would only rule out McCain for his blunder of the Palin
> choice. She just doesn't strike me as someone who has the all of it to
> take over.  Palin is, as First Lady Laura Bush stated, a quick study.
> If only McCain would have picked someone else but even so he seems a
> bit senile at times and I'm not sure he is all together. It is a sad
> time in our election history when we have to choose among such
> assholes. I think they are all a waste of time.
>
> On Oct 29, 7:30 pm, Maax Well <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I plan to watch, but will keep barf bags close by.  I hope to hear
> > some detail regarding the depth he plans to bury the old stinger in
> > the tailpipe.  I am not counting on any details until he has taken the
> > throne, though. Wouldn't want to ruin the buzz he's got with this
> > batch of Koolaid.
>
> > On Oct 29, 5:18 pm, WarpTen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > One thing I never have any respect for is close minded people who
> > > merely speak from their ignorance. If we are to make any decisions in
> > > the world it should be based upon the knowledge of all aspects of the
> > > issues.
> > > Your display of prejudice and discrimination are highly apparent in
> > > your posts. Your high school mentality needs overhauling and tutoring
> > > to get you to the next level of understanding.
> > > You are immature in the history of this country and therefore are not
> > > capable of exuding any level of understanding other than blatant
> > > attacks against that which you do not understand.
> > > You are biased to the point of blindness.
> > > Open your eyes to the larger image.
> > > This is not 1959.
> > > This country has struggled to grow, and so has grown because we are a
> > > people of will, so grow with it.
> > > You want to keep us in the past but we must move into the future and
> > > that is inevitable.
> > > The days of the Old Political Guard are over.
> > > There is nothing you can do about it.
> > > We have been taken by Enron, Halliburton, Exxon, and many other
> > > corporate conglomerates that have taken over the strings of the
> > > political puppets.
> > > The Corporate Party needs to come to an end.
> > > 800 Billion Dollar bailouts for the wealthy on the backs of people
> > > like you needs to stop. You can stop it!
> > > You can stop it!
>
> > > On Oct 29, 4:16 pm, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > just remember this is nothing more than a situation comedy, and is not
> > > > to be taken seriously.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: so who's gonna watch the new sitcom at 8:00 tonight?

[Maax Well]

I plan to watch, but will keep barf bags close by.  I hope to hear
some detail regarding the depth he plans to bury the old stinger in
the tailpipe.  I am not counting on any details until he has taken the
throne, though. Wouldn't want to ruin the buzz he's got with this
batch of Koolaid.

On Oct 29, 5:18 pm, WarpTen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing I never have any respect for is close minded people who
> merely speak from their ignorance. If we are to make any decisions in
> the world it should be based upon the knowledge of all aspects of the
> issues.
> Your display of prejudice and discrimination are highly apparent in
> your posts. Your high school mentality needs overhauling and tutoring
> to get you to the next level of understanding.
> You are immature in the history of this country and therefore are not
> capable of exuding any level of understanding other than blatant
> attacks against that which you do not understand.
> You are biased to the point of blindness.
> Open your eyes to the larger image.
> This is not 1959.
> This country has struggled to grow, and so has grown because we are a
> people of will, so grow with it.
> You want to keep us in the past but we must move into the future and
> that is inevitable.
> The days of the Old Political Guard are over.
> There is nothing you can do about it.
> We have been taken by Enron, Halliburton, Exxon, and many other
> corporate conglomerates that have taken over the strings of the
> political puppets.
> The Corporate Party needs to come to an end.
> 800 Billion Dollar bailouts for the wealthy on the backs of people
> like you needs to stop. You can stop it!
> You can stop it!
>
> On Oct 29, 4:16 pm, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > just remember this is nothing more than a situation comedy, and is not
> > to be taken seriously.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Reason Number 14: Another Reason Not To Spread The Wealth

[Maax Well]

You are obviously too brilliant for the rest of us.  Where is
socialism a success by the way?  Where did you find your research
material that would lead you to believe the height of the american
dream was available to more americans in the seventies than other
decades more commonly thought to have been the peak?

I am quoting wikipedia here: (since you don't think anyone else can
read)
"The Tax Foundation has made the claim that the tax cuts signed by
U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, contrary to popular
belief, actually made the U.S. tax code more progressive, not less.
They state that in 1980, before Reagan's tax cuts, the richest 1% paid
19.05% of all federal income taxes, and by 1988, after Reagan's tax
cuts, their share had increased to 27.58%. Likewise, in 2001, before
Bush's tax cuts, the richest 1% paid 33.89% of all federal income
taxes, and by 2006, after Bush's tax cuts, their share had increased
to 39.89%. [17] However, several issues arise from their arguments.
Tax cuts on the top 1% are by definition regressive changes. And
citing the results from years after the tax code changes were enacted
discounts the changes in incomes. For example, someone earning a
higher income but paying a lower tax rate still might pay higher taxes
than they did before the tax code was changed."

The point is that since the reagan years the federal government has
been extracting more cash from the richest and our problems are
getting worse at an exponential rate.  Raising taxes on these guys
does no good because the federal government is blowing it faster than
you can shake a stick at it. This Obama thing is another layer on the
snowball rolling down the hill.

Here's another little tidbit.  These CEO's are making more than ever.
How could that be, you say? They are paying more of the tax every
year.  WTF?  You won't find any of them whining away in this forum,
because they are laughing all the way to the banks we just bailed
out.  Koolaid anyone?  Go Obama! Yea Obama! Do you think he will let
us keep our homes? Who cares I love Obama!!!

Seems pretty simple to me, we have this big thing that costs trillions
of dollars to operate and produces nothing.  Nothing that our
respective states couldn't offer us if we wanted it anyway.  We need
to cut our spending on that big trillion dollar sculpture.  We can't
afford it.




On Oct 29, 12:35 am, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unlike you morons who have nothing whatsover to substantiate a single
> idiotic claim you make, I reasearch and write my own reports.
>
> The point is, which you deliberately avoid, is these are the
> conditions upon which the American Dream was possible, the down turn
> is a seperate issue. Todays downturn augurs in the end of US
> supremacy.
>
> In the seventies the US was the world's largest creditor nation with a
> thriving manufacturing industry, today the US is the world's largest
> debtor nation bleeding $ 4 billion every single day, with an insolvent
> banking sector, and its biggest export since 2000 consisting of $24
> trillion in toxic mortgage backed securities.
>
> On top of this it has its military working overtime (with soldiers
> that want OUT) to steal resources to prop up its faultering financial
> sector (that was the reason for the war in the first place) a policy
> which has failed miserably resulting in the genocide of Iraq
>
> You people are as dellusional as you are pathetic and I am just as
> stupid for wasting my time on imbeciles
>
> On Oct 29, 5:35 pm, Maax Well <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Three decades ago was a major recession.  WTF?  And you typed all that
> > BS to go with that? Or do you have this propaganda available to cut
> > and paste?
>
> > On Oct 28, 11:17 pm, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > 3 decades ago the nominal tax rate for business was around 75% as it
> > > was realized by the capitalist class that if they wanted social
> > > harmony then certain concessions had be provided to the working
> > > classes such as free universal health care, education and a good
> > > welfare system to ensure them a reasonable standard of living. The
> > > capitalist class were still very wealthy as they extracted surplus
> > > value (profits) from each and every waged labourer.
>
> > > The advent Globalization and the subsequent deregulation of business
> > > created an environment that pitched one country against the other to
> > > provide the best possible conditions to attract the vast sums of
> > > capital controlled by the world's multinationals. This meant providing
> > > huge tax incentives for business, while 

Re: Reason Number 14: Another Reason Not To Spread The Wealth

[Maax Well]

Three decades ago was a major recession.  WTF?  And you typed all that
BS to go with that? Or do you have this propaganda available to cut
and paste?


