Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
59 views
Skip to first unread message
MattB
Nov 10, 2012, 10:17:07 AM11/10/12
to
Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
In his first remarks from the White House since his re-election, Obama
made it clear that he believed his victory had validated his
relentless campaign call for wealthier Americans to pay more and that
he expected Republicans to heed that message.
“I just want to point out this was a central question during the
election,” he said in brief remarks in the East Room. “It was debated
over and over again. And on Tuesday night, we found out that the
majority of Americans agree with my approach.”
Obama said he had invited Congressional leaders to the White House
next week to begin talks as they return for a lame-duck session of
Congress. He said he was willing to make some concessions as long as
the final fiscal bargain was properly balanced between new tax revenue
and spending cuts.
“I’m not wedded to every detail of my plan,” Obama said. “I’m open to
compromise.”
At the same time, he encouraged Congress to quickly pass an extension
of the existing lower rates for those making under $250,000 even while
the broader negotiations take place.
“While there may be disagreement in Congress over whether or not to
raise taxes on folks making over $250,000 a year, nobody — not
Republicans, not Democrats — want taxes to go up for folks making
under $250,000 a year,” he said. “So let’s not wait.”
The President’s comments came shortly after Speaker John A. Boehner,
who had been striking a conciliatory tone since Republican election
losses in the Senate and the House, told reporters that Republicans
had won a mandate of their own by retaining control of the House and
that he supported continuing rates enacted in the Bush-era tax cuts
for all income levels.
“Raising tax rates will slow down our ability to create the jobs that
everyone says they want,” said Boehner, who said he favored generating
any new federal revenue to offset the deficit by closing tax loopholes
and limiting deductions.
“It’s clear that there are a lot of special interest loopholes in the
tax code, both corporate and personal,” he said. “It’s also clear that
there are all kinds of deductions, some of which make sense; others
don’t. And by lowering rates and cleaning up the tax code, we know
we’re going to get more economic growth.”
The President and Boehner were careful with their language and left
room for compromise despite their fundamental differences about
shifting more of the tax burden to high-income Americans. Boehner
would not be very specific on what his goal might be for raising new
federal tax dollars.
“I don’t want to box myself in,” he said. “I don’t want to box anybody
else in. I think it’s important for us to come to an agreement with
the president. But this is his opportunity to lead.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
In his first remarks from the White House since his re-election, Obama
made it clear that he believed his victory had validated his
relentless campaign call for wealthier Americans to pay more and that
he expected Republicans to heed that message.
“I just want to point out this was a central question during the
election,” he said in brief remarks in the East Room. “It was debated
over and over again. And on Tuesday night, we found out that the
majority of Americans agree with my approach.”
Obama said he had invited Congressional leaders to the White House
next week to begin talks as they return for a lame-duck session of
Congress. He said he was willing to make some concessions as long as
the final fiscal bargain was properly balanced between new tax revenue
and spending cuts.
“I’m not wedded to every detail of my plan,” Obama said. “I’m open to
compromise.”
At the same time, he encouraged Congress to quickly pass an extension
of the existing lower rates for those making under $250,000 even while
the broader negotiations take place.
“While there may be disagreement in Congress over whether or not to
raise taxes on folks making over $250,000 a year, nobody — not
Republicans, not Democrats — want taxes to go up for folks making
under $250,000 a year,” he said. “So let’s not wait.”
The President’s comments came shortly after Speaker John A. Boehner,
who had been striking a conciliatory tone since Republican election
losses in the Senate and the House, told reporters that Republicans
had won a mandate of their own by retaining control of the House and
that he supported continuing rates enacted in the Bush-era tax cuts
for all income levels.
“Raising tax rates will slow down our ability to create the jobs that
everyone says they want,” said Boehner, who said he favored generating
any new federal revenue to offset the deficit by closing tax loopholes
and limiting deductions.
“It’s clear that there are a lot of special interest loopholes in the
tax code, both corporate and personal,” he said. “It’s also clear that
there are all kinds of deductions, some of which make sense; others
don’t. And by lowering rates and cleaning up the tax code, we know
we’re going to get more economic growth.”
