Ronnie & Georgie's bloated deficits
Harry Hope
1980 $ 73,800,000,000
1981 $ 79,000,000,000
1982 $128,000,000,000
1983 $207,800,000,000
1984 $185,400,000,000
1985 $212,300,000,000
1986 $221,200,000,000
1987 $149,800,000,000
1988 $155,200,000,000
1989 $152,500,000,000
1990 $221,400,000,000
1991 $269,200,000,000
Harry
"Some fellows get credit for being conservative
when they are only stupid."
Kin Hubbard
Knopp
In article <695fea$h...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, riv...@ix.netcom.com
(Harry Hope) wrote:
<SNIP>
While Ronnie and Georgie weren't capable of spending a dime of the US.
Taxpayer's money, they did okay the plan that the Democrats put forth.
Here's what a prominent member of Democratic leadership has to say about
their plan:
"...one of the key contributors to our current budget imbalance has been
the heavy spending that this nation undertook during the Cold War. Our
nation ran up the deficit because there was a strong consensus in the
nation as a whole that we needed to spend whatever it took to assure our
survival as a nation, and to prevail over the "Evil Empire" that was the
former Soviet Union."
"It was a successful strategy, and the funds expended toward that goal
constitute one of the best investments our nation has ever made."
Sen. Robert C. Byrd (DEMOCRAT) West Virginia, March 25, 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------
If only he and the democrats could see that the huge amounts of cash they
appropriated toward our failed welfare state, our silly Social Security
ponzi scheme, and Mr. Byrd's huge pork factory down in "Almost Heaven", was
an unsuccessful spending strategy and some of the worst investments our
nation has ever made.
Because of Congress and the Republican executive branch's agreement to
spend lots of money on defense, we now have the ability to cut such
spending in half, allowing us to achieve the balanced budget we have now.
Quite a smart idea.
--
Remove "pez" from address for direct e-mail
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 15:26:12 GMT, riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope)
wrote:
Reagan also said he would shrink the state govt when he was governor.
In eight years, it doubled too.
Reagan: In 1981 I think he said his budget would be in balance by
1982.
Thank goodness we are over that kind of wild fiscal irresponsibility
called "supply side" economics. The kind which says - let's make
believe we can spend more, tax less, and all will be fine.
-------------
George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.
H.Selvitella
On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 17:02:01 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>Thank goodness we are over that kind of wild fiscal irresponsibility
>called "supply side" economics. The kind which says - let's make
>believe we can spend more, tax less, and all will be fine.
You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
you smokin'?
Jezeyguy
><HTML><PRE><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">Subject: Re: Ronnie & Georgie's bloated
>deficits
>From: Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George Tyrebiter, Jr.)
>Date: Fri, Jan 9, 1998 12:02 EST
>Message-id: <34b7571c...@news.zippo.com>
>
>On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 15:26:12 GMT, riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope)
>wrote:
>
>>1980 $ 73,800,000,000
>>1981 $ 79,000,000,000
>>1982 $128,000,000,000
>>1983 $207,800,000,000
>>1984 $185,400,000,000
>>1986 $221,200,000,000 ..THEY DOUBLED SOCIAL
>>1987 $149,800,000,000....SECURITY TAX.
>>1988 $155,200,000,000
>>1989 $152,500,000,000
>>1990 $221,400,000,000
>>1991 $269,200,000,000
>>
>>Harry
>>
>>"Some fellows get credit for being conservative
>> when they are only stupid."
>>
>> Kin Hubbard
>>
>>
>>
>Reagan also said he would shrink the state govt when he was governor.
>In eight years, it doubled too.
>
>Reagan: In 1981 I think he said his budget would be in balance by
>1982.
>
>called "supply side" economics. The kind which says - let's make
>believe we can spend more, tax less, and all will be fine.
>George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.
I have a question.....What is the Social Securtiy contribution to the figures.
It counded as a plus but it really a negative in a few years when the baby
boomers retire.
Does any one know when the trickle down starts. I been waiting forever and it
does not seam to have trickled to my town.
Loren Petrich
In article <34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>,
H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote:
>You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
>you smokin'?
What's your position? That your heroes are entitled to be big fat
deficit spenders?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
Mary E Knadler
In <kknopppez-ya024080...@news.citynet.net>
I glad you posted that. I'm tired of Reagan being blamed for
all this huge spending deficit. You have made it crystle
clear why it was necessary & it worked out very well
yasmin2
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On 10 Jan 1998 05:20:52 GMT, yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E Knadler)
wrote:
>
>>
>>Because of Congress and the Republican executive branch's agreement to
>>spend lots of money on defense, we now have the ability to cut such
>>spending in half, allowing us to achieve the balanced budget we have
>now.
>>Quite a smart idea.
>>
>>--
>>Remove "pez" from address for direct e-mail
>
>
>I glad you posted that. I'm tired of Reagan being blamed for
>all this huge spending deficit. You have made it crystle
>clear why it was necessary & it worked out very well
>
yasmin2
I can appreciate that defense spending was a good investment. But
Reagan - and Congress - and the public - should have been willing to
ask for taxes sufficient to pay for it.
H.Selvitella
On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 05:15:44 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
wrote:
>In article <34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>,
>H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>>You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
>>you smokin'?
>
> What's your position? That your heroes are entitled to be big fat
>deficit spenders?
My heroes "Petrich" are ordinary people whom the liberal-socialist
policies of the last 30 years have been fleecing to finance absurd and
unproductive social programs. The government OWES ordinary people
tax-relief--with interest!
The attempted diversion of class-warfare doesn't hold water except in
that the "class" that you represent has been at war with the rest of
us for damn near a century. And its getting old.
Loren Petrich
In article <34b76f9f...@news.std.com>,
H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 05:15:44 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
>wrote:
>> What's your position? That your heroes are entitled to be big fat
>>deficit spenders?
I had meant Reagan and Bush, O yellow-dog Republican.
>My heroes "Petrich" are ordinary people whom the liberal-socialist
>policies of the last 30 years have been fleecing to finance absurd and
>unproductive social programs.
Such as a national pension fund (Social Security), national
medical insurance (Medicare), the military, the police, our wonderful
socialist roads, ...?
<right-wing-mode>
Pension funds and medical insurance are unproductive, and ought
to go, yessirree. And so are military and police forces. If people want
to be defended, they will spotaneously form militias and vigilante posses.
</right-wing-mode>
H.Selvitella
On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 13:36:40 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
wrote:
>In article <34b76f9f...@news.std.com>,
>H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 05:15:44 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
>>wrote:
>
>>> What's your position? That your heroes are entitled to be big fat
>>>deficit spenders?
>
> I had meant Reagan and Bush, O yellow-dog Republican.
>
>>My heroes "Petrich" are ordinary people whom the liberal-socialist
>>policies of the last 30 years have been fleecing to finance absurd and
>>unproductive social programs.
>
> Such as a national pension fund (Social Security),
Bankrupt and not provided for in the constitution--a political
plagiarism that robs Peter to pay Paul, invented by the swindler Ponzi
who was prosectuted for his pains.
>national medical insurance (Medicare),
Another mistake! Paul is pocketing the benefits and is presently
willing to absorb the degradation of the healthcare delivery system,
and will continue to do so until the body-count becomes intolerable.
Paul is now content to bring his medical problems to the insurance
industry. When he attempts to reassert his authority over his DOCTOR
it may be too late for him and for Peter as well.
>the military,
Absolutely consistent with the wisdom of the founders!
>the police,
Ditto, weasel!
>our wonderful socialist roads, ...?
I will entertain an argument to support your contention that
transportation is a socialist construct. Personally I find that post
roads bear a closer resemblance to the Appian Way than to The Road to
Milltown.
(banality expunged)
In all seriousness "Loren Petrich" can you say how old you were when
you began to think our system should be replaced with alien socialism?
Rich Travsky
yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E Knadler) wrote:
>>Because of Congress and the Republican executive branch's agreement to
>>spend lots of money on defense, we now have the ability to cut such
>>spending in half, allowing us to achieve the balanced budget we have
>now.
>>Quite a smart idea.
>all this huge spending deficit. You have made it crystle
>clear why it was necessary & it worked out very well
Another stunning display of right wing ignorance (not to mention
naivete). Don't these dolts know we're going to be paying off
this "necessary" spending for decades, thanks to one man's stupidity?
Reagan's scam promised to balance the budget by 1984 and let us
spend allllll we want on everything else. A second grade math skill
level could demonstrate the folly of that.
Snicker. "we now have the ability to cut such spending in half,
allowing us to achieve the balanced budget". At what cost? But
for the massive debt interest this grade B actor inflicted on us,
we'd've had a balanced budget years ago.
Tired of Reagan being blamed? Oh toooo bad. Yet he was the cause.
Not democrats (republicans controlled the Senate during the Reagan
years, don't forget).
CHew on this:
During his first term few of those close to him dared confront him with the
unpleasant truth that his huge tax cut and defense buildup, combined with his
relatively minor spending cuts and refusal to consider new taxes, had not
reduced the trillion-dollar debt he inherited but -- amazingly and tragically
-- had doubled it. That was the dirty little secret of the Reagan years. The
Great Budget Balancer of the campaign trail had become the Great Deficit
Spender of the Oval Office. - Warren Rudman, "Combat"
Reagan's obsession with cutting taxes had helped double the deficit.
- Warren Rudman, "Combat"
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 13:20:59 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 05:15:44 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>,
>>H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
>>>you smokin'?
>>
>> What's your position? That your heroes are entitled to be big fat
>>deficit spenders?
>
>My heroes "Petrich" are ordinary people whom the liberal-socialist
>policies of the last 30 years have been fleecing to finance absurd and
>unproductive social programs. The government OWES ordinary people
>tax-relief--with interest!
The 'wasteful" programs you describe are popular - if you think social
security, medicare and medicaid should be repealed, you are in a small
minority. Virtually everything else has been scaled back.
If the govt cuts receipts, there will be more debt, costing us more in
the long run.
Remember when Clinton raised taxes (80% on those with income, after
deductions, over $140,000)? He said that such fiscally responsible
policies would lower long term interest rates, get the economy
cookin', and lower the deficit. Many Republicans said it would cause a
recession and increase the deficit.
Clinton was correct; many Republicans were wrong.
Mortgage rates are way way down. Jobs are way way up. Deficit is down
sharply.
Fiscal responsibility pays big dividends for us all.
Being a grown up actually pays off. Don't ruin it. Don't go for big
tax cuts - which explode the deficit, raising interest rates, hurting
the economy.
Listen to Clinton and responsible Republicans like Kasich, Dominici
and Gramm.
>The attempted diversion of class-warfare doesn't hold water except in
>that the "class" that you represent has been at war with the rest of
>us for damn near a century. And its getting old.
In the eighties virtually all increase in wealth went to the already
affluent. When the Republicans took over Congress they initially tried
to accelerate that - they passed laws with all benefit cuts pretty
much aimed at the poor and all decreases in burdens aimed pretty much
at the affluent.
That strikes me as class warfare.
Better would be for all to share in the pain and share in the gain.
That doesn't strike me as class warfare.
Larry Hewitt
H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote in article
<34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>...
> On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 17:02:01 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
> Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>
> >Thank goodness we are over that kind of wild fiscal irresponsibility
> >called "supply side" economics. The kind which says - let's make
> >believe we can spend more, tax less, and all will be fine.
>
> You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
> you smokin'?
>
And the celebration is well deserved. After 12 years of you guys _saying_
you would balance the budget, we _did_ it in 5.
Larry
Larry Hewitt
George Tyrebiter, Jr. <Le...@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in article
<34bf1c79....@news.zippo.com>...
> On 10 Jan 1998 05:20:52 GMT, yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E Knadler)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >>Because of Congress and the Republican executive branch's agreement to
> >>spend lots of money on defense, we now have the ability to cut such
> >>spending in half, allowing us to achieve the balanced budget we have
> >now.
> >>Quite a smart idea.
> >>
> >>--
> >>Remove "pez" from address for direct e-mail
> >
> >
> >I glad you posted that. I'm tired of Reagan being blamed for
> >all this huge spending deficit. You have made it crystle
> >clear why it was necessary & it worked out very well
Sorry, but we have good news and bad news. The good news is the patient is
no longer sick. The bad news is the cure killed him.
Larry
> >
> yasmin2
> I can appreciate that defense spending was a good investment. But
> Reagan - and Congress - and the public - should have been willing to
> ask for taxes sufficient to pay for it.
Loren Petrich
In article <34b79f7c...@news.std.com>,
H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 13:36:40 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
>wrote:
>> Such as a national pension fund (Social Security),
>Bankrupt and not provided for in the constitution--a political
>plagiarism that robs Peter to pay Paul, invented by the swindler Ponzi
>who was prosectuted for his pains.
A "private" pension fund operates in *exactly* the same way.
>>the military,
>Absolutely consistent with the wisdom of the founders!
>>the police,
>Ditto, weasel!
So you enjoy being protected with other people's money? :-)
>>our wonderful socialist roads, ...?
>I will entertain an argument to support your contention that
>transportation is a socialist construct. ...
I don't see much moaning and groaning from right-wingers about
how our socialist roads ought never to have been built.
Thomas Odell
Rich Travesty wrote:
> Don't these dolts know we're going to be paying off
> this "necessary" spending for decades, thanks to one man's stupidity?