On Oct 28, 11:17 pm, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3 decades ago the nominal tax rate for business was around 75% as it
> was realized by the capitalist class that if they wanted social
> harmony then certain concessions had be provided to the working
> classes such as free universal health care, education and a good
> welfare system to ensure them a reasonable standard of living. The
> capitalist class were still very wealthy as they extracted surplus
> value (profits) from each and every waged labourer.
>
> The advent Globalization and the subsequent deregulation of business
> created an environment that pitched one country against the other to
> provide the best possible conditions to attract the vast sums of
> capital controlled by the world's multinationals. This meant providing
> huge tax incentives for business, while attacking the wages and
> conditions of the working-class, winding back all previous won gains.
> A recent study by the US government found that even though the tax
> rate is now 35% for business that because of further tax concessions
> made by the Bush administration, 66% of business pays little or no
> tax!
>
> This has now resulted in the US being the wealthiest but the most
> polarized nation in the world. The richest 1% of the population owns
> as much as the bottom 90%, while the bottom 40% own just 0.2% of total
> wealth. Such inequality is antithetical to even the most tenuous form
> of democracy, and as we know the US is no longer a functioning
> democracy, it is a full blow plutocracy by any reasonable standard.
>
> It's not a simple matter of the rich taking care of everyone else. The
> working-class, the vast majority of humanity and the producers of ALL
> value, are entitled to a decent standard of living. If the rich want
> to hoard their obscene wealth the consequences will be civil unrest.
> You can't impoverish the workers, send them to die in imperialist wars
> of conquest and then reward Wall St Bankers for swindling them, with
> hundreds of billions of tax payer’s money and then put the burden of
> their debt on the back of the workers and expect them to eat it.
>
> On Oct 29, 2:56 pm, Maax Well <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The fact that government is involved at all is a problem.  The only
> > thing voting to get even with the rich ceo or the big corporation is
> > like shooting yourself in the foot.  The government is the only group
> > that ultimately wins here.  The corporations and ceo's are not going
> > to make any less money.  They will pass this extra cost on the
> > consumers of their goods and services.  It is just like raising
> > minimum wage.  The consumer pays the bill.  The government will get
> > bigger and more invasive and they will need more and more money. You
> > need to rethink where you direct your anger here.  The government is
> > makin the playing field unfair, not Ford or McDonalds.  But hey lets
> > vote Obama and go F(&* the big companies cuz they're evil.  Sorry,
> > Obama and his plans are evil.  They are getting your permission to
> > steal more of peoples property.  This may make you guys feel better,
> > but it will not create an enviroment that will allow you to have a
> > better lifestyle or get a better job.
>
> > On Oct 28, 7:24 pm, "You Can't Buy MI Water" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Currently, the wealth gets spread the other way and companies post
> > > record profits made by getting tax breaks and handouts out the wazzoo
> > > from washington at the expense of the people. What is it called when
> > > you spread the wealth in that direction?
> > > On Oct 28, 9:00 pm, JIm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > You have seen Joe the Plumber and you heard McCain talk about Obama’s
> > > > “spread the wealth” plans. You know that Barack has said in his own
> > > > words from his own mouth that he wants to spread the wealth. What does
> > > > that mean? I talked a little about it yesterday but today I want to
> > > > take it a little further and maybe shed some light on an aspect of
> > > > this that you probably won’t hear anywhere else.
>
> > > > Spreading the wealth not only means taking your money and giving it to
> > > > someone else. It not only means you are going to get taxed more. It
> > > > also means that someone who does not deserve it is going to get money
> > >

Re: Peace To Troubled Land...

[Maax Well]

Can I suggest the libertarian party?  This experiment of having a huge
federal government did not work.  Socialism will not work, that is
where we are headed if we are not already there yet.  The Federal
government should have very limited and specific areas of authority.
Military and borders, treasury,  and trade tariffs.  Any other
government should be state and local agencies.  Where is the
efficiency in sending money to Washington for local police salaries?
You send $1000 to washington, you will be lucky to get $10 bucks back.
Checkout lp.org

The reps & the dems like to poke at each other re the koolaid.  It
really seems they are both sharing the same jug.  They keep voting for
the same old crap and they get the same in return.  Insanity? They
must be thinking they will get a different result.

As much as the libs hate it, we need good companies making money here
for everything else to be good.  As much as that offends some, it
would be a far better society with business flourishing everywhere
rather than to have the government at every turn. Yet in this election
the zombies are lined up to stick it to the evil ceo, business, or
scumbag rich person.  I think the koolaid is piped right in through
the faucet.

Let the states compete for business and see who can create the best
society.  That is what the constitution intended.



On Oct 28, 9:49 pm, ChattyDaisy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you serious about socialism? Are you saying you have a better idea
> for the country? I'm open to new ideas and so is most of the country.
> Ever think of joining a hippy group? Are those still around? Communes?
>
> Nader is getting old and most of us don't have the gumption or
> finances to consider applying for the thankless job of President. I
> believe in Democracy and free enterprise. Our business model is off
> kilter; our country thrives on new immigrants willing to perform
> manual labor for low wages. We interrupted that model when we started
> threatening to deport illegal aliens and sending jobs that we could
> give our own people to India and Asia, who'd by the way, nuke us in a
> minute, but instead figured out a less messy way to kill us without
> anyone taking notice -- they drained our financial foundation and are
> forcing the country to make good on all those loans they so graciously
> gave us.
>
> Regardless of who wins this Presidential election, they're inheriting
> a mess like no other in history and this late in the game, I'd rather
> see the younger, smarter man, who hires people who are even smarter,
> sit around the big peace pipe and work out real world and life plans,
> quickly.
>
> Regards,
> Daisy
>
> On Oct 28, 4:11 pm, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > One week until the US elections
>
> > 28 October 2008
> > With only one week remaining before Election Day, the opinion polls
> > indicate that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party will likely
> > register a substantial victory. In addition to gaining control of the
> > White House, the Democrats stand to increase their majorities in both
> > houses of Congress, possibly obtaining the 60-40 margin in the Senate
> > required to end filibusters and force a floor vote on legislative
> > proposals.
>
> > Predictably, Democratic leaders are already issuing excuses as to why
> > a lopsided Democratic victory should not be interpreted as a mandate
> > for a significant change of policy in an Obama administration, and why
> > no such change will be forthcoming.
>
> > As the New York Times observed in a front-page article Sunday on the
> > implications of a sizeable Democratic victory, popular expectations of
> > immediate action on health care, home foreclosures, jobs and other
> > social issues “could be difficult to meet even with enhanced numbers
> > in the Senate as well as the House.”
>
> > The Times noted: “The nature of the Democratic majority, expanded
> > partly through the election of centrists and even conservatives, would
> > also temper Democratic zeal to pursue an overly ideological agenda,
> > Democrats said.”
>
> > The newspaper quoted a series of Democratic Party leaders warning
> > against “overreaching” and urging a cautious legislative agenda. House
> > Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland told the Times, “We are going
> > to get new members with a clear understanding that the reason they won
> > is appealing to independents and disaffected Republicans, and they are
> > going to want to continue to do that.”
>
> > The most significant feature of the elections is that the entire
> > campaign has been overtaken by an economic crisis which neither party
> > anticipated. The response of both candidates, apart from some campaign
> > theatrics, has been identical. For all the mud-slinging, once issues
> > critical to the class interests of the American ruling elite emerged,
> > Obama and his Republican opponent John McCain joined in endorsing,
> > over popular opposition, a multi-trillion-dollar bailout of