The President and Boehner were careful with their language and left
room for compromise despite their fundamental differences about
shifting more of the tax burden to high-income Americans. Boehner
would not be very specific on what his goal might be for raising new
federal tax dollars.
“I don’t want to box myself in,” he said. “I don’t want to box anybody
else in. I think it’s important for us to come to an agreement with
the president. But this is his opportunity to lead.”
Phlip
Nov 10, 2012, 10:31:38 AM11/10/12
to
increase on the middle class.
MattB
Nov 10, 2012, 10:46:40 AM11/10/12
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 07:31:38 -0800 (PST), Phlip <phli...@gmail.com>
wrote:
My apologize
"'While Obama was careful not to demand that tax rates rise, Jay
Carney, the White House press secretary, said just an hour later that
the president would veto any legislation extending the expiring tax
cuts for families making $250,000 or more.""
Personally they should do away with the Bush Tax cuts for everyone and
start over. IMO.
wrote:
"'While Obama was careful not to demand that tax rates rise, Jay
Carney, the White House press secretary, said just an hour later that
the president would veto any legislation extending the expiring tax
cuts for families making $250,000 or more.""
Personally they should do away with the Bush Tax cuts for everyone and
start over. IMO.
David Hartung
Nov 10, 2012, 10:43:12 AM11/10/12
to
On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases, he
> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
Republican Senators to end the debate.
Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
going to have to learn how to compromise.
wy
Nov 10, 2012, 10:45:52 AM11/10/12
to
2011, $1 trillion more than Repugnants wanted to go along with. Guess
who backed out? Hint: it wasn't Obama. And that's why you're now
facing the fiscal cliff - the result of Repugnants chickening out.
Phlip
Nov 10, 2012, 10:47:36 AM11/10/12
to
On Nov 10, 7:38 am, MattB <trdell1234N...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I don t want to box myself in, he said. I don t want to box anybody
> >> else in. I think it s important for us to come to an agreement with
> >> the president. But this is his opportunity to lead.
>
> >You left out the part where he promised to veto any bill with a tax
> >increase on the middle class.
>
> My apologize
I meant "you plural"; I'd suspect the news media is down-playing this
> >> I don t want to box myself in, he said. I don t want to box anybody
> >> else in. I think it s important for us to come to an agreement with
> >> the president. But this is his opportunity to lead.
>
> >You left out the part where he promised to veto any bill with a tax
> >increase on the middle class.
>
> My apologize
aspect.
> "'While Obama was careful not to demand that tax rates rise, Jay
> Carney, the White House press secretary, said just an hour later that
> the president would veto any legislation extending the expiring tax
> cuts for families making $250,000 or more.""
>
> Personally they should do away with the Bush Tax cuts for everyone and
> start over. IMO.
MattB
Nov 10, 2012, 11:10:54 AM11/10/12
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 07:47:36 -0800 (PST), Phlip <phli...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Well the way I look at it if the Middle Class wants to pay for others
health care and free Phones. they should not expect to not help pay
for it.
Personally I think the deduction system is the problem. The tax
brackets don't allow for not paying any taxes it is the deduction
system.
wrote:
health care and free Phones. they should not expect to not help pay
for it.
Personally I think the deduction system is the problem. The tax
brackets don't allow for not paying any taxes it is the deduction
system.
MattB
Nov 10, 2012, 11:18:45 AM11/10/12
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:43:12 -0600, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
wrote:
I've noticed that the liberals instead of wanting to work to a better
future are still pointing to the past.
Obama's so called mandate he says he has is BS. With a election this
close by voter count I see no mandate.
wrote:
future are still pointing to the past.
Obama's so called mandate he says he has is BS. With a election this
close by voter count I see no mandate.
Man of Mind
Nov 10, 2012, 11:37:22 AM11/10/12
to
On 11/10/2012 9:43 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>>
>> http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>>
>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
> He can insist all hw wishes,
Nope, your side of the aisle is going to have to quit putting
> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>>
>> http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>>
>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
> He can insist all hw wishes,
your failed ideology above the needs of America..
> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
> going to have to learn how to compromise.
"compromise" is lost upon right-wing zealots..
--Thanks again for marginalizing Republicans everywhere..