> Tired of Reagan being blamed? Oh toooo bad. Yet he was the cause.
This sleazy lying socialist bilge has been refuted here countless times
and the liberal propagandists keep telling the same old lie despite
being slammed on it more times than I can count.
Once more for the slow learners on the left.
**ANY** AND **ALL** DEBT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONGRESS. This is
not complicated. The CONSTITUTION of the United States is quite clear
on this. Article 1, section 8 clearly specifies that CONGRESS and
CONGRESS alone is responsible for ALL deficit and debt.
Reagan asked for the line-item veto to try and control the foolhardy and
reckless spending habits of the liberals in Congress. They refused to
give him that power.
Blaming Reagan for any debt is totally dishonest. The ONLY power he had
to control the Congress would have been to veto the ENTIRE budget which
would have driven the country into default, shut down the military and
exposed the country to serious dangers. Had he done this he would have
(rightfully) been subject to impeachment.
Liberals shamelessly lie about this for two reasons: 1.) Most liberals
are Constitutionally illiterate and don't understand the separation of
powers under the Constitution as designed by the Founders; and, 2.)
Having liberals admit that THEY are responsible for the bulk of this
country's problems simply runs against the grain of the sleazy
dishonesty routinely found in most contemporary liberals.
Mr. Travesty is either ignorant or unethically dishonest. There is no
other option.
It is ME
Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<petrichE...@netcom.com>...
> In article <34b79f7c...@news.std.com>,
>
> >> Such as a national pension fund (Social Security),
>
> >Bankrupt and not provided for in the constitution--a political
> >plagiarism that robs Peter to pay Paul, invented by the swindler Ponzi
> >who was prosectuted for his pains.
>
> A "private" pension fund operates in *exactly* the same way.
To some degree but they put money into treasuries with the hope of getting
it back. How do you think the Social Security is going to pull enough money
from the debt to fund the baby boomers? I think only a fool thinks that
the money will be their in 25 years..
EM$
balanced budget ?? more like bullshi* budget. Uh without the uh
Social uh Security uh Trust Fund kicking in billions...tell me about
the balance...
even beavis and butthead know what 's balanced and it aint the buidget
Milt
It is ME wrote:
> Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote in article
> <petrichE...@netcom.com>...
> > In article <34b79f7c...@news.std.com>,
> >
> > >> Such as a national pension fund (Social Security),
> >
> > >Bankrupt and not provided for in the constitution--a political
> > >plagiarism that robs Peter to pay Paul, invented by the swindler Ponzi
> > >who was prosectuted for his pains.
> >
> > A "private" pension fund operates in *exactly* the same way.
>
> To some degree but they put money into treasuries with the hope of getting
> it back. How do you think the Social Security is going to pull enough money
> from the debt to fund the baby boomers? I think only a fool thinks that
> the money will be their in 25 years..
Please tell us you're kidding. First of all, if the rape of the SS fund hadn't
occurred over the last 15 years, there would be plenty of money, even if SS
worked the way it is supposed to.
But let me ask you this? Where do you think most of the money came from to pay
retirees over the last 40-50 years? It sure as hell didn't come from
contributions. Up until recently, the average recipient got all of their money
out, including interest, in about 1-3 years. Now, it's up to about 7-10 years.
But considering that most people age 65 have a life expectancy of about 20
years... Well, you see the problem. The problem isn't that it's a Ponzi scheme.
The problem is that you see SS as something other than what it really is;
welfare for the elderly...
Milt
Milt
Thomas Odell wrote:
> Rich Travesty wrote:
>
> > Don't these dolts know we're going to be paying off
> > this "necessary" spending for decades, thanks to one man's stupidity?
> > Tired of Reagan being blamed? Oh toooo bad. Yet he was the cause.
>
> This sleazy lying socialist bilge has been refuted here countless times
> and the liberal propagandists keep telling the same old lie despite
> being slammed on it more times than I can count.
>
> Once more for the slow learners on the left.
>
> **ANY** AND **ALL** DEBT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONGRESS. This is
> not complicated. The CONSTITUTION of the United States is quite clear
> on this. Article 1, section 8 clearly specifies that CONGRESS and
> CONGRESS alone is responsible for ALL deficit and debt.
>
Any and all debt is the result of the budget. The budget has come from the
Executive since the Depression. And the president has to sign the budget
that is out of balance, as well as the bills authorizing the borrowing.
This is not complicated. Except for odell...
Some things that are in the Constitution, odell, have been revised over
time. That is allowable, as outlined in the Constitution itself. You might
read it sometimes...
> Reagan asked for the line-item veto to try and control the foolhardy and
> reckless spending habits of the liberals in Congress. They refused to
> give him that power.
Now, the same people who wanted so badly, are bitching about its use
constantly. Personally, I see it as a problem, long term. It's too much
power for the president to have.
> Blaming Reagan for any debt is totally dishonest. The ONLY power he had
> to control the Congress would have been to veto the ENTIRE budget which
> would have driven the country into default, shut down the military and
> exposed the country to serious dangers. Had he done this he would have
> (rightfully) been subject to impeachment.
Funny, you asshole, that the Senate was GOP for most of his two terms, and
the budgets that came back for his signature usually had smaller deficits
than the ones he sent to Congress. That sure as hell doesn't back up your
revisionist version of history.
> Liberals shamelessly lie about this for two reasons: 1.) Most liberals
> are Constitutionally illiterate and don't understand the separation of
> powers under the Constitution as designed by the Founders; and, 2.)
> Having liberals admit that THEY are responsible for the bulk of this
> country's problems simply runs against the grain of the sleazy
> dishonesty routinely found in most contemporary liberals.
Let's analyze the above, shall we?He calls us Constitutionally illiterate,
while quoting Article 1, Section 8 as his source for the crap he's spewing
forth. Does anyone else see this as ironic?
A clue, odell; read the last part of section 8, where it gives Congress the
power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers..." Congress decided it was "necessary
and proper" to delegate budget creation to the Bureau of the Budget back
during the Depression. Have a clue yet?
Then he claims that we lib'ruls won't admit that we are responsible for
anything, because it goes against the grain, in a post in which he denies
ANY responsibility on the part of the Executive for the deficits of the
1980s. Can you say "irony", odell?
> Mr. Travesty is either ignorant or unethically dishonest. There is no
> other option.
Note odell's "witty" misspelling of Mr. Travsky's name. Gee, what a keen
sense of humor he has, huh?
odell, you truly on your way to yet another KOTM award. But it'll have to
wait until next month. I think "Henny" Selvitella has it locked up this
month...
Milt
kke...@best.commmm
In talk.politics.misc Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: This sleazy lying socialist bilge
Wern't you whining about name calling just before you left for your job as
a department store Santa Claus? Why yes you were. Hypocrisy is not foreign
to you is it Odell?
: Mr. Travesty is either ignorant or unethically dishonest. There is no
: other option.
Of course there is. It's called a difference of opinion. While those like
you see those who disagree with them as liars sane adults recognize that
the world allows for different viewpoints on issues. It's why politics and
political parties exists to begin with. Now feel free to return to your
little fantasy world.
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On 10 Jan 1998 20:38:02 GMT, "Larry Hewitt" <hew...@charm.net> wrote:
>
>
>H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote in article
><34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>...
>> On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 17:02:01 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>> Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>>
>> >Thank goodness we are over that kind of wild fiscal irresponsibility
>> >called "supply side" economics. The kind which says - let's make
>> >believe we can spend more, tax less, and all will be fine.
>>
>> You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
>> you smokin'?
>>
>
>And the celebration is well deserved. After 12 years of you guys _saying_
>you would balance the budget, we _did_ it in 5.
>
Yes! Go us! Go Larry! Go George! Go Democratic Budget Balancers!
If you think back five years ago, no one - I mean no one - but Clinton
(and those of us who thought he actually sounded like he knew the
score) thought we could actually get this problem under control. Some
old Republican budget hawk published a book which predicted deficits
of 750 billion by now.
Thank God we elected a fiscal grown up (and hiring Lloyd Benson,
Panetta, Rubin, Rivlin - and even Laura Tyson and Ms. Barshevsky,
under Kantor, and Larry Summers, sure didn't hurt - the country should
erect a fiscal responsibility statue to that economic team).
And to you and me Larry, for believing in fiscal responsibility and
voting them in!
I told everyone I could grab that just as only Nixon could go to
China, so too only a Democrat could fix the deficit.
A surprising number of Republicans back then saw the logic in what I
said - Bush couldn't raise tax again, and the demos would have called
his cuts heartless.
Clinton was the one.
In thanks, and as penitence for my vanity, I promise to go a whole
week thinking only nice things about Newt.
>Larry
It is ME
Does anyone have a hard number that accounts for the Social Security money?
It is pretty clear that the balance budget is like the unemployment
numbers. Get rid of the older workers long enough and you reduce the
number of reported unemployed.
I get the feeling that were back to the good old days when the government
reported what it wanted.
Is this like the light at the end of the tunnel being Charlie taking over.
EM$ <hot...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<34B826...@earthlink.net>...
> Larry Hewitt wrote:
> >
> > H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote in article
> > <34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>...
> > > On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 17:02:01 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
> > > Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
> > >
> > > >Thank goodness we are over that kind of wild fiscal irresponsibility
> > > >called "supply side" economics. The kind which says - let's make
> > > >believe we can spend more, tax less, and all will be fine.
> > >
> > > You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What
are
> > > you smokin'?
> > >
> >
> > And the celebration is well deserved. After 12 years of you guys
_saying_
> > you would balance the budget, we _did_ it in 5.
> >
Larry Hewitt
EM$ <hot...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<34B826...@earthlink.net>...
> Larry Hewitt wrote:
> >
> > H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote in article
> > <34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>...
> > > On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 17:02:01 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
> > > Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
> > >
> > > >Thank goodness we are over that kind of wild fiscal irresponsibility
> > > >called "supply side" economics. The kind which says - let's make
> > > >believe we can spend more, tax less, and all will be fine.
> > >
> > > You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What
are
> > > you smokin'?
> > >
> >
> > And the celebration is well deserved. After 12 years of you guys
_saying_
> > you would balance the budget, we _did_ it in 5.
> >
> > Larry
>
> balanced budget ?? more like bullshi* budget. Uh without the uh
> Social uh Security uh Trust Fund kicking in billions...tell me about
> the balance...
>
Well, if you want to get technical ... :>)
It is tehh repugs who are defining the "budget" narrowly. THey are the ones
who wanted to make ss and dot trust funds income in the balanced budget
amendments. They are the ones talking about futher cuts to eliminate the
statistically insignificant $5B deficit for this year. They are the ones
who are ignoring the debt and off budget items , proposing huge tax cuts.
THey are the ones who spent 12 years promising to eliminate the deficit,
but instead saw it grow year after year. The repugs are the ones who
created the off - budget tricks in teh 70's to comply with Gramm Rudman
Hollings.
So, as the budget is defined by Congress, my statment was correct. But just
because Repuigs in congress are a bumnch of idiots, don't get mad at me.
Larry
Mary E Knadler
In <34B7B0...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> Rich Travsky
<rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> writes:
>
>yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E Knadler) wrote:
>>>Because of Congress and the Republican executive branch's agreement
to
>>>spend lots of money on defense, we now have the ability to cut such
>>>spending in half, allowing us to achieve the balanced budget we have
>>now.
>>>Quite a smart idea.
>>all this huge spending deficit. You have made it crystle
>>clear why it was necessary & it worked out very well
>
>this "necessary" spending for decades, thanks to one man's stupidity?
>
>spend allllll we want on everything else. A second grade math skill
>level could demonstrate the folly of that.
>
>Snicker. "we now have the ability to cut such spending in half,
>allowing us to achieve the balanced budget". At what cost? But
>for the massive debt interest this grade B actor inflicted on us,
>we'd've had a balanced budget years ago.
>
>years, don't forget).
>
I'm tired of Warren Rudman. Period. When the Republicans in the
104th Congress were trying to get Clinton to sign the CR he had
agreed to, where was he? Where were the others who had been saying
all this stuff for years. That they wanted a balanced budget!
Their silence was defeaning. I think that's your answer.
They just play the old political game. Rudman was in the
Senate during all this period he was complaining about &
what did he do about it? Anyone can talk a good game, but let
them put their money where their mouth is.
I'm sick of these Moderates who find so much fault with Reagan
& they couldn't win an election if it killed them.
yasmin2
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 17:53:22 -0800, "EM$" <hot...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>Larry Hewitt wrote:
>>
>> H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote in article
>> <34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>...
>> > On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 17:02:01 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>> > Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>> >
>> > >Thank goodness we are over that kind of wild fiscal irresponsibility
>> > >called "supply side" economics. The kind which says - let's make
>> > >believe we can spend more, tax less, and all will be fine.
>> >
>> > You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
>> > you smokin'?
>> >
>>
>> And the celebration is well deserved. After 12 years of you guys _saying_
>> you would balance the budget, we _did_ it in 5.
>>
>> Larry
>
>balanced budget ?? more like bullshi* budget. Uh without the uh
>Social uh Security uh Trust Fund kicking in billions...tell me about
>the balance...