Re: Reason Number 14: Another Reason Not To Spread The Wealth

[Maax Well]

Perfect example, the government can put you in jail for not paying
your share and they do this with our money.If the government was even
halfway responsible with our money we could afford to be liberal.
Whether it's $1200 toilet seats, 700 billion for crap loans, or the
gold plating on the underground trolley cars for our lazy congressman
to not have to walk from their cars to work or their gold plated
healthcare or the retirement plans these guys have laid away for them
and their families.  They have ripped us off royal and Obama is
basically saying he is not sure how much more he is going to take from
us yet, but you are going to love the change he has in mind. Wake up
people!!!

On Oct 28, 8:59 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim,
>
> You have a problem with giving money to people who do not deserve it?
> Man, you must have been REALLY pissed by the $700 billion plus welfare
> check to the financial industry!
>
> On Oct 28, 8:00 pm, JIm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You have seen Joe the Plumber and you heard McCain talk about Obama’s
> > “spread the wealth” plans. You know that Barack has said in his own
> > words from his own mouth that he wants to spread the wealth. What does
> > that mean? I talked a little about it yesterday but today I want to
> > take it a little further and maybe shed some light on an aspect of
> > this that you probably won’t hear anywhere else.
>
> > Spreading the wealth not only means taking your money and giving it to
> > someone else. It not only means you are going to get taxed more. It
> > also means that someone who does not deserve it is going to get money
> > that does not belong to them. It is a kind of affirmative action for
> > those who for whatever reason do not have as much as others.
>
> > Affirmative action is a policy that although has great intentions ends
> > up making things worse. You give someone not qualified a job, position
> > or spot simply because of their skin color or some other factor that
> > has been deemed a disadvantage. What you get is a less qualified
> > workforce or people in programs that have no business being there. You
> > get people expecting to get something they never worked for, expecting
> > a “handout” of sorts. It makes for laziness. It is a bad policy.
>
> > Spreading the wealth is alot like affirmative action. Spreading the
> > wealth is the taking of money, goods and assets from people who have
> > worked hard to get what they have and giving it to people who have
> > not. Spreading the wealth will only serve to create a class of people
> > who will always have their hands out in expectation of a freebie.
> > Spreading the wealth is a really bad policy to implement.
>
> > There are those of us who do need help. Those who are constitutionally
> > incapable of taking care of themselves. For them and for us as society
> > as a whole, it is the right thing to help such people and we do. But
> > spreading the wealth is not the act of helping others. No, it is
> > Baracks policy of taking what does not belong to the government and
> > giving to whomever they please and for any reason they please. Be sure
> > that some of Barack’s “spreading of the wealth” would go to good
> > causes but be even more sure that the vast majority will not. No, it
> > will go to people undeserving. People who could if motivated in the
> > correct way go out and provide for themselves. It will also go to
> > promote programs and other policies that will perpetuate a poor class
> > and it will be used as a tool to get votes.
>
> > Spreading the wealth is a dangerous policy. Spreading the wealth is
> > not an American ideal. It is not something to strive for. It will only
> > serve in the long run to create a society that in the long run will
> > not be able to take care of itself. Spreading the wealth will kill our
> > country. Spreading the wealth is a communist policy. A policy that at
> > first brought the Soviet Union to power but in the end also killed
> > that nation leading to the breakup of the USSR.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Reason Number 14: Another Reason Not To Spread The Wealth

[Maax Well]

The fact that government is involved at all is a problem.  The only
thing voting to get even with the rich ceo or the big corporation is
like shooting yourself in the foot.  The government is the only group
that ultimately wins here.  The corporations and ceo's are not going
to make any less money.  They will pass this extra cost on the
consumers of their goods and services.  It is just like raising
minimum wage.  The consumer pays the bill.  The government will get
bigger and more invasive and they will need more and more money. You
need to rethink where you direct your anger here.  The government is
makin the playing field unfair, not Ford or McDonalds.  But hey lets
vote Obama and go F(&* the big companies cuz they're evil.  Sorry,
Obama and his plans are evil.  They are getting your permission to
steal more of peoples property.  This may make you guys feel better,
but it will not create an enviroment that will allow you to have a
better lifestyle or get a better job.

On Oct 28, 7:24 pm, "You Can't Buy MI Water" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Currently, the wealth gets spread the other way and companies post
> record profits made by getting tax breaks and handouts out the wazzoo
> from washington at the expense of the people. What is it called when
> you spread the wealth in that direction?
> On Oct 28, 9:00 pm, JIm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You have seen Joe the Plumber and you heard McCain talk about Obama’s
> > “spread the wealth” plans. You know that Barack has said in his own
> > words from his own mouth that he wants to spread the wealth. What does
> > that mean? I talked a little about it yesterday but today I want to
> > take it a little further and maybe shed some light on an aspect of
> > this that you probably won’t hear anywhere else.
>
> > Spreading the wealth not only means taking your money and giving it to
> > someone else. It not only means you are going to get taxed more. It
> > also means that someone who does not deserve it is going to get money
> > that does not belong to them. It is a kind of affirmative action for
> > those who for whatever reason do not have as much as others.
>
> > Affirmative action is a policy that although has great intentions ends
> > up making things worse. You give someone not qualified a job, position
> > or spot simply because of their skin color or some other factor that
> > has been deemed a disadvantage. What you get is a less qualified
> > workforce or people in programs that have no business being there. You
> > get people expecting to get something they never worked for, expecting
> > a “handout” of sorts. It makes for laziness. It is a bad policy.
>
> > Spreading the wealth is alot like affirmative action. Spreading the
> > wealth is the taking of money, goods and assets from people who have
> > worked hard to get what they have and giving it to people who have
> > not. Spreading the wealth will only serve to create a class of people
> > who will always have their hands out in expectation of a freebie.
> > Spreading the wealth is a really bad policy to implement.
>
> > There are those of us who do need help. Those who are constitutionally
> > incapable of taking care of themselves. For them and for us as society
> > as a whole, it is the right thing to help such people and we do. But
> > spreading the wealth is not the act of helping others. No, it is
> > Baracks policy of taking what does not belong to the government and
> > giving to whomever they please and for any reason they please. Be sure
> > that some of Barack’s “spreading of the wealth” would go to good
> > causes but be even more sure that the vast majority will not. No, it
> > will go to people undeserving. People who could if motivated in the
> > correct way go out and provide for themselves. It will also go to
> > promote programs and other policies that will perpetuate a poor class
> > and it will be used as a tool to get votes.
>
> > Spreading the wealth is a dangerous policy. Spreading the wealth is
> > not an American ideal. It is not something to strive for. It will only
> > serve in the long run to create a society that in the long run will
> > not be able to take care of itself. Spreading the wealth will kill our
> > country. Spreading the wealth is a communist policy. A policy that at
> > first brought the Soviet Union to power but in the end also killed
> > that nation leading to the breakup of the USSR.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Hey Obama is it 250K, 200K or 150K like Biden says