Sid9
Nov 10, 2012, 11:39:51 AM11/10/12
to
"MattB" <trdell1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u7vs98ddmca2ekkrt...@4ax.com...
.
Republicans will cave.
Obama has nothing to lose.
Call him John "Mitt" Böhner
In two years Böhner and Mc Connell must face the voters
Milt
Nov 10, 2012, 11:47:50 AM11/10/12
to
Milt
Nov 10, 2012, 11:58:01 AM11/10/12
to
On Nov 10, 8:43 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
on December 31, as designed, and then come in on January 3, with the
new Congress and reinstate them for all but those making $250,000.
I think it's despicable that ALL Republicans in Congress show more
allegiance to Grover Norquist than to their own country and its debt
situation. I can't believe you're okay with that.
David Hartung
Nov 10, 2012, 12:22:39 PM11/10/12
to
economy, and we may be in a full fledged depression. What then? Blame Bush?
David Hartung
Nov 10, 2012, 12:27:10 PM11/10/12
to
convinced that is the case. Before we raise taxes, we must frst reduce
spending. Personally, I think that the Bush Tax cuts should be made
permanent, all Obamacare taxes repealed(and Obamacare implementation
suspended), and the programed "fiscal cliff" budget cuts allowed to
happen. If that does not get the budget under control, then, and only
then, do we look at tax increases.
wy
Nov 10, 2012, 12:38:58 PM11/10/12
to
On Nov 10, 12:27 pm, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 10:58 AM, Milt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 8:43 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>
> >>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> >>>http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> >>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
> >>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
> >>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
> >>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
> >> He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases, he
> >> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
> >> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
> >> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>
> >> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
> >> going to have to learn how to compromise.
>
> > BTW, the other "compromise" would be to allow the tax cuts to expire
> > on December 31, as designed, and then come in on January 3, with the
> > new Congress and reinstate them for all but those making $250,000.
>
> > I think it's despicable that ALL Republicans in Congress show more
> > allegiance to Grover Norquist than to their own country and its debt
> > situation. I can't believe you're okay with that.
>
> You assume that for the good of the country we mus raise taxes. I am not
> convinced that is the case.
What is it about Reagan having raised taxes, followed by Bush and
> On 11/10/2012 10:58 AM, Milt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 8:43 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>
> >>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> >>>http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> >>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
> >>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
> >>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
> >>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
> >> He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases, he
> >> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
> >> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
> >> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>
> >> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
> >> going to have to learn how to compromise.
>
> > BTW, the other "compromise" would be to allow the tax cuts to expire
> > on December 31, as designed, and then come in on January 3, with the
> > new Congress and reinstate them for all but those making $250,000.
>
> > I think it's despicable that ALL Republicans in Congress show more
> > allegiance to Grover Norquist than to their own country and its debt
> > situation. I can't believe you're okay with that.
>
> You assume that for the good of the country we mus raise taxes. I am not
> convinced that is the case.
Clinton doing so as well that didn't work to get the country out of
recessions and bolster the economy? I'd love to hear the answer to
that, which no Repugnant can ever come up with in any convincing
fashion or on any credible level.
> Before we raise taxes, we must frst reduce
> spending. Personally, I think that the Bush Tax cuts should be made
> permanent, all Obamacare taxes repealed(and Obamacare implementation
> suspended), and the programed "fiscal cliff" budget cuts allowed to
> happen. If that does not get the budget under control, then, and only
> then, do we look at tax increases.
certainly did and you're not hiding it in the slightest.
rin tin timkovych
Nov 10, 2012, 12:41:38 PM11/10/12
to
On 11/10/2012 9:37 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Given the fallacy argument you just presented, the idea of
> "compromise" is lost upon right-wing zealots..
------------------------------------------------------------------
> Given the fallacy argument you just presented, the idea of
> "compromise" is lost upon right-wing zealots..
My condolensces, I'm just an out of work physicist.
Kurt Lochner - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Kurt.Loch...@f22.n14766.z1.FIDONET.ORG
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kurt.Loch...@f22.n14766.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Kurt Lochner)
Subject: Re: The Coverup
Date: 6 Aug 91 16:46:55 GMT
Quote:
Hi Kurt,
To add to some people's idea that the Greys look like
insects, I'm reminded of an article in the most recent
UFO Magazine in which a man describes an encounter
with beings that looked like insects to him.