>
>even beavis and butthead know what 's balanced and it aint the buidget
>
throw in a "capital budget" - i.e. give credit for the long lived
assets govt produces, as well as charging long-term liabilities, and
we're fairly close.
H.Selvitella
On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 21:18:51 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
wrote:
>In article <34b79f7c...@news.std.com>,
>H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 13:36:40 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
>>wrote:
>
>>> Such as a national pension fund (Social Security),
>
>>Bankrupt and not provided for in the constitution--a political
>>plagiarism that robs Peter to pay Paul, invented by the swindler Ponzi
>>who was prosectuted for his pains.
>
> A "private" pension fund operates in *exactly* the same way.
A private pension fund is NOT compulsory and can be controlled by its
owner. Its yield, more likely than not, will be considerably greater
and it does not RELY on contributions but on EARNINGS with which to
settle claims.
>>>the military,
>>Absolutely consistent with the wisdom of the founders!
>
>>>the police,
>>Ditto, weasel!
>
> So you enjoy being protected with other people's money? :-)
Shared expenses are a far cry from the redistribution of wealth.
>>>our wonderful socialist roads, ...?
>>I will entertain an argument to support your contention that
>>transportation is a socialist construct. ...
>
> I don't see much moaning and groaning from right-wingers about
>how our socialist roads ought never to have been built.
I will entertain an argument to support your contention that
H.Selvitella
On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 18:13:21 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
snipped
>>The attempted diversion of class-warfare doesn't hold water except in
>>that the "class" that you represent has been at war with the rest of
>>us for damn near a century. And its getting old.
>
>In the eighties virtually all increase in wealth went to the already
>affluent.
Don't be an idiot! If you bet 2 bucks on a 17-to-one longshot and I
bet 2 thousand on the same horse who takes home the larger win? Do you
refuse to accept your 34 bucks because I grabbed 34,000? The American
people understand that it takes money to make money. That's why
they're all hustling to get ahead and why many of them succeed. You
ought to try it philosopher. You might like it.
> When the Republicans took over Congress they initially tried
>to accelerate that - they passed laws with all benefit cuts pretty
>much aimed at the poor and all decreases in burdens aimed pretty much
>at the affluent.
Sure, you CAN look at it that way. I look at it from the perspective
that the federal socialist had overextended the government and the
taxPAYER with promises it was unable UN ABLE to fulfill.The poor
buggers who bought their horseshit learned the hard way that they had
been taken for a ride down the primrose path. Pie-in-the-sky turns to
horse-puckey, Chuckey.
>That strikes me as class warfare.
It would. To me its class exploitation by the socialist politicians
who USED the poor saps to salve their social conscience with imperfect
and absurd solutions that never add up.
>Better would be for all to share in the pain and share in the gain.
>
>That doesn't strike me as class warfare.
Ah! Then you do support the flat tax, an end to social security and
medicare, school vouchers and medical savings accounts. Good man. Glad
to hear it.
H.Selvitella
On 10 Jan 1998 20:38:02 GMT, "Larry Hewitt" <hew...@charm.net> wrote:
>
>
>H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote in article
><34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>...
>> On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 17:02:01 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>> Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>>
>> >Thank goodness we are over that kind of wild fiscal irresponsibility
>> >called "supply side" economics. The kind which says - let's make
>> >believe we can spend more, tax less, and all will be fine.
>>
>> You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
>> you smokin'?
>>
>
>And the celebration is well deserved. After 12 years of you guys _saying_
>you would balance the budget, we _did_ it in 5.
Shucks, Larry. We always knew you WANTED to balance the budget.
EMMETT M JORDAN
RED CAPS & TERRORISM
(C)1996, 1997 by Emmett Michael Jordan, Prodigy.
By 1850, Milwaukee and SE Wisconsin were developing a large Democratic
German Irish Catholic population alongside a rather autocratic Protestant
Yankee Whig (Republican) group. Important sponsors of the Catholics were
King Ludwig I of Bavaria and Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna of Mexico.
Lesser elements of the Democratic Catholic population included French,
Belgian,
Spanish, Polish, and Russian peoples. All rapidly converted to English
language
culture, except the Germans, who maintained separate major German language
newspapers and societies, for several generations. The founder of Milwaukee
was the French-Canadian Democrat Solomon Juneau, whose name was given
to the NE Quarter, Juneautown. The SE Quarter was named Walkers Point,
after Virginian George Walker. The NW Quarter was Kilbourntown, after
New England Yankee Byron Kilbourn. To the SW, Noah Jordan once led the
Doorleys up the Scott Trail to the National Highlands, to escape Third Ward
floods, while partaking in kinnickinnic with some Chippewa. Important
Catholic
leaders include Bishop John Martin Henni (Swiss) and Archbishop Michael
Heiss
(German). Rallys and marches of the Democrats were huge torchlit parades of
individuals dressed in red oilcloth capes and hats, called the "Red Caps",
related
to Spanish matador capes. Many Democrats died in the USM Lady Elgin disaster
of 1860, when the schooner Augusta rammed into the steamship returning from
a
Chicago rally for Presidential candidate Stephen Douglas, who by a stroke of
luck,
returned to Washington, instead of boarding the Lady Elgin up to Milwaukee
on the
campaign trail. Most of the funerals were from the Roman Catholic Cathedral
of
Saint John the Evangelist. A planned purchase of the Lady Elgin for the
immigrant
import, wheat export trade, by the City of Milwaukee, and it's use as a
model by
the Jones Shipyard to construct similar ships was hence dashed. Milwaukee
became the wheat capital of America by 1873, despite this setback in 1860,
with
huge grain elevators, a large canal and rail system built by Irish labor,
and strains
of winter wheat introduced by Russians. More details are in "USM Lady Elgin
Shipwreck 1860" by Emmett Jordan, descendant of Doctor Martin Lee
(in Ulster brogue Martin Doorley), Ensign Orderly of the Milwaukee Union
Guards and Harbormaster of the Port of Milwaukee 1860. His wife Rena was
called "the Queen of the West", from the Spanish Netherland (Belgian)
"Reina",
which in French was "Reine", or German "Katrina", and perhaps the Union ram
ship that later destroyed CSA shipping south of Vicksburg. The "Bridge Wars"
of 1845 were won by Juneautown when the Sarsfield (Irish French)
predecessors
of the Milwaukee Union Guards trained a cannon on Kilbourntown rioters as
they
destroyed a bridge that was needed by various livery businesses, like the
coal-
hauling work of the Doorleys. The rioters were of anti-Catholic
anti-immigration
radical Protestant, Yankee, Whig, Tory, Republican elements. Juneau was part
of
the fur empire of John Jacob Astor (St Louis, Oregon Trail, New York), which
successors of, drove the British government out of Oregon, Idaho, and
Washington
by 1846 and were accused of decimating the Cayuse tribe in 1847, as they
replaced
the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) in the Northwest. The USM Lady Elgin was a
noted merchant ship between Chicago, Milwaukee, Mackinac, Sault Ste Marie,
HBC, and Lake Superior ports. Some felt the "manifest destiny" of the USA
could
have taken over HBC and it's Empire of Rupert's Land when the HBC charter
was
revoked by the British Crown in 1859, so Westpoint began to encourage the
formation of Fenian brigades. HBC had been at war with Russian Alaska, also.
Over the years there has been some speculation that Captain Darius Nelson
Malott's
sinking of the USM Lady Elgin was a deliberate act of terrorism, by a man
surviving
a cannibalism incident, and named after a Persian (Iranian) Emperor with
fleets of
galley ram warships, using an identical technique taught in Liverpool,
England.
The terrorist claims are feasible when one considers that Malott seems to
have
drifted and tacked SSE along the Lady Elgin's normal course, instead of
being on a
normal schooner SSW course from Michigan. However, Wilson steamed the Lady
Elgin further out in the lake than normal that night, because of a strong
gale from
the NE. Hence, Malott sailed his heavy unlit schooner off course, with
difficulty, to
the ESE, when he saw the unmistakable bright headlamp of the Lady Elgin
approaching. Then after ramming the Lady Elgin with his jib and bow at the
vulnerable side-wheel house, Malott sailed SSW, now on course, instead of
stopping to provide assistance. He knew his directions and was not lost.
Malott also
seems to have adjusted to one last minute course change that Wilson made to
try
to avoid collision, when it was apparent that this was not a schooner
attempting
to transfer passengers or smuggle in mid-lake, as was probably signaled. As
Malott
sailed ESE to hit the steamship, he took a risk of tipping over, he heeled
so much.
He also broke a Captain's rule where he should have passed the steamer from
the
larboard side, which maneuver would have also righted his ship from the
dangerous
heeled over condition. Hence many survivors thought Malott's actions were a
deliberate ramming attack and an abuse of his legal right to the
right-of-way as a
sailing ship vs a steamer. The right-of-way law was even changed, so his
arrest
would have been sustained at a later time. He and his crew had to change
ships to
try to escape recognition, being haunted by relatives of the 1000 orphans of
the
Lady Elgin, who were hence without any liability compensation. Over 18000
mourners took part in the funerals, since the Milwaukee Union Guards had
been
a very popular parade and festival unit, complete with their firecrackers
and
fireworks from the harbor. Many donations were contributed, some for a Saint
John's Cathedral orphanage. Many sailors refused to sign on with the jinxed
Captain Malott or his repaired schooner, Augusta. Apparently he and his old
crew
perished on a new ship that sank mysteriously on the fourth anniversary of
the
Lady Elgin disaster, perhaps by the banshees. The banshees may have been
motivated by captured Confederate officers and correspondence. In world
politics, around 1850, Britain, France, Spain, and later Austria, started to
unify
military operations for invasions of Mexico, China, Russia, Persia, SE Asia,
etc,
which the CSA courted, and got only four warships from, and no expeditionary
force. An expeditionary force would have intended to regain control of
Europe's
American colonies, in a unified manner, instead of with the feuding
divisions of
the past, and thereby regain control of important commodities. Complicating
a
study of motivations for the ramming is the support shown the CSA or
Democratic
rule in Baltimore, put down with considerable force by the US Army.
Baltimore
had outfitted hundreds of privateers against the English flag, and then
later the
Spanish, in support of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Latin
revolt
against Spain, the war between France and Britain, etc. It was the head of
the
Catholic Church of the USA, sometimes looked upon as an evil foreign
influence,
other evil eyes being England, Spain, and Karl Marx, at times. It was
sometimes
tainted with anti-Irish bigotry, and perhaps a group there frowned upon an
Irish
Catholic militia being formed in Milwaukee, a growing immigrant city.
Radical
Republicans like Wisconsin Governor Alexander Randall were obviously feuding
with the Milwaukee Union Guard when it and their associates were liquidated
by
Malott, including the owners of the London Illustrated News and New Orleans
Picayune, who were compiling friendly press coverage of the Democratic rally
and
Douglas. Randall, a veritable Prince of Orange, then sent troops to
Republican
Lincoln to pacify Catholic Maryland. Because of the conduct of a few
military
people at Fort Sumter, Randall thought that Catholic Charlestown "should be
razed till not one stone is left upon another, till there is no place for
the owl to
hoot, nor the bittern to mourn". He wanted the Union army "to blaze a broad
track through the whole South, from Montgomery to Charlestown...with the
thunderbolts of Jove". A path of the old South, once part of the Catholic
Spanish Empire. He wanted "to wipe out not only traitors, but the seeds
(children) of traitors". His fiery oratory at a Governor's Conference earned
him
the title "radical Republican". His choice to command the Second Wisconsin,
Colonel Park Coon, deserted his troops before the battle of First Bull Run,
and the troops were defeated by Stonewall Jackson, and even attacked by
Yankee troops, when they tried to retreat. Randall's banking system went
into a depression when his southern bonds defaulted, he having earlier tied
it to the South, rather than like other northern states, the East. Financial
and
railroad elements of the Republican Party did not allow him to run for
re-election.
Randall had been supported by the foreign gold "rand" of the Marxist
1848r's,
many French, German and Italian terrorists and workers, who temporarily
overthrew Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Cologne, Prague, Rome, etc, proclaimed the
"Communist Manifesto" written by the Communist League in London, and then
fled to Wisconsin and Texas land grants, and many USA/CSA cities. Randall
was identified with "abolitionists" in the Republican Party, a philosophy
from the
"Communist Manifesto", which was implemented to abolish serfdom in parts of
Europe, despite the revolution being crushed there. General Sherman
eventually
carried out some of Randall's recommendations, even the caution not to
cross
the Sabine River. Another possible terrorist act against the same Milwaukee
neighborhood was the Great Third Ward Fire of 1890, spread by windy
incendiaries from the Union Oil Company. The worst possible attack against a
Catholic parish was in October 1871; when the wind shifted almost four
square
miles of Chicago were gutted by fire; over one million acres of Wisconsin
and
Michigan timberland also mysteriously burned. EMJ 1/5/98.
lady4.txt, lady4.jpg, lady22.txt, lady24.txt, sec1.txt, jack1.txt, war4.txt,
wis1.txt, hang1.txt. Email <wpc...@prodigy.com>
<http://www.freeyellow.com/members/jordan-electron>
<http://pages.prodigy.com/WPCC88A> (note capital letters)
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 07:18:04 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 18:13:21 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>
>snipped
>
>>>The attempted diversion of class-warfare doesn't hold water except in
>>>that the "class" that you represent has been at war with the rest of
>>>us for damn near a century. And its getting old.