[Maax Well]

The way I understand it is those that file single get to pay at 150k.
The joint filers get it at 250k.  Butt remember it up to Obama.  Your
or my opinion on this don't count.

On Oct 28, 1:40 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum/browse_thread/thread/c8...
>
> On Oct 28, 1:35 pm, Philobealo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >  Earlier the cutoff limit was under 250,000
>
> > Now Obama says if you have a job, pay taxes and make less than 200,000
> > a year you will get a tax cut.
>
> > Now Biden blurbs out 150,000
>
> > Which is it??- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: 8-Year-Old Wants Obama

[Maax Well]

Funny seeing this post.  I was just asking my daughter who is 14 if
she sensed any preference from the teachers at her school and she said
she did not.  She believes that most kids in her school are pro McCain
if they discuss it at all.  She is not in the california public school
system, though.  I do remember in grade school during the last
election one of the girls in her class was spewing the very liberal
hate.  I was surprised to hear anything like it from a child so
young.  Her parents were probably very passionate about their party.

On Oct 28, 12:38 pm, "d.b.baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 8:56 am, Texas Queen stuck in Florida
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is sickening!  My youngest daughter is 8 years old and I can't
> > possibly understand why the schools are trying to indoctrinate them
> > already!  My kids keep coming home with all kinds of crap about Obama
>
> Unfortunately, America's public schools have turned into cesspools of
> Marxist indoctrination.
>
> The only way this will change is for parents to keep their kids at
> home until the so-called educators get the message.
>
> On the positive side, a good many kids tend to be naturally intuitive
> - they know the difference between hogwash and genuine education.
>
> And the result may be realized in the upcoming election.
>
> Meanwhile, if I were a parent of school-age children today, I'd likely
> have bloody fists.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Why do Republicans have a problem with paying their fair share?

[Maax Well]

The way I understand it is that what they allowed the banks to do was
sell off the loans to any speculator that was interested.  The loans
were being sold all over as excellent risk loans.  In the good old
days,  the banks loaned the money and were stuck with it until it was
paid back.  They had an incentive to make absolutely sure the loans
were quality.  Once the "barriers were down" they could write a piece
of crap contract and pass it off to some poor investor before the ink
was dry.  How many people have you heard say before they made their
first payment the payee had already changed.  We all know how easy
they were making the loans to get, right?

That is very simple way to put it, I am sure there are many in this
group that could offer better details.

On Oct 24, 12:09 pm, Zebnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank you for all the little stories, but tell me specifically how the
> Gramm Leach Act caused the mortgage meltdown. And not just with
> statements like "it broke down barriers." How would these broken
> barriers CAUSE the meltdown?
>
> On Oct 24, 8:08 am, studio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 1:40 am, Zebnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > You don't know what you'retalking about. If you think youdo,
> > > identify what was deregulated and how, specifically, it caused the
> > > mortgage meltdown.
>
> > Give me a break.
> > Look, if youhavea deregulated quasi-government agency handling a
> > trillion dollars...it begs for trouble.
>
> > Any competent analyst coudhavetold you from the beginning such
> > a thing won't work in the long term without being highly regulated.
>
> > But it's worse than that...they knew it wouldn't work.
> > So who gets manipulated like a puppet by both major parties?
> > Everyone.
> > ---
>
> > The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act broke down barriers between banks,
> > securities firms, mortgage lenders and insurance companies.
> > That deregulation repealed Great Depression-era bank regulations with
> > the approval of former president Bill Clinton.
>
> > Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, former U.S. Treasury secretaries
> > under Clinton, supported the bank deregulation bill in 1999.
>
> > McCain voted for the first version of the Gramm bill in 1999 but did
> > not vote on the final measure. Biden voted against the initial bill
> > but
> > for the final product.
>
> >http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/09/15/daily81.html
> > 
>
> > You know things are very very bad on Wall Street when a guy like
> > Henry Paulson -- Treasury secretary, solid Republican, and former
> > Goldman Sachs CEO -- joins the crowd calling for more regulation
> > over the financial markets.
>
> > "Regulation needs to catch up with innovation," Paulson said, and
> > he was backed up by the rest of President Bush's working group
> > on financial markets, including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben
> > Bernanke and Securities and Exchange Commissioner Chris Cox.
> > Not a commie among them.
>
> >http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/paulsons-lament-deregulation-ha...{4AEF15AC-3966-4656-8108-C96712A88D68}-
> > Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Why do Republicans have a problem with paying their fair share?

[Maax Well]

Isn't it accurate that the thrust was really started in 95 under
Clinton by Barney Frank & Sen Cuomo? They were pushing the story that
everyone had the right to homeownership.  Barney Frank was head of the
oversight on this as well.

On Oct 24, 5:08 am, studio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 1:40 am, Zebnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You don't know what you're talking about. If you think you do,
> > identify what was deregulated and how, specifically, it caused the
> > mortgage meltdown.
>
> Give me a break.
> Look, if you have a deregulated quasi-government agency handling a
> trillion dollars...it begs for trouble.
>
> Any competent analyst coud have told you from the beginning such
> a thing won't work in the long term without being highly regulated.
>
> But it's worse than that...they knew it wouldn't work.
> So who gets manipulated like a puppet by both major parties?
> Everyone.
> ---
>
> The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act broke down barriers between banks,
> securities firms, mortgage lenders and insurance companies.
> That deregulation repealed Great Depression-era bank regulations with
> the approval of former president Bill Clinton.
>
> Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, former U.S. Treasury secretaries
> under Clinton, supported the bank deregulation bill in 1999.
>
> McCain voted for the first version of the Gramm bill in 1999 but did
> not vote on the final measure. Biden voted against the initial bill
> but
> for the final product.
>
> http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/09/15/daily81.html
> 
>
> You know things are very very bad on Wall Street when a guy like
> Henry Paulson -- Treasury secretary, solid Republican, and former
> Goldman Sachs CEO -- joins the crowd calling for more regulation
> over the financial markets.
>
> "Regulation needs to catch up with innovation," Paulson said, and
> he was backed up by the rest of President Bush's working group
> on financial markets, including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben
> Bernanke and Securities and Exchange Commissioner Chris Cox.
> Not a commie among them.
>
> http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/paulsons-lament-deregulation-ha...{4AEF15AC-3966-4656-8108-C96712A88D68}
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Affordable Health Care

[Maax Well]

Hear, Hear!!