----------
I 'll be happy to sent you a copy of this article if
you want it.
Hmm, I'm wondering how you'll send it to me, I presume
US Snail-mail so here's the address....
500 S. State #40
Edmond, OK 73034
I got ahold of a copy of Strieber's Majestic and find
most of it to be interesting. I still get the impression
that the Roswell debris was hijacked in mid-air and that
the government officialdom is still quite embarrassed.
--
Kurt Lochner - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Kurt.Loch...@f22.n14766.z1.FIDONET.ORG
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
Nov 10, 2012, 12:56:06 PM11/10/12
to
"MattB" <trdell1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aors98hf5jf257vpa...@4ax.com...
> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
[snip...]
>
> http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
Yep, he expects the rich who got that way due to hard work and good rewards
for hard work to subsidize the country. The Republican house majority CAN
block this IF they don't have a large number of RINOs (Republicans in name
only).
Obama better come up with something better than just tax the rich, or his
presidency has already failed.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Milt
Nov 10, 2012, 2:30:58 PM11/10/12
to
On Nov 10, 10:27 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 10:58 AM, Milt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 8:43 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>
> >>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> >>>http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> >>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
> >>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
> >>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
> >>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
> >> He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases, he
> >> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
> >> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
> >> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>
> >> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
> >> going to have to learn how to compromise.
>
> > BTW, the other "compromise" would be to allow the tax cuts to expire
> > on December 31, as designed, and then come in on January 3, with the
> > new Congress and reinstate them for all but those making $250,000.
>
> > I think it's despicable that ALL Republicans in Congress show more
> > allegiance to Grover Norquist than to their own country and its debt
> > situation. I can't believe you're okay with that.
>
> You assume that for the good of the country we mus raise taxes.
if the GOP isn't going to pass stimulus and create more taxpayers,
> On 11/10/2012 10:58 AM, Milt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 8:43 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>
> >>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> >>>http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> >>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
> >>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
> >>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
> >>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
> >> He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases, he
> >> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
> >> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
> >> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>
> >> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
> >> going to have to learn how to compromise.
>
> > BTW, the other "compromise" would be to allow the tax cuts to expire
> > on December 31, as designed, and then come in on January 3, with the
> > new Congress and reinstate them for all but those making $250,000.
>
> > I think it's despicable that ALL Republicans in Congress show more
> > allegiance to Grover Norquist than to their own country and its debt
> > situation. I can't believe you're okay with that.
>
> You assume that for the good of the country we mus raise taxes.
it's the only way to reduce the deficit. It's not mathematically
possible to only make cuts and expect to do so.
> I am not
> convinced that is the case. Before we raise taxes, we must frst reduce
> spending.
not possible to cut that much. Period. In fact, every time you cut,
you actually make the deficit bigger. Or did you think that money just
gets spent and doesn't actually go to anyone?
When you cut spending by, say $50 billion, you reduce economic
activity by at least that much, and that reduces employment. Fewer
jobs means fewer taxpayers, which means lower revenue and a higher
deficit. Why do you people not understand that?
> Personally, I think that the Bush Tax cuts should be made
> permanent, all Obamacare taxes repealed(and Obamacare implementation
> suspended), and the programed "fiscal cliff" budget cuts allowed to
> happen. If that does not get the budget under control, then, and only
> then, do we look at tax increases.
above would double the deficit AND throw us into another recession.
Again; why do you people not get that government spending actually
goes into people's pockets and creates economic activity? Why is there
such a disconnect?
Milt
Nov 10, 2012, 2:38:50 PM11/10/12
to
On Nov 10, 10:22 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 10:39 AM, Sid9 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "MattB" <trdell1234N...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> On 11/10/2012 10:39 AM, Sid9 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:u7vs98ddmca2ekkrt...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:43:12 -0600, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
> >>>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> >>>>http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> >>>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
> >>>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
> >>>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
> >>>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
> >>> He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases, he
> >>> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
> >>> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
> >>> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>
> >>> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
> >>> going to have to learn how to compromise.