>>
>>In the eighties virtually all increase in wealth went to the already
>>affluent.
>
>Don't be an idiot! If you bet 2 bucks on a 17-to-one longshot and I
>bet 2 thousand on the same horse who takes home the larger win? Do you
>refuse to accept your 34 bucks because I grabbed 34,000? The American
>people understand that it takes money to make money. That's why
>they're all hustling to get ahead and why many of them succeed. You
>ought to try it philosopher. You might like it.
Henny - before the eighties all of us gained in our wealth - not just
the rich. I think all of us gaining is better.
>
>> When the Republicans took over Congress they initially tried
>>to accelerate that - they passed laws with all benefit cuts pretty
>>much aimed at the poor and all decreases in burdens aimed pretty much
>>at the affluent.
>
>Sure, you CAN look at it that way. I look at it from the perspective
>that the federal socialist had overextended the government and the
>taxPAYER with promises it was unable UN ABLE to fulfill.
Including many entitlements and breaks to the affluent - which the
Republicans INCREASED rather than limited. but if there were a benefit
for someone who actually needed it - they chopped it.
The poor
>buggers who bought their horseshit learned the hard way that they had
>been taken for a ride down the primrose path. Pie-in-the-sky turns to
>horse-puckey, Chuckey.
Unless the pie in the sky were for the affluent - in that case
Republicans actually INCREAED the take.
>
>>That strikes me as class warfare.
>
>It would. To me its class exploitation by the socialist politicians
>who USED the poor saps to salve their social conscience with imperfect
>and absurd solutions that never add up.
>>Better would be for all to share in the pain and share in the gain.
>>
>>That doesn't strike me as class warfare.
>
>Ah! Then you do support the flat tax, an end to social security and
>medicare, school vouchers and medical savings accounts. Good man. Glad
>to hear it.
I support a reduction to a balanced budget fairly spread among all -
including cuts to the poor. Republicans passed laws with cuts for the
poor and breaks for those who gave them campaign contributions.
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 07:18:08 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
>On 10 Jan 1998 20:38:02 GMT, "Larry Hewitt" <hew...@charm.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote in article
>><34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>...
>>> On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 17:02:01 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>>> Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>>>
>>> >Thank goodness we are over that kind of wild fiscal irresponsibility
>>> >called "supply side" economics. The kind which says - let's make
>>> >believe we can spend more, tax less, and all will be fine.
>>>
>>> You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
>>> you smokin'?
>>>
>>
>>And the celebration is well deserved. After 12 years of you guys _saying_
>>you would balance the budget, we _did_ it in 5.
>
>Shucks, Larry. We always knew you WANTED to balance the budget.
An unbalanced budget is bad for those who favor social spending.
Interest payments on debt go mainly to the rich - which may explain
why Reagan exploded the amount of such payments,and why certain rich
"supply siders" argued deficits don't hurt us.
Larry Hewitt
H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote in article
> On 10 Jan 1998 20:38:02 GMT, "Larry Hewitt" <hew...@charm.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote in article
> ><34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>...
> >> On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 17:02:01 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
> >> Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Thank goodness we are over that kind of wild fiscal irresponsibility
> >> >called "supply side" economics. The kind which says - let's make
> >> >believe we can spend more, tax less, and all will be fine.
> >>
> >> You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
> >> you smokin'?
> >>
> >
> >And the celebration is well deserved. After 12 years of you guys
_saying_
> >you would balance the budget, we _did_ it in 5.
>
> Shucks, Larry. We always knew you WANTED to balance the budget.
>
Then why did you fight us all those years?
Larry
Kevin Davis
I'm sure that the improvement in the status of the budget has nothing
to do with the republicans does it? They only have the power to
control what is spent and what is not. How shameless the democrats
are to take total credit for this. Revising history for them extends
back starting 15 minutes from now.
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 00:16:56 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>On 10 Jan 1998 20:38:02 GMT, "Larry Hewitt" <hew...@charm.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote in article
>><34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>...
>>> On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 17:02:01 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>>> Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>>>
>>> >Thank goodness we are over that kind of wild fiscal irresponsibility
>>> >called "supply side" economics. The kind which says - let's make
>>> >believe we can spend more, tax less, and all will be fine.
>>>
>>> You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
>>> you smokin'?
>>>
>>
>>And the celebration is well deserved. After 12 years of you guys _saying_
>>you would balance the budget, we _did_ it in 5.
>>
>
>Yes! Go us! Go Larry! Go George! Go Democratic Budget Balancers!
>
>
>If you think back five years ago, no one - I mean no one - but Clinton
>(and those of us who thought he actually sounded like he knew the
>score) thought we could actually get this problem under control. Some
>old Republican budget hawk published a book which predicted deficits
>of 750 billion by now.
>
>Thank God we elected a fiscal grown up (and hiring Lloyd Benson,
>Panetta, Rubin, Rivlin - and even Laura Tyson and Ms. Barshevsky,
>under Kantor, and Larry Summers, sure didn't hurt - the country should
>erect a fiscal responsibility statue to that economic team).
>
>And to you and me Larry, for believing in fiscal responsibility and
>voting them in!
>
>I told everyone I could grab that just as only Nixon could go to
>China, so too only a Democrat could fix the deficit.
>
>A surprising number of Republicans back then saw the logic in what I
>said - Bush couldn't raise tax again, and the demos would have called
>his cuts heartless.
>
>Clinton was the one.
>
>In thanks, and as penitence for my vanity, I promise to go a whole
>week thinking only nice things about Newt.
>
>>Larry
>
>-------------
>George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.
Remove zzz from my email address:
~~~Golf Tip: Don't pick up a lost ball until it stops rolling~~~o
Kevin Davis "Hoser" email - kda...@zzzcastlegate.net
Home Page - http://www.castlegate.net/personals/kdavis
Standard Disclaimer (Win95 Tips, sound bites, and more!)
Stupendous Man
Laughably, the Democrats are trying to take credit
for the Republicans balancing the budget.
Okay, which programs did it? Clinton's failed attempt
to socialize medicine?
Nope.
Clinton's tax increase on the productive?
Nope, it took in only about 60% of the estimated taxes,
and in the mean time growth has slowed from about 3.5% in
the Reagan years to 2.5% now. That extra 1% of GDP would
have resulted in a stronger economy and thus--*more tax
revenues*.
What about the Democrat congress in 93 and 94?
Big Zero. They gutted defense spending and claimed
credit for the due to expire anyway S&L bailouts. That
still left the budget $100 billion out of balance.
It took a Republican congress to stop the spending!
You can't beat supply side. Lower rates, a larger economy,
lower spending and you get just what everyone said you would:
a balanced budget and a growing economy.
Now if we can only stop this stupide incremental socialized
medicine scam from tossing us back into the bad old days of
the 1970s, we'll be fine.
Brett
Steven P. McNicoll
George Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote in message <34b80c47...@news.zippo.com>...
>On 10 Jan 1998 20:38:02 GMT, "Larry Hewitt" <hew...@charm.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote in article
>><34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>...
>>> On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 17:02:01 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>>> Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>>>
>>> >Thank goodness we are over that kind of wild fiscal irresponsibility
>>> >called "supply side" economics. The kind which says - let's make
>>> >believe we can spend more, tax less, and all will be fine.
>>>
>>> You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
>>> you smokin'?
>>>
>>
>>And the celebration is well deserved. After 12 years of you guys _saying_
>>you would balance the budget, we _did_ it in 5.
>>
>
>Yes! Go us! Go Larry! Go George! Go Democratic Budget Balancers!
>
>
"Democratic Budget Balancers"? Now there's an oxymoron!
>If you think back five years ago, no one - I mean no one - but Clinton
>(and those of us who thought he actually sounded like he knew the
>score) thought we could actually get this problem under control. Some
>old Republican budget hawk published a book which predicted deficits
>of 750 billion by now.
>
>Thank God we elected a fiscal grown up (and hiring Lloyd Benson,
>Panetta, Rubin, Rivlin - and even Laura Tyson and Ms. Barshevsky,
>under Kantor, and Larry Summers, sure didn't hurt - the country should
>erect a fiscal responsibility statue to that economic team).
>
>And to you and me Larry, for believing in fiscal responsibility and
>voting them in!
>
>I told everyone I could grab that just as only Nixon could go to
>China, so too only a Democrat could fix the deficit.
>
And you were wrong.
>A surprising number of Republicans back then saw the logic in what I
>said - Bush couldn't raise tax again, and the demos would have called
>his cuts heartless.
>
>Clinton was the one.
>
What has Clinton done that caused the deficit to fall?
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Rich Travesty wrote:
>> Don't these dolts know we're going to be paying off
>> this "necessary" spending for decades, thanks to one man's stupidity?
>> Tired of Reagan being blamed? Oh toooo bad. Yet he was the cause.
>This sleazy lying socialist bilge has been refuted here countless times
Listen up odull. You are the one telling the lies. Raygun bloated the
national debt, he is the one that demanded funding for a pie in the
sky star wars program, demanded more for the b1 hanger queen. He had
the power of veto just like Clinton does only the senile drooling fool
didn't have the guts to use it.
Now odull let The White Rose enlighten you on raygun. The address is
in the sig.
The rest of odull's rant snipped to spare humanity.
==========================================================================
Let The White Rose enlighten you.
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
gdy weasel
==========================================================================
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
>I'm sure that the improvement in the status of the budget has nothing
>to do with the republicans does it? They only have the power to
>control what is spent and what is not. How shameless the democrats
>are to take total credit for this. Revising history for them extends
>back starting 15 minutes from now.
>
CBO scoring indicates that the current improvement is due primarily
to the Demo budget passed in 1993, with no Republican votes, cutting
470 billion from deficits over five years, starting slow, getting big
about now, and the better than projected economy. The score for bills
passed by Republicans are still in the small change period.
Republicans always argued smaller deficits would help the economy - so
the 470 billion reduction, with no Republican votes, also gets at
least part of the credit for the good economy.
CBO is god, per Republicans.
So giving the credit to Demos, almost exclusively, is consistent with
long-standing Republican arguments.
H.Selvitella
On 11 Jan 1998 18:37:14 GMT, "Larry Hewitt" <hew...@charm.net> wrote:
>
>
>H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote in article
><34b870be...@news.std.com>...
>> On 10 Jan 1998 20:38:02 GMT, "Larry Hewitt" <hew...@charm.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote in article
>> ><34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>...
>> >> On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 17:02:01 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>> >> Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Thank goodness we are over that kind of wild fiscal irresponsibility
>> >> >called "supply side" economics. The kind which says - let's make
>> >> >believe we can spend more, tax less, and all will be fine.
>> >>
>> >> You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
>> >> you smokin'?
>> >>
>> >
>> >And the celebration is well deserved. After 12 years of you guys
>_saying_
>> >you would balance the budget, we _did_ it in 5.
>>
>> Shucks, Larry. We always knew you WANTED to balance the budget.
>>
>
>Then why did you fight us all those years?
>
>Larry
Stand up comedy sitting down.
H.Selvitella
>I support a reduction to a balanced budget fairly spread among all -
>including cuts to the poor. Republicans passed laws with cuts for the
>poor and breaks for those who gave them campaign contributions.
Did you say CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS???????
H.Selvitella
>An unbalanced budget is bad for those who favor social spending.
>Interest payments on debt go mainly to the rich - which may explain
>why Reagan exploded the amount of such payments,and why certain rich
>"supply siders" argued deficits don't hurt us.
The more you keep insisting on bashing "the rich" the dumber you look
and the less inclined ANYONE is to engage. Go to alt.socialist, or
alt. communist or whatever. That class warfare bullshit does not fly.
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 03:40:52 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
For most of this century all groups got richer. That stopped in the
late seventies. In the eighties wealth accumulated almost exclusively
at the upper end of the economic scale. I haven't seen figures for the
past couple years - but the rapid accumulation of almost all new
wealth in a small number of hands isn't fair and it isn't good for us.
Then, Republicans came to Congress and in their initial efforts to
balance the budget virtually all the cuts were cuts for those already
experiencing big declines in their income and economic well-being -
while at the same time they passed a 350 billion (house version) tax
cut which was geared very heavily to the group already getting vastly
greater income.
That is class warfare, in my opinion - balance the budget on the backs
of those already hurting, while making the load twice as hard because
of 350 billion in tax cuts.
Those initial Republican proposals, with that extreme unwariness, made
me sensitive to this issue.
And one of the reasons I favor a balanced budget is that I think
paying hundreds of billions a year to bond holders could better be
spent by broad based tax cuts, or govt programs which are widely
beneficial.
I'm sorry you find that unpersuasive.
H.Selvitella
John W. Tibbs
EM$ wrote:
>
> Larry Hewitt wrote:
> >
> > H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote in article
> > <34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>...
> > > Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
> > >
> > > >Thank goodness we are over that kind of wild fiscal irresponsibility
> > > >called "supply side" economics. The kind which says - let's make
> > > >believe we can spend more, tax less, and all will be fine.
> > >
> > > You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
> > > you smokin'?
> > >
> >
> > And the celebration is well deserved. After 12 years of you guys _saying_
> > you would balance the budget, we _did_ it in 5.
> >
>
> balanced budget ?? more like bullshi* budget. Uh without the uh
> Social uh Security uh Trust Fund kicking in billions...tell me about
> the balance...