On Oct 22, 2:37 pm, Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Travis
> Subject:  Affordable Health Care
> Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2008,
>
> *Affordable Health Care
> *Walter E. Williams
> Wednesday, October 22, 2008
>
> One of the campaign themes this election cycle is "affordable" health care.
> Shouldn't we ask ourselves whether we want the politicians who brought us
> the "affordable" housing, that created the current financial debacle, to now
> deliver us affordable health care? Shouldn't we also ask how things turned
> out in countries where there is socialized medicine?
>
> The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute's annual publication,
> "Waiting Your Turn," reports that Canada's median waiting times from a
> patient's referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist,
> depending on the procedure, averages from five to 40 weeks. The wait for
> diagnostics, such as MRI or CT, ranges between four and 28 weeks.
>
> According to Michael Tanner's "The Grass Is Not Always Greener," in Cato
> Institute's Policy Analysis (March 18, 2008), the Mayo Clinic treats more
> than 7,000 foreign patients a year, the Cleveland Clinic 5,000, Johns
> Hopkins Hospital treats 6,000, and one out of three Canadian physicians send
> a patient to the U.S. for treatment each year. If socialized medicine is so
> great, why do Canadian physicians send patients to the U.S. and the Canadian
> government spends over $1 billion each year on health care in our country?
>
> Britain's socialized system is no better. Currently, 750,000 Brits are
> awaiting hospital admission. Britain's National Health Services hopes to
> achieve an 18-week maximum wait from general practitioner to treatment,
> including all diagnostic tests, by the end of 2008. The delay in health care
> services is not only inconvenient, it's deadly. Both in Britain and Canada,
> many patients with diseases that are curable at the time of diagnosis become
> incurable by the time of treatment or patients become too weak for the
> surgical procedure. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown plans to introduce a
> "constitution" setting out the rights and responsibilities of its health
> care system. According to a report in the Telegraph (02/01/2008) , "What
> this (Gordon Brown's plan) seems to amount to in practice are the
> Government's rights to refuse treatment, and the patient's responsibilities
> to live up to what the state decides are model standards." That means people
> who have unhealthy habits such as smoking, heart sufferers who are obese or
> those who fall ill because of failure to take regular exercise might be
> refused medical care, even though they pay taxes to support government
> health care.
>
> Government health care can become ghoulish as reported in a Human Events
> (1/17/08) article "Gordon Brown Wants Your Organs" written by Susan Easton.
> As in the U.S., many Brits die while on the waiting list for organ
> donations. The prime minister has a solution called a "Presumed Consent
> Scheme." Mrs. Easton says, "If you don't specifically carry a card saying
> 'leave my corpse alone' -- known as the 'opt out option', or unless one's
> family is on hand to object, one's remains are considered fair game for an
> organ harvest festival." Supporters of the scheme argue that what is done
> with people's organs after their death should not be up to the next of kin.
> Such a vision differs little from one that holds that after one's death he
> becomes the property of the state.
>
> Of course, if socialized medicine becomes a reality here, Americans can do
> as many Brits do. Mrs. Easton says, "more than 70,000 Britons -- known as
> 'health tourists' -- have gone as far as India, Malaysia and South Africa
> for major operations. This figure is expected to rise to almost 200,000 by
> the end of the decade."
>
> We have health care problems in the U.S. but it's not because ours is a free
> market system of health care delivery. Well over 50 percent of all health
> care expenditures are made by government. Where government spends,
> government regulates. It's truly amazing that Americans who are dissatisfied
> with the current level of socialized medicine in the U.S. are asking for
> more of what created the problem in the first place. Anyone thinking that an
> American version of socialized health care will differ from that found in
> Canada, Britain, Sweden, France and elsewhere are whistling Dixie.
>
> http://townhall. com/columnists/ WalterEWilliams/ 2008/10/22/ affordable_
> health_care
> __._,_.___ Messages in this topic
> 
> (1) Reply (via web post)
> |
> Start a new topic
> 
> Messages

Re: Obama, a real modern day Robin Hood, robbing the poor to give to the rich.

[Maax Well]

Dude,
On this we agree, you want to turn the clocks back to when this
country could compete.  First we need to scale the government back to
what it was then.  That allows competition amongst the best in the
world right here in the old USA. Voting for bigger government is the
wrong direction, lets choose something really different, there are
more than two parties you know.

The republicans promise they'll chisel away at this huge blob, but
they do nothing but sneak some more taxes here and there and business
as usual.  The Dems promise that more big government can fix all the
problems. Then they do nothing but take more money.  The constitution
gives the power to the individual states to govern.  Lets get rid of
this huge federal money suction thing stuck to our backs and vote for
real change.  Why can't your local communities collect the taxes and
hire the police and so on, like it used to be.  Everytime you send
$1000 dollars to Washington they only send you $10 bucks back.  Keep
your money in you local communities fund your own schools, hire your
own civil servants. You will be amazed at how much better your
communities will be with your own money at home, and alot more of it.

F&*$ Washington! Other than the military, protecting our borders,
taxing foreign trade and the treasury.  Is there anything that anybody
here needs the feds for? Are they doing anything else for us?  Let me
know.


On Oct 22, 7:35 pm, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because they cannot alleviete the problems facing the US workers, they
> need a scapegoat to blame for the worsen state of affairs in the US so
> they use the old ploy of blaming the victims i.e the migrants and the
> down trodden on social security. Its all their fault, they bleed the
> country white.
>
> The problem is complex but the reduction in the capacity of US
> industry to create wealth for the country is its sharpest expression.
> When the Americam Dream was a reality the US, a country whose
> population made up 6% of the world's population, consumed 50% of the
> worlds commodities and resources and at the same time produced 80% of
> the world's steel and made 5 out 6 of the world's automobiles.
> Business that was booming, paid a tax rate of 75% funding education
> health and welfare and decent wages for the workers.These conditions
> no longer exist today and neither does a return to the propertity of
> the past.
>
> The right wing is dispropportionately represented on this board and in
> the media. The vast majority of people are happy for business to make
> money as long as they can be guaranteed a decent standard of living
> and a decent quality of life themselves. I fight for a different sytem
> not because I am a radical, I am not, but because the simple desires
> of humanity of peace, brotherhood and prosperity cannot be achieved
> under this system. The post World War II stability of the US was
> founded upon very favourable but temporary circumstances that will not
> and cannot be repeated. Niether the Dems or the GOP can change this.
>
> On Oct 23, 2:49 am, VT Sean Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have no problem with the Richest Americans paying the same
> > tax rate as the struggling working class Americans.
>
> > Why do Republicans have such a problem with this?
>
> > On Oct 21, 8:16 pm, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > If you think before just taking everythink these clowns tell you at
> > > face value, you may start to see a few things for yourselves.
>
> > > The richest most influential men in the US are finacially supporting
> > > Obama, including the Wall St robber Barons. So what you are saying is
> > > that these robber Barons are funding Obam's campaign because he is
> > > going to redistribute their wealth? That makes a lot of sense doesn't
> > > it?
>
> > > He SAYS he will redistribute wealth, while his ACTIONS prove
> > > otherwise.
>
> > > Obama was the most vociferous advocate for using tax payer's money to
> > > bail out corporate crooks. In other words, he advocated the
> > > redistribution of wealth from the workers, the poorest layer in
> > > society, to the Wall St Bankers and fianciers, the richest layer in
> > > society.
>
> > > What he SAYS and what he will DO, are two different things.
>
> > > Yes, Obama is a real modern day Robin Hood, robbing the poor to give
> > > to the rich.
>
> > > Bankers of the world unite!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Why do Republicans have a problem with paying their fair share?

[Maax Well]

Is it just a luxury of the self employed or don't all citizens get to
pay 15%?  Can someone check their paystub?

On Oct 22, 12:00 pm, VT Sean Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 15% in SS?
>
> On Oct 22, 1:09 pm, Maax Well <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I am not sure about the republicans but some of us feel the government
> > takes far more than they need for what they provide.
>
> > The government is taking 15% of your income as social security, in
> > return you may get 1500 bucks a month and another 1500 to throw your
> > body in a box when you are dead and that is it.  Nothing left for your
> > family or any charities of your choice.
>
> > If the government required you put 15% of your income in a private
> > savings that belongs to you. Even if you are working minimum wage
> > after 40 years you would accumulate over a million dollars to do with
> > what you please.  You could retire with it, give it to your kids, or
> > the school lunch program. They have taken far too much money and
> > wasted it.  When they run out they comeback and take more.
>
> > They are wasting billions of dollars on the Medicare/Medicade programs
> > that they take money from us for.  These agencies spend with no
> > auditing of any kind.  John Stossel did a report where they followed
> > the vans from clinics that pick up homeless people and promise them $5
> > to ride down to the clinic and fill out a form.  Once they have the
> > social security number they can bill for procedures and tests that do
> > not happen.  One of the vans was picking up mothers offering $5 per
> > child they would bring and candy for the kids.  This is how our
> > government handles our money.  Try these same games with a private
> > company and there are adjusters in place to verify the companies money
> > is being spent for hopefully a legitimate claim.
>
> > If the government really managed the money they already take there is
> > plenty. It is so scary they just spent at least a trillion dollars on
> > bad loans.  A normal business could not survive with, but the
> > government thinks you and I should pay the bill.
>
> > Forrest Gump Explains Mortgage Backed  Securities
>
> > Mortgage Backed Securities are like boxes of chocolates. Criminals on
> > Wall Street stole a few chocolates from the boxes and replaced them
> > with turds. Their criminal buddies at Standard & Poors rated these
> > boxes AAA Investment Grade chocolates. These boxes were then sold all
> > over the world to investors. Eventually somebody bites into a turd and
> > discovers the crime. Suddenly nobody trusts American chocolates
> > anymore worldwide.
>
> > Hank Paulson now wants the American taxpayers to buy up and hold all
> > these boxes of turd-infested chocolates for $700 billion dollars until
> > the market for turds returns to normal. Meanwhile, Hank's buddies, the
> > Wall Street criminals who stole all the good chocolates, are not being
> > investigated, arrested or indicted.
>
> > Mama  always said: "Sniff the chocolates first, Forrest".
>
> > On Oct 22, 8:54 am, VT Sean Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I have no problem with the richest Americans paying the same tax rate
> > > as struggling working class Americans.
>
> > > Why do Republicans have such a problem with this?
>
> > > If I am a struggling working class American and I see Congress
> > > spending money to help the rich stay rich as a consequence
> > > of the rich being fiscally irresponsible and running the economy
> > > into a ditch, is it being unfair to ask the rich to them help
> > > pay for the damage of their irresponsibility?
>
> > > Apparently the Republicans feel this is unfair.
>
> > > I don't. I Think people call it sharing the pain.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Just a thought some of you might not want to read or hear

[Maax Well]

She sounds determined and fertile.  Her daughter sounds fertile.  Not
sure what the difference in the black or white has to do with it. I
notice you don't mention that she graduated high school, is her
college degree no good if she didn't actually graduate high school?

On Oct 22, 8:46 am, VT Sean Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just a thought some of you might not want to read or hear
>
> October 22, 2008
> Sean Lewis
>
> A Young Black Woman becomes pregnant and decides to have her
> baby and marry the Young Man who got her pregnant.
>
> What do you think of her?
>
> She has the kid and then immediately gets pregnant again.
>
> What do you think of her?
>
> She leaves high school and attends college but after one
> semester leaves.
>
> What do you think of her?
>
> She goes to another college and after a semester drops out
> of this one also.
>
> What do you think of her?
>
> She keeps going to different schools and dropping out
> until she wins a scholarship and goes to community college
> and she eventually gets a degree.
>
> What do you think of her?
>
> Her daughter in high school becomes pregnant
> out of marriage like her mother.
>
> What do you think of her?
>
> Now after thinking of all of these things,
> how would you describe this young black woman?
>
> OK now do this.
>
> Make her a Young White Woman.
>
> What do you think of her now?
>
> Do you feel the same about her?
>
> OK now do this,
> call her Sarah.
>
> Would you vote for her to become Vice President?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Why do Republicans have a problem with paying their fair share?

[Maax Well]

I am not sure about the republicans but some of us feel the government
takes far more than they need for what they provide.

The government is taking 15% of your income as social security, in
return you may get 1500 bucks a month and another 1500 to throw your
body in a box when you are dead and that is it.  Nothing left for your
family or any charities of your choice.

If the government required you put 15% of your income in a private
savings that belongs to you. Even if you are working minimum wage
after 40 years you would accumulate over a million dollars to do with
what you please.  You could retire with it, give it to your kids, or
the school lunch program. They have taken far too much money and
wasted it.  When they run out they comeback and take more.

They are wasting billions of dollars on the Medicare/Medicade programs
that they take money from us for.  These agencies spend with no
auditing of any kind.  John Stossel did a report where they followed
the vans from clinics that pick up homeless people and promise them $5
to ride down to the clinic and fill out a form.  Once they have the
social security number they can bill for procedures and tests that do
not happen.  One of the vans was picking up mothers offering $5 per
child they would bring and candy for the kids.  This is how our
government handles our money.  Try these same games with a private
company and there are adjusters in place to verify the companies money
is being spent for hopefully a legitimate claim.

If the government really managed the money they already take there is
plenty. It is so scary they just spent at least a trillion dollars on
bad loans.  A normal business could not survive with, but the
government thinks you and I should pay the bill.



Forrest Gump Explains Mortgage Backed  Securities


Mortgage Backed Securities are like boxes of chocolates. Criminals on
Wall Street stole a few chocolates from the boxes and replaced them
with turds. Their criminal buddies at Standard & Poors rated these
boxes AAA Investment Grade chocolates. These boxes were then sold all
over the world to investors. Eventually somebody bites into a turd and
discovers the crime. Suddenly nobody trusts American chocolates
anymore worldwide.