>
> even beavis and butthead know what 's balanced and it aint the buidget
And Slick Willy wants to SPEND it all on unworkable social programs
while he calls a potential tax cut 'spending money before we have it'.
Go figure.
jwt
John W. Tibbs
Kevin Davis wrote:
>
> I'm sure that the improvement in the status of the budget has nothing
> to do with the republicans does it? They only have the power to
> control what is spent and what is not. How shameless the democrats
> are to take total credit for this. Revising history for them extends
> back starting 15 minutes from now.
>
> Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>
> >On 10 Jan 1998 20:38:02 GMT, "Larry Hewitt" <hew...@charm.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote in article
> >><34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>...
> >>> On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 17:02:01 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
> >>> Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Thank goodness we are over that kind of wild fiscal irresponsibility
> >>> >called "supply side" economics. The kind which says - let's make
> >>> >believe we can spend more, tax less, and all will be fine.
> >>>
> >>> You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
> >>> you smokin'?
> >>>
> >>
> >>And the celebration is well deserved. After 12 years of you guys _saying_
> >>you would balance the budget, we _did_ it in 5.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >(and those of us who thought he actually sounded like he knew the
> >score) thought we could actually get this problem under control. Some
> >old Republican budget hawk published a book which predicted deficits
> >of 750 billion by now.
> >
> >Thank God we elected a fiscal grown up (and hiring Lloyd Benson,
> >Panetta, Rubin, Rivlin - and even Laura Tyson and Ms. Barshevsky,
> >under Kantor, and Larry Summers, sure didn't hurt - the country should
> >erect a fiscal responsibility statue to that economic team).
> >
> >And to you and me Larry, for believing in fiscal responsibility and
> >voting them in!
> >
> >I told everyone I could grab that just as only Nixon could go to
> >China, so too only a Democrat could fix the deficit.
> >
> >said - Bush couldn't raise tax again, and the demos would have called
> >his cuts heartless.
> >
> >Clinton was the one.
> >
> >week thinking only nice things about Newt.
> >
> >>Larry
> >
> >George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.
>
John W. Tibbs
George Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 03:40:52 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
> wrote:
>
> >Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
> >
> >>An unbalanced budget is bad for those who favor social spending.
> >>Interest payments on debt go mainly to the rich - which may explain
> >>why Reagan exploded the amount of such payments,and why certain rich
> >>"supply siders" argued deficits don't hurt us.
> >
> >The more you keep insisting on bashing "the rich" the dumber you look
> >and the less inclined ANYONE is to engage. Go to alt.socialist, or
> >alt. communist or whatever. That class warfare bullshit does not fly.
>
> late seventies. In the eighties wealth accumulated almost exclusively
> at the upper end of the economic scale. I haven't seen figures for the
> past couple years - but the rapid accumulation of almost all new
> wealth in a small number of hands isn't fair and it isn't good for us.
>
> Then, Republicans came to Congress and in their initial efforts to
> balance the budget virtually all the cuts were cuts for those already
> experiencing big declines in their income and economic well-being -
> while at the same time they passed a 350 billion (house version) tax
> cut which was geared very heavily to the group already getting vastly
> greater income.
>
> That is class warfare, in my opinion - balance the budget on the backs
> of those already hurting, while making the load twice as hard because
> of 350 billion in tax cuts.
How does it increase the load of working people to cut their taxes? Eh?
jwt
>
> Those initial Republican proposals, with that extreme unwariness, made
> me sensitive to this issue.
>
> And one of the reasons I favor a balanced budget is that I think
> paying hundreds of billions a year to bond holders could better be
> spent by broad based tax cuts, or govt programs which are widely
> beneficial.
>
> I'm sorry you find that unpersuasive.
John W. Tibbs
H.Selvitella wrote:
>
> On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 05:15:44 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>,
> >H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote:
> >
> >>You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
> >>you smokin'?
> >
> >deficit spenders?
>
> My heroes "Petrich" are ordinary people whom the liberal-socialist
> policies of the last 30 years have been fleecing to finance absurd and
> unproductive social programs. The government OWES ordinary people
> tax-relief--with interest!
>
> The attempted diversion of class-warfare doesn't hold water except in
> that the "class" that you represent has been at war with the rest of
> us for damn near a century. And its getting old.
It's not 'old' to liberals. All thru history their ideas have been
tried and failed but each and every one think they've got the problem
solved by their 'new' ideas.
That is - the ones who didn't use the Communist Manefesto for a bible.
jwt
Loren Petrich
>That is - the ones who didn't use the Communist Manefesto for a bible.
I'm sure that's your favorite book, Mr. Tibbs.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
Loren Petrich
In article <34b98a6a...@news.std.com>,
H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>I support a reduction to a balanced budget fairly spread among all -
>>including cuts to the poor. Republicans passed laws with cuts for the
>>poor and breaks for those who gave them campaign contributions.
>Did you say CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS???????
Mr. Selvitella, there is no need to wet your bed over this. What
makes you so sure that only President Clinton and his pals are ever crooked?
Also, Mr. Selvitella, you have distinguished yourself as a
yellow-dog Republican; I hope you can accept that Republican politicians
are capable of misbehavior.
Loren Petrich
In article <34b98ac8...@news.std.com>,
H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 08:32:55 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>>An unbalanced budget is bad for those who favor social spending.
>>Interest payments on debt go mainly to the rich - which may explain
>>why Reagan exploded the amount of such payments,and why certain rich
>>"supply siders" argued deficits don't hurt us.
I wonder why those who made a big principle about balancing the
budget tended to look the other way at right-wing deficit-lovers.
>The more you keep insisting on bashing "the rich" the dumber you look
>and the less inclined ANYONE is to engage. Go to alt.socialist, or
>alt. communist or whatever. That class warfare bullshit does not fly.
And for this, you expect a promotion, Mr. Selvitella?
As Michael Lind and others, the real class warfare has been waged
by the upper classes against the rest of the population.
Loren Petrich
>How does it increase the load of working people to cut their taxes? Eh?
I just hope you enjoy paying the bills that would replace those
repealed taxes. Like the guard bill, the road bill, the retirement-fund
bill, the medical-insurance bill, etc. etc. etc. And I hope you enjoy
payimg more for airline tickets just because the air-traffic-control
system was no longer subsidized.
John W. Tibbs
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <34b98a6a...@news.std.com>,
> H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 08:26:08 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
> >Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>
> >>I support a reduction to a balanced budget fairly spread among all -
> >>including cuts to the poor. Republicans passed laws with cuts for the
> >>poor and breaks for those who gave them campaign contributions.
>
> >Did you say CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS???????
>
> Mr. Selvitella, there is no need to wet your bed over this. What
> makes you so sure that only President Clinton and his pals are ever crooked?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHEHEHE!
>
> Also, Mr. Selvitella, you have distinguished yourself as a
> yellow-dog Republican; I hope you can accept that Republican politicians
> are capable of misbehavior.
Stupendous Man
They have to revise history, it refutes them as it
occurs.
Fact: Clinton and a Democratic congress did not
balance the budget.
Fact: Clinton said $200 billion deficits were going
to happen for the rest of the century, and that was ok.
Fact: Republicans were elected on a platform that
included working for a balanced budget.
Fact: Republicans passed balanced budget acts over
the shutdown of the government by Clinton and a propaganda
war the likes we have not seen since WWII.
Fact: Republicans balanced the budget.
Now get over it Democrats!
Brett
God over weasels
Thomas Odell
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> Listen up odull. You are the one telling the lies. Raygun bloated the
> national debt, he is the one that demanded funding
Blah, blah, blah. Heard all these radical socialist lies before. The
president CANNOT allocate a dime. The U.S. Constitution stipulates
clearly that CONGRESS and CONGRESS alone has the power of the purse.
They used to teach this stuff in grammar school civics classes. Guess
the schools are too busy these days handing out condoms to worry about
basics like the Constitutional history of the United States.
Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution clearly stipulates that
Congress is responsible for ALL debt and deficit spending. End of
debate. Reagan isn't responsible for the debt. Liberals in Congress
are. You lose.
Stupendous Man
Loren Petrich wrote:
...
> As Michael Lind and others, the real class warfare has been waged
> by the upper classes against the rest of the population.
Say people with sour grape syndrome.
Explain why the top 10% of wage earners keeps changing composition
if there is such a barrier to wealth conspiracy?
Brett
God over weasels
H.Selvitella
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 11:09:54 -0800, "John W. Tibbs" <jti...@cei.net>
wrote:
>H.Selvitella wrote:
>That is - the ones who didn't use the Communist Manefesto for a bible.
"Our" liberals DO use the Communist Manifesto for a bible They think
there may be wheat to be gleaned from the chaff--they are wrong. There
is only poison.
H.Selvitella
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 18:22:33 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
wrote:
>In article <34BA6A...@cei.net>, John W. Tibbs <jti...@cei.net> wrote:
>
>>That is - the ones who didn't use the Communist Manefesto for a bible.
>
> I'm sure that's your favorite book, Mr. Tibbs.
>
Care to state YOUR favorite book "Petrich"? Have you ever READ a book?
Which do you prefer? Purple books? Or pink ones?
H.Selvitella
On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 18:18:52 -0700, Milt <mi...@no.spam> wrote:
>But let me ask you this? Where do you think most of the money came from to pay
>retirees over the last 40-50 years? It sure as hell didn't come from
>contributions.
It sure as hell came from the US Treasury which is funded by INCOME
TAX contributions.
> Up until recently, the average recipient got all of their money
>out, including interest, in about 1-3 years. Now, it's up to about 7-10 years.
>But considering that most people age 65 have a life expectancy of about 20
>years... Well, you see the problem. The problem isn't that it's a Ponzi scheme.
>The problem is that you see SS as something other than what it really is;
>welfare for the elderly...
>
>Milt
>
Loren Petrich
In article <34bae870...@news.std.com>,
H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 18:22:33 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
>wrote:
>> I'm sure that's your favorite book, Mr. Tibbs.
>Care to state YOUR favorite book "Petrich"? Have you ever READ a book?
>Which do you prefer? Purple books? Or pink ones?
I've read *numerous* books. Have you?
Loren Petrich
In article <34bae717...@news.std.com>,
H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote:
>"Our" liberals DO use the Communist Manifesto for a bible They think
>there may be wheat to be gleaned from the chaff--they are wrong. There
>is only poison.
Where are the Communist-Manifesto-thumpers?
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 17:53:27 -0800, "John W. Tibbs" <jti...@cei.net>
wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>>
>> In article <34b98a6a...@news.std.com>,
>> H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote:
>> >On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 08:26:08 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>> >Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>>
>> >>I support a reduction to a balanced budget fairly spread among all -
>> >>including cuts to the poor. Republicans passed laws with cuts for the
>> >>poor and breaks for those who gave them campaign contributions.
>>
>> >Did you say CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS???????
>>
>> Mr. Selvitella, there is no need to wet your bed over this. What
>> makes you so sure that only President Clinton and his pals are ever crooked?
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHEHEHE!
Demos and Republicans both got contributions from Tobacco -
Republicans snuck in, with no finger prints, a late-night fifty
billion dollar tax credit for the contributor. Demos did not.
Demos and Repubs each get a lot of money from rich people.
Repubs pass bill after bill paying back such contributions, demos less
so.
See the difference?
In this context, the LEGAL contributions - which outnumber the illegal
a hundred to one - are the scandal, and are one hundred to one more
likely to corrode.
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 16:08:37 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 04:44:29 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 03:40:52 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 08:32:55 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>>>Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>>>
>>>>An unbalanced budget is bad for those who favor social spending.
>>>>Interest payments on debt go mainly to the rich - which may explain
>>>>why Reagan exploded the amount of such payments,and why certain rich
>>>>"supply siders" argued deficits don't hurt us.
>>>
>The more you keep insisting on bashing "the rich" the dumber you look
>and the less inclined ANYONE is to engage. Go to alt.socialist, or
>alt. communist or whatever. That class warfare bullshit does not fly.
I'm a big fan of Adam Smith. Beginning in the late seventies, wealth
started accumulating at the top, and fleeing from the bottom, contrary
to our history through most of this century, in which all groups got
richer.
So when I saw distributional charts of initial Republican proposals
when they re-took Congress, showing a net affect dramatically
decreasing income for the poor, and substantially increasing it for
the well-off - that just struck me as an unfair way to balance the
budget.
I prefer that all groups share that burden.
I think big deficits hurt us all - and I think the govt paying
hundreds of billions a year to bond holders probably makes the already
existing worrisome economic trends worse.
I think that wanting the deficit balancing burden to be shared by all
just makes me fair - not a commie.
I think the Republicans were actually the ones diverging from that
reasonable principle, and that they were the ones waging class
warfare.
I am glad Clinton was there to moderate their unwholesome impulses.
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 21:47:05 -0600, "Steven P. McNicoll"
<ronca...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
>George Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote in message <34b80c47...@news.zippo.com>...
>>On 10 Jan 1998 20:38:02 GMT, "Larry Hewitt" <hew...@charm.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote in article
>>><34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>...
>>>> On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 17:02:01 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>>>> Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Thank goodness we are over that kind of wild fiscal irresponsibility
>>>> >called "supply side" economics. The kind which says - let's make
>>>> >believe we can spend more, tax less, and all will be fine.