Hank Paulson now wants the American taxpayers to buy up and hold all
these boxes of turd-infested chocolates for $700 billion dollars until
the market for turds returns to normal. Meanwhile, Hank's buddies, the
Wall Street criminals who stole all the good chocolates, are not being
investigated, arrested or indicted.

Mama  always said: "Sniff the chocolates first, Forrest".





On Oct 22, 8:54 am, VT Sean Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have no problem with the richest Americans paying the same tax rate
> as struggling working class Americans.
>
> Why do Republicans have such a problem with this?
>
> If I am a struggling working class American and I see Congress
> spending money to help the rich stay rich as a consequence
> of the rich being fiscally irresponsible and running the economy
> into a ditch, is it being unfair to ask the rich to them help
> pay for the damage of their irresponsibility?
>
> Apparently the Republicans feel this is unfair.
>
> I don't. I Think people call it sharing the pain.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: nobama thinks he is robin hood

[Maax Well]

Here is an excellent alternative.  If you look around you'll find
there are more than two choices.

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/home/

Maybe it's time people consider voting for a real change.

On Oct 21, 11:21 pm, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When you say the richest and most influential men are behind Obama,
> that may make you feel ok about this, but I assure you it is not the
> case,  People that have money are looking out for number one.  There
> are plenty of wealthy people that have no interest in bigger
> government.  But the major investors in Obama's run are very excited
> that he will deliver his monies worth and look out for them first and
> do their part to insure the rest of us are left at their mercy, or at
> least in line at the goverment agency that directs our respective
> industries.
>
> I am saying this is not OK and that Obama is a filthy lying scumbag.
> Neirther ther Dems or the GOP are OK. They are all a lot of lying
> thugs and war criminals that belong behind bars. This election is a
> complete farce, who is there to choose from? Its not an election, its
> the biggest fraud in the history of mankind
>
> On Oct 22, 2:32 pm, Maax Well <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >> There is a big difference between what he SAYS and what he DOES.
>
> > It is sad you are comfortable with the fact that he is lying and you
> > are counting on it.
>
> > I am guessing that you enjoy the argument.  You talk out of both side
> > of your face. There are many reasons some industry like big
> > government, mainly huge government regulation limits competion. It
> > makes it impossible for the average "Joe" to start up in his garage
> > and compete. I do not know if you have tried to build anything or
> > start a business lately, but it gets tougher every year.  And as I
> > said, big business is not afraid of higher taxes, cuz you & I will be
> > paying it.  The funny part is that you have a hate on for the business
> > or CEO.  If you do not like a business, you have the option of not
> > going there. You need to direct your anger to the evil that has the
> > power to take your money or put you in jail.
>
> > The government is useless at following through on implementing
> > programs that will help us.  They have no problem raising taxes.  Bill
> > Clinton followed through on his tax increases within the first 6
> > months of his reign.  That is the one thing the government can follow
> > through with efficiently. They know how to pass tax law
>
> > Obama is promising to raise taxes.  He will deliver.  As far as doing
> > anything that provides benefit to you & I, there are a million excuses
> > why it will not happen.  He is uniting those who want to stick it to
> > the CEO's.  The dems know the cittizens will be footing the bill.
> > They have no problem with it either.
>
> > As far as redistribution is concerned, the people who will get checks
> > under Obama's plan are going to get @ $1000 bucks.  Everyone else will
> > pay.  The redistribution is meager compared to the cost to the
> > citizens.  We should probably look at it as part of the joke.  They're
> > probably laughing their asses off, "we're promising them a few bucks
> > apiece and we get to screw them for the rest of their lives."
>
> > When you say the richest and most influential men are behind Obama,
> > that may make you feel ok about this, but I assure you it is not the
> > case,  People that have money are looking out for number one.  There
> > are plenty of wealthy people that have no interest in bigger
> > government.  But the major investors in Obama's run are very excited
> > that he will deliver his monies worth and look out for them first and
> > do their part to insure the rest of us are left at their mercy, or at
> > least in line at the goverment agency that directs our respective
> > industries.
>
> > On Oct 21, 5:21 pm, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > "You need to understand, the only people who's life will improve with
> > > Obama are the people who aren't paying their way right now."
>
> > > If you think before just taking everything these clowns tell you at
> > > face value, you will realize how absurd this is.
>
> > > The richest most influential men in the US are financially supporting
> > > Obama, including the Wall St robber Barons. So what you are saying is
> > > that these robber Barons are funding Obama’s campaign because he is
> >

Re: nobama thinks he is robin hood

[Maax Well]

>> There is a big difference between what he SAYS and what he DOES.
It is sad you are comfortable with the fact that he is lying and you
are counting on it.

I am guessing that you enjoy the argument.  You talk out of both side
of your face. There are many reasons some industry like big
government, mainly huge government regulation limits competion. It
makes it impossible for the average "Joe" to start up in his garage
and compete. I do not know if you have tried to build anything or
start a business lately, but it gets tougher every year.  And as I
said, big business is not afraid of higher taxes, cuz you & I will be
paying it.  The funny part is that you have a hate on for the business
or CEO.  If you do not like a business, you have the option of not
going there. You need to direct your anger to the evil that has the
power to take your money or put you in jail.

The government is useless at following through on implementing
programs that will help us.  They have no problem raising taxes.  Bill
Clinton followed through on his tax increases within the first 6
months of his reign.  That is the one thing the government can follow
through with efficiently. They know how to pass tax law

Obama is promising to raise taxes.  He will deliver.  As far as doing
anything that provides benefit to you & I, there are a million excuses
why it will not happen.  He is uniting those who want to stick it to
the CEO's.  The dems know the cittizens will be footing the bill.
They have no problem with it either.

As far as redistribution is concerned, the people who will get checks
under Obama's plan are going to get @ $1000 bucks.  Everyone else will
pay.  The redistribution is meager compared to the cost to the
citizens.  We should probably look at it as part of the joke.  They're
probably laughing their asses off, "we're promising them a few bucks
apiece and we get to screw them for the rest of their lives."

When you say the richest and most influential men are behind Obama,
that may make you feel ok about this, but I assure you it is not the
case,  People that have money are looking out for number one.  There
are plenty of wealthy people that have no interest in bigger
government.  But the major investors in Obama's run are very excited
that he will deliver his monies worth and look out for them first and
do their part to insure the rest of us are left at their mercy, or at
least in line at the goverment agency that directs our respective
industries.


On Oct 21, 5:21 pm, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "You need to understand, the only people who's life will improve with
> Obama are the people who aren't paying their way right now."
>
> If you think before just taking everything these clowns tell you at
> face value, you will realize how absurd this is.
>
> The richest most influential men in the US are financially supporting
> Obama, including the Wall St robber Barons. So what you are saying is
> that these robber Barons are funding Obama’s campaign because he is
> going to redistribute their wealth? That makes a lot of sense doesn't
> it?
>
> There is a big difference between what he SAYS and what he DOES.
>
> Obama was the most vociferous advocate for using tax payer's money to
> bail out corporate crooks. In other words, he advocated the
> redistribution of wealth from the workers, the poorest layer in
> society, to the Wall St Bankers and financiers, the richest layer in
> society.
>
> Bankers of the world unite!
>
> On Oct 22, 3:53 am, Maax Well <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You must work for the government or something.  That has to be the
> > most ridiculous thing I have read in here.  Simply put all businesses
> > have to make money to pay any employee, from Ceo to labor.  WTF?
> > Obama's taxes will not be paid by the CEO's or the companies. The
> > taxes will be passed to consumers like all business expenses.  These
> > people are laughing at you right now. When the cost of doing business
> > increases, business has to decide whether their market can afford a
> > price increase or they have to cut the cost. (cut overhead, lay people
> > off, relocate and so on.)
>
> > You need to understand, the only people who's life will improve with
> > Obama are the people who aren't paying their way right now.  If you
> > buy gas, groceries, burgers, clothes and so on, you will absorb all
> > the increased cost of doing business.
>
> > You are directing your anger at the wrong people.  Politicians get
> > paid and pay raises and produce NOTHING! CEO's provide J O B S. Or as
> > biden says that 3 letter word.
>
> > On Oct 21, 5:18 am, "\"Lone Wolf\"" 

Re: nobama thinks he is robin hood

[Maax Well]

You must work for the government or something.  That has to be the
most ridiculous thing I have read in here.  Simply put all businesses
have to make money to pay any employee, from Ceo to labor.  WTF?
Obama's taxes will not be paid by the CEO's or the companies. The
taxes will be passed to consumers like all business expenses.  These
people are laughing at you right now. When the cost of doing business
increases, business has to decide whether their market can afford a
price increase or they have to cut the cost. (cut overhead, lay people
off, relocate and so on.)

You need to understand, the only people who's life will improve with
Obama are the people who aren't paying their way right now.  If you
buy gas, groceries, burgers, clothes and so on, you will absorb all
the increased cost of doing business.

You are directing your anger at the wrong people.  Politicians get
paid and pay raises and produce NOTHING! CEO's provide J O B S. Or as
biden says that 3 letter word.

On Oct 21, 5:18 am, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A CEO - life is full of stress.
> Bullshit, they make millions whether the business makes money or not.
> They do nothing, produce nothing.
>
> On Oct 21, 6:12 pm, MANOJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The point the people fails to comprehend - what is the sin of the
> > person who is earning $250K.
>
> > Ifheis a doctor/lawyer-hemust have reached here with 7 or 8 years
> > of hard work and there after few more years of practice.
>
> > A CEO - life is full of stress.
>
> > Ifheis a plumber,hemust be working 14-16 hours of hard work.
>
> > Also, lay off - couple of times is a common.
>
> > So whyhewould be punished for his hardwork ?
>
> > Whyhecould not allowed to hold his wallet & save for his lay off
> > days. ?
>
> > -MP
>
> > On Oct 15, 7:47 am, jenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > any one who knows anything know that Obama is only going to raise
> > > taxes on those who make more that$250,000 a year. to me thats a good
> > > plan.  I am disabled and living on a fixed income.  I bet thats
> > > agreeable to most people too. that is why same old Mccain is not going
> > > to win this election. vote for Obama,a vote to justice and equality
> > > for the poor and the middle class. jenius
>
> > > On Oct 15, 6:45 am, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > when asked by a plumber if his was going to raise his taxes, barry
> > > > saidhehad no problem taking his money to spread the wealth.
> > > > socialism but we all know barry is indeed a socialist.- Hide quoted 
> > > > text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Gallup: 84% 0f Americans Oppose Income Redistribution, the rest support Obama

[Maax Well]

That is a Great example, do you know what the tax rate was in 1955-60?
Do you have any idea what was required of a business to operate in
this country then compared to today?  When Obama goes to McDonald's
and says I need another 10%, does McDonald's just print another 10%
from their money printer or do they just raise the price of burgers.
Everyone gets the luxury of paying Obama's new taxes.  If you think
otherwise you must be a moron.

On Oct 20, 4:04 am, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You people are fucking morons. America was at its height when wealth
> distrubution was at its most equal, 1950--1965 and at its worst when
> it was at its most unequal--NOW and in 1929. Imbecilic Neanderthals.
>
> On Oct 20, 8:42 am, "d.b.baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.gallup.com/poll/108445/Americans-Oppose-Income-Redistribut...- 
> >Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Which party is responsible?... THAT ONE!

[Maax Well]

In a free country people are not criminalized for drug problems.
Obviously in this country the government gets to kick your door down
for this and many other bad habits.

On Oct 19, 6:47 pm, Princip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Drugs for example cocaine and pot... illegal or not?
>
> On Oct 20, 2:39 am, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > As long as I am infringing on nooneelse's Right's, no they have no
> > Right.
>
> > If you believe they do, you will need to SHOW ME where they garner
> > such from the Constitution.
>
> > On Oct 19, 6:37 pm, Princip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Gaar
> > > please tell me is it ever right for the 'evil' government to tell you
> > > what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own home?
>
> > > On Oct 20, 2:30 am, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > It is much more than 3%...
>
> > > > And their burden has been increasing with every change we make, even
> > > > the Republicanone's.
>
> > > > The Burden to the Richest 1% WENT UP after the Bush Tax Cuts, NOT
> > > > DOWN.
>
> > > > But ignorant people, like yourself, don't care to understand the
> > > > facts, you just care to relate the LIES until the majority of other
> > > > ignorant people, like you, believe the crap you spew, just like
> > > > Obama...
>
> > > > No surprise there.
>
> > > > On Oct 19, 6:23 pm, studio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 19, 9:14 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > You are theonesupporting the Policies that would change our Tax
> > > > > > System to a Welfare Sytem, not me...
>
> > > > > Oh please...a 3% increase on those making more than $250,000
> > > > > doesn't constitute a welfare system as far as I know.- Hide quoted 
> > > > > text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Gallup: 84% 0f Americans Oppose Income Redistribution, the rest support Obama

[Maax Well]

Seems quite certain many business's will choose to leave when their
new tax plan is implemented.

On Oct 19, 4:11 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems you don't have to be a U.S. Citizen to Vote in the Elections
> anyway, so why not go some where that your "productivity is rewarded,
> while continuing to try to "change" things in the U.S.?!?!?!?!?!?
>
> Makes sense to me...
>
> On Oct 19, 4:08 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What they don't get is that there are other places in the World now
> > that seem to be heading in a more Republic/Capitalist model than the
> > U.S.
>
> > This didn't use to be the case, but given the direction the Loony
> > Liberals want to take this Country, it may be time for "productive"
> > people to Vote with their Citizenship...
>
> > If the U.S. wants to become the bastion for Socialism, they are going
> > to do it without me.
>
> > On Oct 19, 3:33 pm, "d.b.baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 19, 5:52 pm, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > let us hope those 84% vote against socialism
>
> > > I've run into two schools of thought on this, and one in particular
> > > seems to be gaining momentum: starve the government. De-employ
> > > ourselves until all penalties for hard work are removed. Going "John
> > > Galt" (from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged) they're calling it, back to the
> > > absolute basics until all the parasitic liberals get off their lying,
> > > lazy asses.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---