>>>>
>>>> You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
>>>> you smokin'?
>>>>
>>>
>>>And the celebration is well deserved. After 12 years of you guys _saying_
>>>you would balance the budget, we _did_ it in 5.
>>>
>>
>>Yes! Go us! Go Larry! Go George! Go Democratic Budget Balancers!
>>
>>
>
>
>"Democratic Budget Balancers"? Now there's an oxymoron!
The facts prove you wrong. When theory and fact diverge, it is
traditional to change theory. Do so.
Loren Petrich
In article <34befd70...@news.zippo.com>,
George Tyrebiter, Jr. <Le...@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote:
>I'm a big fan of Adam Smith. Beginning in the late seventies, wealth
>started accumulating at the top, and fleeing from the bottom, contrary
>to our history through most of this century, in which all groups got
>richer.
Adam Smith had made comments in the Wealth of Nations that many
right-wing ultracapitalists would find heretical. For example, he noted
that "master manufacturers" would complain endlessly of how greedy their
employees were, without acknowledging their own greed. Seems rather
familiar :-)
And he claimed that a favorite discussion topic of those of the
same business seemed to be how to raise prices (a criticism that may also
be made of some labor unions).
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 17:54:03 -0500, Stupendous Man
<"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>Laughably, the Democrats are trying to take credit
>for the Republicans balancing the budget.
>
> Okay, which programs did it? Clinton's failed attempt
>to socialize medicine?
>
> Nope.
>
> Clinton's tax increase on the productive?
>
> Nope, it took in only about 60% of the estimated taxes,
>and in the mean time growth has slowed from about 3.5% in
>the Reagan years to 2.5% now. That extra 1% of GDP would
>have resulted in a stronger economy and thus--*more tax
>revenues*.
How come Reagan ran a huge deficit and Clinton didn't?
Republicans say CBO is the authority on these matters. CBO scored the
Clinton budget, with no Republican votes, as decreasing deficits by
470 billion, a little at first, a lot now.
So, from Republican arguments about CBO, we must "score" a lot of the
current deficit reduction as due to that first Clinton budget.
Republicans also argued that deficit reduction would help the economy
- by lowering interest costs and encouraging investments.
Thus Republicans must agree that the 470 billion in lessened deficit
spending helped the economy. So give Clinton additional 'scoring" for
reducing the budget deficit. After that first Clinton budget, million
refinanced mortgages, pumping hundreds of billions into the economy,
and many firms shored up their balance sheets by refinancing their own
debts.
The CBO has scored bills passed by Republicans as having minor effect
so far.
So if you argue Clinton should NOT get credit for deficit reduction,
then you must agree that Republican arguments in past years were
false.
Which is it then - Clinton gets credit?
Or Republicans were full of it?
You must pick one or the other.
>
> What about the Democrat congress in 93 and 94?
>
> Big Zero. They gutted defense spending and claimed
>credit for the due to expire anyway S&L bailouts. That
>still left the budget $100 billion out of balance.
What credit for S&L? If you look at Bushes' last budget, under FDIC -
there is 28 billion or so in net income! With Clinton the net income
in his budget for that category was down close to zero.
If you can find in Bushes' last budget a cost for the S&L's which
diminished in Clinton's first budget, then I would appreciate a
reference to where I might confirm that, including its amount.
>
> It took a Republican congress to stop the spending!
Clinton in his first budget restrained the overall rate of growth in
fed spending to 2% (after inflation), sufficient to reduce the role of
the govt, measured as a percent of the economy. His next budget
proposal cut that figure to 1.4%. Another poster said that the most
recently passed budget increases fed spending this year by two or
three times that rate.
So what in the world are you talking about?
> You can't beat supply side. Lower rates, a larger economy,
>lower spending and you get just what everyone said you would:
>a balanced budget and a growing economy.
Just like Ronnie predicted. If you look at tax receipts after his
reductions in income tax rates - income tax receipts were dramatically
lower. If you look at social security tax receipts after he passed the
biggest tax increase in history - they rose dramatically.
So what in the world are you talking about?
At least President Reagan's budget Guru, Mr. Stockman, admitted in his
book that supply side arguments about a balanced budget resulting were
just a scam.
The supply siders are forced to make up endless excuses about why it
actually didn't work - like - oh, the Demos made Reagan spend all that
money - even though were his budgets taken with no change, then the
policies and laws reflected in them would actually have resulted in 24
(28?) billion more in debt than we actually got.
Since the actual results in tax revenues - income tax vs social
security - and the actual huge deficits, rather than the predicted
balanced budgets - are completely contrary to your supply side
argument, what lame excuses are you going to come up with to salvage
the theory.
You know, in many places, when facts diverge from theory, it is
considered good form to change the theory, rather than make up dodges
to avoid the facts.
But I bet you will dodge instead - go ahead:
>
> Now if we can only stop this stupide incremental socialized
>medicine scam from tossing us back into the bad old days of
>the 1970s, we'll be fine.
>
>Brett
We still have a way to go. We need to adjust social security and
medicare a bit.
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 11:12:00 -0800, "John W. Tibbs" <jti...@cei.net>
wrote:
>EM$ wrote:
>>
>> Larry Hewitt wrote:
>> >
>> > H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote in article
>> > <34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>...
>> > > On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 17:02:01 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>> > > Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Thank goodness we are over that kind of wild fiscal irresponsibility
>> > > >called "supply side" economics. The kind which says - let's make
>> > > >believe we can spend more, tax less, and all will be fine.
>> > >
>> > > You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
>> > > you smokin'?
>> > >
>> >
>> > And the celebration is well deserved. After 12 years of you guys _saying_
>> > you would balance the budget, we _did_ it in 5.
>> >
>> > Larry
>>
>> balanced budget ?? more like bullshi* budget. Uh without the uh
>> Social uh Security uh Trust Fund kicking in billions...tell me about
>> the balance...
>>
>> even beavis and butthead know what 's balanced and it aint the buidget
>
>And Slick Willy wants to SPEND it all on unworkable social programs
>while he calls a potential tax cut 'spending money before we have it'.
>Go figure.
>jwt
Republicans said we could not balance the "unified" budget while
increasing spending on education, preserving spending on the
environment, etc. They even said Clinton would make the deficit worse
etc.
Clinton has proven that he is a fiscal grown up.
Deficits don't help those who want spending for education, science,
environment etc. Deficits merely send hundreds of billions in interest
payments to bond holders. It may shock you, but sane liberals are MORE
opposed to the deficit than many conservatives. thus the proposals of
Clinton - which call for minor spending, will certainly be made by
restraining growth in other spending. Just like we have done for four
previous years.
me
Probably cause Grandpa Rich dies and new blood comes in.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 17:53:27 -0800, "John W. Tibbs" <jti...@cei.net>
>wrote:
>>Loren Petrich wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <34b98a6a...@news.std.com>,
>>> H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>> >On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 08:26:08 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>>> >Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>>>
>>> >>I support a reduction to a balanced budget fairly spread among all -
>>> >>including cuts to the poor. Republicans passed laws with cuts for the
>>> >>poor and breaks for those who gave them campaign contributions.
>>>
>>> >Did you say CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS???????
>>>
>>> Mr. Selvitella, there is no need to wet your bed over this. What
>>> makes you so sure that only President Clinton and his pals are ever crooked?
>>
>>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHEHEHE!
>Demos and Republicans both got contributions from Tobacco -
>Republicans snuck in, with no finger prints, a late-night fifty
>billion dollar tax credit for the contributor. Demos did not.
Why is this lie always foisted as truth? Democrats (aka the
Administration) knew that those tax provisions were in the deal and
Clinton signed it anyway.
>Demos and Repubs each get a lot of money from rich people.
>Repubs pass bill after bill paying back such contributions, demos less
>so.
Really? Who has been writing IRS code for 40 of the last 45 years?
>See the difference?
Yes. Apparently you can't.
>In this context, the LEGAL contributions - which outnumber the illegal
>a hundred to one - are the scandal, and are one hundred to one more
>likely to corrode.
But the current Adminstration, that turned its head when the illegal
money (and legal) started flowing certainly repaid favors to no one.
Democrats are pure and uncorruptible right?
JSL
Scott Erb
In article <69e9ga$ncj$4...@pike.dnaco.net>, "root"@[127.0.0.1] says...
> Explain why the top 10% of wage earners keeps changing
>composition if there is such a barrier to wealth conspiracy?
Besides the fact that the argument is a systemic one rather than one of a
conspiracy (since you used 'conspiracy theory' for rhetorical purposes I
assume you deep down realize that, so I won't argue it now), two things
occur to me here:
1) I'm not sure if the top 10% really do change significantly in
composition; do you have evidence? And
2) what do you mean by "wage earners"? Are you admitting that in terms of
actual wealth the top 10% do not change, but only among "wage earners"
they do change? If that's the case, your argument pretty much defeats
itself.
cheers, scott
John W. Tibbs
I'm still waiting for a democrat to admit they held the purse strings
for 40 years. I bet I'll have to keep waiting. Especially since the
Republicans won in 1994 and started the deficit down.
jwt
John W. Tibbs
George Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 11:12:00 -0800, "John W. Tibbs" <jti...@cei.net>
> wrote:
>
> >EM$ wrote:
> >>
> >> Larry Hewitt wrote:
> >> >
> >> > H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote in article
> >> > <34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>...
> >> > > Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >Thank goodness we are over that kind of wild fiscal irresponsibility
> >> > > >called "supply side" economics. The kind which says - let's make
> >> > > >believe we can spend more, tax less, and all will be fine.
> >> > >
> >> > > You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
> >> > > you smokin'?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > And the celebration is well deserved. After 12 years of you guys _saying_
> >> > you would balance the budget, we _did_ it in 5.
> >> >
> >> > Larry
> >>
> >> balanced budget ?? more like bullshi* budget. Uh without the uh
> >> Social uh Security uh Trust Fund kicking in billions...tell me about
> >> the balance...
> >>
> >> even beavis and butthead know what 's balanced and it aint the buidget
> >
> >And Slick Willy wants to SPEND it all on unworkable social programs
> >while he calls a potential tax cut 'spending money before we have it'.
> >Go figure.
> >jwt
>
> Republicans said we could not balance the "unified" budget while
> increasing spending on education, preserving spending on the
> environment, etc. They even said Clinton would make the deficit worse
> etc.
>
> Clinton has proven that he is a fiscal grown up.
You mean 'throw up' don't you?
>
> Deficits don't help those who want spending for education, science,
> environment etc. Deficits merely send hundreds of billions in interest
> payments to bond holders. It may shock you, but sane liberals are MORE
> opposed to the deficit than many conservatives. thus the proposals of
> Clinton - which call for minor spending, will certainly be made by
> restraining growth in other spending. Just like we have done for four
> previous years.
>
> -------------
> George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.
George, HEY GEORGE, there's no such thing as a 'sane' liberal unless you
use the liberal view of what's sane. nuf sed.
jwt
John W. Tibbs
George Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 21:47:05 -0600, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >George Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote in message <34b80c47...@news.zippo.com>...
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote in article
> >>><34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>...
> >>>> On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 17:02:01 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
> >>>> Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> >Thank goodness we are over that kind of wild fiscal irresponsibility
> >>>> >called "supply side" economics. The kind which says - let's make
> >>>> >believe we can spend more, tax less, and all will be fine.
> >>>>
> >>>> You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
> >>>> you smokin'?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>And the celebration is well deserved. After 12 years of you guys _saying_
> >>>you would balance the budget, we _did_ it in 5.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >"Democratic Budget Balancers"? Now there's an oxymoron!
>
> The facts prove you wrong. When theory and fact diverge, it is
> traditional to change theory. Do so.
>
> George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.
Why don't you do that Tyretread, show us how you libs discount theory in
facing facts.
Can't do it, can you?
jwt
Carl J. Hudecek
The top 10% keep changing composition because the OLD top 10% die or
retire.
Their Richie Rich heirs and appointed cronies assume their spots.
*****************************************************************
Explain why the top 10% of wage earners keeps changing composition
>if there is such a barrier to wealth conspiracy?
>
>Brett
>God over weasels
Steven P. McNicoll
Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
<69bi8j$12g$1...@pike.dnaco.net>...
>Laughably, the Democrats are trying to take credit
>for the Republicans balancing the budget.
>
> Okay, which programs did it? Clinton's failed attempt
>to socialize medicine?
>
> Nope.
>
> Clinton's tax increase on the productive?
>
> Nope, it took in only about 60% of the estimated taxes,
>and in the mean time growth has slowed from about 3.5% in
>the Reagan years to 2.5% now. That extra 1% of GDP would
>have resulted in a stronger economy and thus--*more tax
>revenues*.
>
> What about the Democrat congress in 93 and 94?
>
> Big Zero. They gutted defense spending and claimed
>credit for the due to expire anyway S&L bailouts. That
>still left the budget $100 billion out of balance.
>
> It took a Republican congress to stop the spending!
>
Did it? Has spending decreased under the Republican Congress?
> You can't beat supply side. Lower rates, a larger economy,
>lower spending and you get just what everyone said you would:
>a balanced budget and a growing economy.
>
Ford
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 06:01:23 -0500, me <I...@in.your.face> wrote:
>Stupendous Man wrote:
>>
>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>> ...
>> > As Michael Lind and others, the real class warfare has been waged
>> > by the upper classes against the rest of the population.
>>
>> Say people with sour grape syndrome.
>>
>> Explain why the top 10% of wage earners keeps changing composition
>> if there is such a barrier to wealth conspiracy?
>>
>> Brett
>> God over weasels
>
>Probably cause Grandpa Rich dies and new blood comes in.
You got it. Today the old saying it takes money to make money is more
true than ever. The evidence is in the continually widening gap
between the haves and have nots, with the middle class becoming a
smaller and smaller percentage of society.
F. Prefect
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has
made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded
as a bad move.....Douglas Adams
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 18:43:12 -0500, Stupendous Man
<"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>...
>> As Michael Lind and others, the real class warfare has been waged
>> by the upper classes against the rest of the population.
>
> Say people with sour grape syndrome.
Previously all segments of society benefitted from economic growth.
Lately the rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer.
Is it sour grapes to prefer a system where all segments benefit?
>
> Explain why the top 10% of wage earners keeps changing composition
>if there is such a barrier to wealth conspiracy?
Income varies from year to year, and always has.
In the past such variability took place in a context in which all
economic segments were getting ahead.
Recently, that hasn't been true.
As a result, wealth, in recent years - since the late seventies I
think - is rapidly accumulating in a smaller number of hands than
previously. Such a system, where economic benefits accrue primarily
only to a small number, seems unfair, and suggests political
instability.
>
>Brett
>God over weasels
God is presumably over us all, Brett. Only one calling himself
stupendous would question that.
Larry Hewitt
Stupendous Man <"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in article
<69dsn4$k5f$1...@pike.dnaco.net>...
> They have to revise history, it refutes them as it
> occurs.
>
> Fact: Clinton and a Democratic congress did not
> balance the budget.
>
No, but htey started the downward spiral of the deficit. THey voted on the
revenue enhancements that started it, despite TOTAL republican abdication.
Several of teh Dems who did vote on the bill knew they were committing
political suicide, but did it anyway. But the repubs? Noooo. THey just
stood back and took the credit.
> Fact: Clinton said $200 billion deficits were going
> to happen for the rest of the century, and that was ok.
>
At the time he said this he expected health care reform and welfare reform
to be negotiated separately. Any budget reductions from htese negotiatioins
WERE NOT part of his package because no one knew what they were.
But the repubs didn't want to touch health care reform and made arbitrary
change to welfare, rather than a comprehensive overhaul as Clinton wanted.
> Fact: Republicans were elected on a platform that
> included working for a balanced budget.
>
So what?
> Fact: Republicans passed balanced budget acts over
> the shutdown of the government by Clinton and a propaganda
> war the likes we have not seen since WWII.
>
WRONG. They acceded to Clinton's budget demands. Remember a lot of talk
about caving????
> Fact: Republicans balanced the budget.
>
NOPE. The fevenue enhancements in 1992, Clinton's economic policies keeping
the economy running strong, and targeted budget reductions did it. The
repugs abdicated.
> Now get over it Democrats!
>
No need. We won.
Larry
> Brett
> God over weasels
>
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 10:25:29 -0800, "John W. Tibbs" <jti...@cei.net>
wrote:
>George Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 21:47:05 -0600, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >George Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote in message <34b80c47...@news.zippo.com>...
>> >>On 10 Jan 1998 20:38:02 GMT, "Larry Hewitt" <hew...@charm.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote in article
>> >>><34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>...
>> >>>> On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 17:02:01 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>> >>>> Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >Thank goodness we are over that kind of wild fiscal irresponsibility
>> >>>> >called "supply side" economics. The kind which says - let's make
>> >>>> >believe we can spend more, tax less, and all will be fine.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
>> >>>> you smokin'?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>And the celebration is well deserved. After 12 years of you guys _saying_
>> >>>you would balance the budget, we _did_ it in 5.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Yes! Go us! Go Larry! Go George! Go Democratic Budget Balancers!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >"Democratic Budget Balancers"? Now there's an oxymoron!
>>
>> The facts prove you wrong. When theory and fact diverge, it is
>> traditional to change theory. Do so.
>>
>> -------------
>> George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.
>
>Why don't you do that Tyretread, show us how you libs discount theory in
>facing facts.
>Can't do it, can you?
>jwt
>
The person't theory is that Democrats don't balance budgets. Bush -
last budget deficit - 292 billion. Clinton, based primarily on his
first budget, passed with not one Republican vote - surplus (on a
unified basis).
My theory is about 292 billion facts better than yours.
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 10:23:39 -0800, "John W. Tibbs" <jti...@cei.net>
wrote:
>> >In this context, the LEGAL contributions - which outnumber the illegal
>> >a hundred to one - are the scandal, and are one hundred to one more
>> >likely to corrode.
>>
>> But the current Adminstration, that turned its head when the illegal
>> money (and legal) started flowing certainly repaid favors to no one.
>> Democrats are pure and uncorruptible right?
Replying through Tibbs - it corrodes both parties.
It does seem to corrode a bit faster through the Republicans - see
Tobacco fifty billion break;
>>
>> JSL
>
>I'm still waiting for a democrat to admit they held the purse strings
>for 40 years. I bet I'll have to keep waiting. Especially since the
>Republicans won in 1994 and started the deficit down.
>jwt
>
Fed spending pretty much matched revenues, but spending rose above
revenues by huge amounts in in Reagan and Bush administrations
For Bush that was probably due to rotten economy, not his fault.
For Reagan - per House Appropriations Committee analysis, Congress
reduced spending from what would have occurred had Reagan's budget
passed without change. And Reagan had a Republican Senate, and had
great clout over southern conservative demos in the house, so that he
was able to get budgets close to his requests.
The decline in deficits takes a few years after laws are passed. The
recent reductions in the deficit are primarily due to the first
Clinton budget, with no Republican votes, rather than subsequent laws
which have not yet had a chance to "compound" into large deficit
reductions. The good economy also helps a lot.
Milt
Andrew Hall wrote:
> >>>>> Stupendous Man writes:
>
> Stupendous> They have to revise history, it refutes them as it
> Stupendous> occurs.
>
> Fact> Clinton and a Democratic congress did not
> Stupendous> balance the budget.
>
> Fact> Clinton said $200 billion deficits were going
> Stupendous> to happen for the rest of the century, and that was ok.
>
> Fact> Republicans were elected on a platform that
> Stupendous> included working for a balanced budget.
>
> Fact> Republicans passed balanced budget acts over
> Stupendous> the shutdown of the government by Clinton and a propaganda
> Stupendous> war the likes we have not seen since WWII.
>
> Fact> Republicans balanced the budget.
>
> Stupendous> Now get over it Democrats!
>
> Fact: The budget is not yet balanced,
> despite Newt and Clinton lies to the contrary.
>
> Hint, the debt.
>
> ah
> (Now reading Usenet in talk.politics.misc...)
But, Andrew! It's ONLY (just under) $6 trillion!!!!
I wonder if they realize that, in this "balanced" budget, over $1500 per
taxpayer per year goes to interest on the debt?
Milt
Carl J. Hudecek
Tripling of debt under Reagan ($990 b to $2602 b) was NOT
due to a "Democratic Congress". RR had a REPUBLICAN Senate
from 1981-87. Reagan, with 100% of the GOPS and a few
Redneck Dems also had control of the House.
His insane defense spending and huge tax cuts for the rich
and large corporations were passed by the Reagan Coalition:
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD dddddRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
<<<<opposed RR budgets>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<< Reagan Coalition >>>>>>>>
d = Redneck Dems = GOPS in drag
THE REPUBLICANS ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR HUGE DEBT!
In <34BBB1...@cei.net> "John W. Tibbs" <jti...@cei.net> writes:
>
>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>>
>> Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 17:53:27 -0800, "John W. Tibbs"
<jti...@cei.net>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> In article <34b98a6a...@news.std.com>,
>> >>> H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote:
>> >>> >On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 08:26:08 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu
(George
>> >In this context, the LEGAL contributions - which outnumber the
illegal
>> >a hundred to one - are the scandal, and are one hundred to one more
>> >likely to corrode.
>>
>> But the current Adminstration, that turned its head when the illegal
>> money (and legal) started flowing certainly repaid favors to no one.
>> Democrats are pure and uncorruptible right?
>>
H.Selvitella
>On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 17:53:27 -0800, "John W. Tibbs" <jti...@cei.net>
>wrote:
>>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHEHEHE!
>
>Demos and Republicans both got contributions from Tobacco -
>Republicans snuck in, with no finger prints, a late-night fifty
>billion dollar tax credit for the contributor. Demos did not.
Certainly WOULD HAVE as in the PAST, if they were only back in the
driver's seat you hypocrite.
>Demos and Repubs each get a lot of money from rich people.
>Repubs pass bill after bill paying back such contributions, demos less
>so.
Only because they're hogtied--but, cheer up, ELECTIONS are part of the
process, remember?
>See the difference?
Oh yeah. The difference is you're still whining about 1994, dragging
your feet, encouraging obstructionism in the Congress, and peddling
the same socialist crap that got you kicked out of power in the first
place. Keep it up. You're making it emminently clear that the American
people cannot negotiate with you birds.
>In this context, the LEGAL contributions - which outnumber the illegal
>a hundred to one - are the scandal, and are one hundred to one more
>likely to corrode.
Of course!!!!! We shouldn't be concerned with ILLEGAL contributions,
certainly not! I see! Its the LEGAL contributions that demand--DEMAND
ACTION.
Pathetic and boring.
H.Selvitella
>I'm a big fan of Adam Smith. Beginning in the late seventies, wealth
>started accumulating at the top, and fleeing from the bottom, contrary
>to our history through most of this century, in which all groups got
>richer.
You're talking about voluntary SPENDING by people whom are living
beyond their means, if in fact, there is any sense at all to your
bogus observation. Because that is the ONLY way "PO O O O OR"
consumers who work for a living get poorer and producers get richer.
You eliminate government meddling from the production business and
give wage earners MORE of their own money to manage and your faux
construct evaporates.
(breast-beating refrain TERMINATED)
>I think that wanting the deficit balancing burden to be shared by all
>just makes me fair - not a commie.
No. YOU want what all idealogical commies want.No matter how much
failure, no matter how much destruction, no matter how much
corruption, no matter how much bloodshed---you just won't accept that
your head is up your ass. Go away.
>I think the Republicans were actually the ones diverging from that
>reasonable principle, and that they were the ones waging class
>warfare.
Liar--and lunatic.
>I am glad Clinton was there to moderate their unwholesome impulses.
(Space reserved for a wholesome Tibbs belly-laugh.)
H.Selvitella
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 01:43:40 GMT, gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
(gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>He had the power of veto just like Clinton does
Lie.
H.Selvitella
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 06:01:23 -0500, me <I...@in.your.face> wrote:
>Stupendous Man wrote:
>>
>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>> ...
>> > As Michael Lind and others, the real class warfare has been waged
>> > by the upper classes against the rest of the population.
>>
>> Say people with sour grape syndrome.
>>
>> Explain why the top 10% of wage earners keeps changing composition
>> if there is such a barrier to wealth conspiracy?
>>
>> Brett
>> God over weasels
>
>Probably cause Grandpa Rich dies and new blood comes in.
"Probably" huh? Your considered overview of the situation huh?
Tell me..how do you think Grandpa came to be ABLE to endow his
posterity?
volt...@geocities.com
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 18:43:12 -0500, Stupendous Man
<"root"@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>...
>> As Michael Lind and others, the real class warfare has been waged
>> by the upper classes against the rest of the population.
>
> Say people with sour grape syndrome.
>
> Explain why the top 10% of wage earners keeps changing composition
>if there is such a barrier to wealth conspiracy?
>
>Brett
>God over weasels
How about the top 20%?
Oh. No answer?
Jim
Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
http://home.att.net/~clusterone/
=========================================================
Most people now know that anyone being called a bigot
is simply opposing socialism. Therefore 'bigot' has
been gaining in respectability for some time now.
--John Tibbs on why he is proud to be a bigot,
January 9, 1998.
========================================================
Thomas Odell
Gary wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 21:30:29 -0800, Thomas Odell
> <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> >> Listen up odull. You are the one telling the lies. Raygun bloated the
> >> national debt, he is the one that demanded funding
> >
> >
> >Blah, blah, blah. Heard all these radical socialist lies before. The
> >president CANNOT allocate a dime. The U.S. Constitution stipulates
> >clearly that CONGRESS and CONGRESS alone has the power of the purse.
> >They used to teach this stuff in grammar school civics classes. Guess
> >the schools are too busy these days handing out condoms to worry about
> >basics like the Constitutional history of the United States.
> >
> >Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution clearly stipulates that
> >Congress is responsible for ALL debt and deficit spending. End of
> >debate. Reagan isn't responsible for the debt. Liberals in Congress
> >are. You lose.
>
> You are of course wrong.
Of course there is no a shread of evidence or Constitutional law to
support Goofy Gary's socialist lies.
That's because he knows he is posting propaganda.
> The man that signs the budget is responsible.
Didn't do any better in high school English than you did in grammar
school civics I see.
The Congress is responsible for ALL debt and deficit spending. The
Constitution clearly stipulates this.
Article 1, section 8.
Disagree? Fine. Post the date that the states radified the amendment
to the Constitition which repealed the clearly stipulated wording of
article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
Post your answer noting the date of that ratification right here ------>
> Just like the one responsible for the spending in a family is the one
> that signs the checks.
Congress signs the checks. Check the Constitution fool. The president
cannot allocate a dime. ALL spending MUST CONSTITUTIONALLY BE SHEPARDED
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. My are you breathtakingly ignorant.
Guess we can't be too hard on you. You must have been out collecting
condoms and selling cupcakes to fight global-warming at the school
bakesale when they were teaching basic civics. What a pity.
> If my 13 year old son decides to buy alot of junk
Hope the poor boy inherited his mother's brains. Poor tyke's old man
clearly doesn't have much to contribute in the "brains" area of the gene
pool.
> I have veto power.
Take some St. John's Wort and your sad condition may improve.
> Just like Raygun did.
No president has had discretionary budgetary veto until it was given to
Clinton by THIS Republican Congress. You are wrong and have been shown
to be pretty stupid in the process.
> You wouldn't know about family veto power because theres no way in the
> world a nut like you was ever a part of a real family.
WOW. Well that's just overpowering logic on your part. Just
breathtaking! What can one say with this kind of "cogent"
argumentation? Overwhelmingly convincing as a cowfart.
Spend some time taking a remedial civics class. You are wholly
ignorant.
Article 1, section 8. U.S. Constitution. Until you can refute this
(which you will never be able to do) you have lost this argument no
matter how many stupid statements you make.
> Did you get a nice plaque to hang on the wall when you were voted Kook
> of the month?
Apparently you are impressed with the hate tactics of a dozen or so
radical leftists in a newsgroup that no one cares about moderated by a
highly unethical individual. Do you think you really impress anyone
with these tactics? If so, you are more pathetic than I give you credit
for and you've damn close to rock-bottom already.
Article 1, section 8. Congress is responsible for ALL debt and deficit
spending.
Refute it or admit defeat.
Spewing more of your liberal hate doesn't earn you any points -- just
more contempt.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>> Listen up odull. You are the one telling the lies. Raygun bloated the
>> national debt, he is the one that demanded funding
>Blah, blah, blah. Heard all these radical socialist lies before. The
>president CANNOT allocate a dime. The U.S. Constitution stipulates
>clearly that CONGRESS and CONGRESS alone has the power of the purse.
>They used to teach this stuff in grammar school civics classes. Guess
>the schools are too busy these days handing out condoms to worry about
>basics like the Constitutional history of the United States.
take a trip to The White Rose to see what kind of skunk raygun was,
find out the real facts. Inteasd of the sorry lies you are spewing
>Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution clearly stipulates that
>Congress is responsible for ALL debt and deficit spending. End of
>debate. Reagan isn't responsible for the debt. Liberals in Congress
>are. You lose.
==========================================================================
Let The White Rose enlighten you.
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
gdy weasel
==========================================================================
volt...@geocities.com
On 13 Jan 1998 13:39:47 -0500, Andrew Hall <ah...@remus.cs.uml.edu>
wrote:
>>>>>> John W Tibbs writes:
>
> John> I'm still waiting for a democrat to admit they held the purse strings
> John> for 40 years. I bet I'll have to keep waiting. Especially since the
>
>Read the constitution. Then report back the number
>of times a GOP president had vetoes overridden on
>spending bills.
How about the number of times the Congress passed budget bills which
appropriated more than he asked for?
> John> Republicans won in 1994 and started the deficit down.
>
>You misspelled "continued" as "started".
He is lucky he managed to get started right.
Jim
Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
http://home.att.net/~clusterone/
========================================================================
"The right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by
the Second Amendment."
-- Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261
(7th Cir.1982) cert. denied, 464 US 863 (1983)
======================================================================
volt...@geocities.com
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:14:46 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 11:09:54 -0800, "John W. Tibbs" <jti...@cei.net>
>wrote:
>
>>H.Selvitella wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 05:15:44 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <34b6e0f3...@news.std.com>,
>>> >H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>You boys are working yourselves up into a proper frenzy here. What are
>>> >>you smokin'?
>>> >
>>> > What's your position? That your heroes are entitled to be big fat
>>> >deficit spenders?
>>>
>>> My heroes "Petrich" are ordinary people whom the liberal-socialist
>>> policies of the last 30 years have been fleecing to finance absurd and
>>> unproductive social programs. The government OWES ordinary people
>>> tax-relief--with interest!
>>>
>>> The attempted diversion of class-warfare doesn't hold water except in
>>> that the "class" that you represent has been at war with the rest of
>>> us for damn near a century. And its getting old.
>>
>>It's not 'old' to liberals. All thru history their ideas have been
>>tried and failed but each and every one think they've got the problem
>>solved by their 'new' ideas.
>>That is - the ones who didn't use the Communist Manefesto for a bible.
>
>"Our" liberals DO use the Communist Manifesto for a bible They think
>there may be wheat to be gleaned from the chaff--they are wrong. There
>is only poison.
Can Henny shovel meaningless bullshit or what?
volt...@geocities.com
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:14:50 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 18:22:33 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <34BA6A...@cei.net>, John W. Tibbs <jti...@cei.net> wrote:
>>
>>>That is - the ones who didn't use the Communist Manefesto for a bible.
>>
>> I'm sure that's your favorite book, Mr. Tibbs.
>>
>Care to state YOUR favorite book "Petrich"? Have you ever READ a book?
>Which do you prefer? Purple books? Or pink ones?
I myself like Candide. It exposes fools like you for what you are
Henny.
I'd be careful comparing your reading tastes with those of Laura.
She worked her way past "Horton Hears a Who" years ago.
I can see your lips moving as you struggle with "An elephant is
faithful 100%."
Boy is that line a joke today.
volt...@geocities.com
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 05:38:54 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
wrote:
>In article <34bae870...@news.std.com>,
>H.Selvitella <h...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 18:22:33 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
>>wrote:
>
>>> I'm sure that's your favorite book, Mr. Tibbs.
>>Care to state YOUR favorite book "Petrich"? Have you ever READ a book?
>>Which do you prefer? Purple books? Or pink ones?
>
> I've read *numerous* books. Have you?
Henny's favorite books all have center pages that fold out. Those that
aren't stuck together.
volt...@geocities.com
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:14:33 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 18:18:52 -0700, Milt <mi...@no.spam> wrote:
>
>>But let me ask you this? Where do you think most of the money came from to pay
>>retirees over the last 40-50 years? It sure as hell didn't come from
>>contributions.
>
>It sure as hell came from the US Treasury which is funded by INCOME
>TAX contributions.
So you think older Americans should just starve, Henny?
Can I forward your address to the Gray Panthers?
volt...@geocities.com
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 07:25:42 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
wrote:
>In article <34befd70...@news.zippo.com>,
>George Tyrebiter, Jr. <Le...@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote:
>
>>I'm a big fan of Adam Smith. Beginning in the late seventies, wealth
>>started accumulating at the top, and fleeing from the bottom, contrary
>>to our history through most of this century, in which all groups got
>>richer.
>
>Adam Smith had made comments in the Wealth of Nations that many
>right-wing ultracapitalists would find heretical. For example, he noted
>that "master manufacturers" would complain endlessly of how greedy their
>employees were, without acknowledging their own greed. Seems rather
>familiar :-)
"The rich are the paritioners of the poor."
-- Adam Smith
>And he claimed that a favorite discussion topic of those of the
>same business seemed to be how to raise prices (a criticism that may also
>be made of some labor unions).
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and
diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the
public, or in some contrivance to raise prices"
-- Adam Smith
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:50:53 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 05:33:54 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>
>>In this context, the LEGAL contributions - which outnumber the illegal
>>a hundred to one - are the scandal, and are one hundred to one more
>>likely to corrode.
>
> Of course!!!!! We shouldn't be concerned with ILLEGAL contributions,
>certainly not! I see! Its the LEGAL contributions that demand--DEMAND
>ACTION.
>
>Pathetic and boring.
Henny penny - follow the money. Legal in the last cycle - over a
billion. Illegal - maybe five million?
Which bundle do you think has more influence on policy?
All that money is unhealthy, henny. It deviates from a good idea - one
man, one vote.
Do the math, henny.
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:50:58 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 05:42:38 GMT, Le...@commiemartyrs.edu (George
>Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>
>
>>I'm a big fan of Adam Smith. Beginning in the late seventies, wealth
>>started accumulating at the top, and fleeing from the bottom, contrary
>>to our history through most of this century, in which all groups got
>>richer.
>
>You're talking about voluntary SPENDING by people whom are living
>beyond their means,
No. I am NOT talking merely about spending - I am also talking about
the amount of money coming INTO households. If you look at income, as
well as wealth, you will seen the same pattern.
In this period I strongly suspect it was the RICH who increased their
spending and the POOR who decreased their spending.
Do the math, henny.
You will see that your explanation is obviously false.
>f in fact, there is any sense at all to your
>bogus observation. Because that is the ONLY way "PO O O O OR"
>consumers who work for a living get poorer and producers get richer.
No henny - spending is only one part of changes in net worth. The
other part is income. And some people continued to work the same fifty
hours per week - but got far more income from it. Lawyers, doctors,
system analysts, investment bankers. And other people also continued
to work - in fact, hourly work went up - but saw their income actually
decline.
Henny - profit has two parts - expense AND income.
>You eliminate government meddling from the production business and
>give wage earners MORE of their own money to manage and your faux
>construct evaporates.
You may be right. When the Reagan budgets called for massively greater
fed spending, this mal distribution was bad. Now we have Clinton -
whose budgets call for 10% less fed spending, as a percent of the
economy, fewer govt workers, and this trend has finally reversed.
>
>(breast-beating refrain TERMINATED)
>
>>I think that wanting the deficit balancing burden to be shared by all
>>just makes me fair - not a commie.
>
>No. YOU want what all idealogical commies want.No matter how much
>failure, no matter how much destruction, no matter how much
>corruption, no matter how much bloodshed---you just won't accept that
>your head is up your ass. Go away.
Henny - your replies lack substance.
>
>>I think the Republicans were actually the ones diverging from that
>>reasonable principle, and that they were the ones waging class
>>warfare.
>
>Liar--and lunatic.
I continue to be specific and logical henny, and you continue to have
mere bumper-sticker assertions - calling me a commie no less - which
don't hold up.
>
>>I am glad Clinton was there to moderate their unwholesome impulses.
>
>(Space reserved for a wholesome Tibbs belly-laugh.)
-------------
George L. Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Tyrebiter, Jr.
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:51:24 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 06:01:23 -0500, me <I...@in.your.face> wrote:
>
>>Stupendous Man wrote:
>>>
>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>>> ...
>>> > As Michael Lind and others, the real class warfare has been waged
>>> > by the upper classes against the rest of the population.
>>>
>>> Say people with sour grape syndrome.
>>>
>>> Explain why the top 10% of wage earners keeps changing composition
>>> if there is such a barrier to wealth conspiracy?
>>>
>>> Brett
>>> God over weasels
>>
>>Probably cause Grandpa Rich dies and new blood comes in.
>
>"Probably" huh? Your considered overview of the situation huh?
>
>Tell me..how do you think Grandpa came to be ABLE to endow his
>posterity?
By living in a country which taxes income from capital at only two
thirds the rate on labor (federal effective tax rates, before the
additional breaks for capital income last year)?
When the estate tax was repealed for all but the top 1 percent or so?
By owning stock when it happened to go way up in value?
Or perhaps by owning a home in Los Angeles when prices of those
escalated?
Or by being a Doctor when health costs rose dramatically?
Or be being a lawyer while thousands of new laws were passed every
year?
Or possibly by owning a small business providing a useful product?
Or communications made their celebrity status known to many millions
more than in the past?
I guess it could be any number of reasons.
Why?
Do you think the wealthy have acquired a much higher percentage of our
national wealth because all of a sudden their average virtue has
risen? And that young working families are worse off than they used to
be because they have acquired bad habits?
Gary
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:51:06 GMT, h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 01:43:40 GMT, gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Not a lie you stupid son-of-a-bitch.
He had the power what he didn't have was the courage
Gary
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 21:30:29 -0800, Thomas Odell
<od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>> Listen up odull. You are the one telling the lies. Raygun bloated the
>> national debt, he is the one that demanded funding
>
>
>Blah, blah, blah. Heard all these radical socialist lies before. The
>president CANNOT allocate a dime. The U.S. Constitution stipulates
>clearly that CONGRESS and CONGRESS alone has the power of the purse.
>They used to teach this stuff in grammar school civics classes. Guess
>the schools are too busy these days handing out condoms to worry about
>basics like the Constitutional history of the United States.
>
>Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution clearly stipulates that
>Congress is responsible for ALL debt and deficit spending. End of
>debate. Reagan isn't responsible for the debt. Liberals in Congress
>are. You lose.
You are of course wrong. The man that signs the budget is responsible.
Just like the one responsible for the spending in a family is the one
that signs the checks.
If my 13 year old son decides to buy alot of junk that he doesn't need
and we can't afford its my fault if I let him.
I have veto power.
Just like Raygun did.
The difference is I have the guts to use it.
You wouldn't know about family veto power because theres no way in the
world a nut like you was ever a part of a real family.
I have a question.