>
> >> I've noticed that the liberals instead of wanting to work to a better
> >> future are still pointing to the past.
>
> >> Obama's so called mandate he says he has is BS. With a election this
> >> close by voter count I see no mandate.
> > .
> > .
> > Republicans will cave.
> > Obama has nothing to lose.
> > Call him John "Mitt" B hner
> >> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:43:12 -0600, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
> >>>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> >>>>http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> >>>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
> >>>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
> >>>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
> >>>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
> >>> He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases, he
> >>> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
> >>> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
> >>> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>
> >>> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
> >>> going to have to learn how to compromise.
>
> >> I've noticed that the liberals instead of wanting to work to a better
> >> future are still pointing to the past.
>
> >> Obama's so called mandate he says he has is BS. With a election this
> >> close by voter count I see no mandate.
> > .
> > .
> > Republicans will cave.
> > Obama has nothing to lose.
>
> > In two years B hner and Mc Connell must face the voters
>
> In two years Obama's policies may well have completely trashed the
> economy, and we may be in a full fledged depression. What then? Blame Bush?
Not possible, unless the GOP allows us to go off the fiscal cliff.
> In two years Obama's policies may well have completely trashed the
> economy, and we may be in a full fledged depression. What then? Blame Bush?
That won't happen.
Again, why do you seem to be under the impression that all government
spending just goes into a hole, and has no positive effect on the
economy? When we build roads, bridges, and even weapons programs, what
do you imagine happens to that money? Now, imagine all of that
activity stops. What happens to those people who were making money
from government contracts? There are fewer of them, which means fewer
taxpayers.
You guys keep bitching about Greece. Do you even know WHY the Greek
economy failed?
Austerity.
We should have SPENT our way out of this economic mess. We'd be much
better off.
meerschaum
Nov 10, 2012, 2:46:06 PM11/10/12
to
On 11/10/2012 9:58 AM, Milt wrote:
>=
1515 19th St
Boulder, CO 80302
http://www.redfin.com/CO/Boulder/1515-19th-St-80302/home/35307085
Sold on 04/27/2012
$540,000
1515 19th St
Boulder, CO 80302
BEDS: 4
BATHS: 3
SQ. FT.: 1,620
$/SQ. FT.: $333
LOT SIZE: -
PROPERTY TYPE: Residential (Detached)
STYLE: 2 Story
YEAR BUILT: 1989
>=
> I think it's despicable that ALL Republicans in Congress show more
> allegiance to Grover Norquist than to their own country and its debt
> situation. I can't believe you're okay with that.
>
COMCAST.NET 76.25.49.88
> allegiance to Grover Norquist than to their own country and its debt
> situation. I can't believe you're okay with that.
>
1515 19th St
Boulder, CO 80302
http://www.redfin.com/CO/Boulder/1515-19th-St-80302/home/35307085
Sold on 04/27/2012
$540,000
1515 19th St
Boulder, CO 80302
BEDS: 4
BATHS: 3
SQ. FT.: 1,620
$/SQ. FT.: $333
LOT SIZE: -
PROPERTY TYPE: Residential (Detached)
STYLE: 2 Story
YEAR BUILT: 1989
meerschaum
Nov 10, 2012, 3:03:55 PM11/10/12
to
On 11/10/2012 12:38 PM, Milt wrote:
> We should have SPENT our way out of this
> We should have SPENT our way out of this
wy
Nov 10, 2012, 3:13:44 PM11/10/12
to
thinks that simple cutting will solve everything, that it has no other
effect than decreasing the amount of spending by the government. But
to every financial cut action there's a mathematical reaction that
he's unable to compute because his understanding of math doesn't
extend that far. It barely gets past 1+1=2.
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
Nov 10, 2012, 3:18:08 PM11/10/12
to
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:n08t98h8gtrvbh8gh...@4ax.com...
>
As if that's going to offend me? It really is that simple.
> When that class of people who own 70% of ALL wealth in America make
> millions---they DO NOT work. They use amassed wealth to use markets
> to rake in millions---at tax rates lower than a burger flipper.
>
Um, unless they won the lottery or got a significant inheritance, it was
their hard work that got them where they are today. Making their own
business, making the right investments, becoming a company, hiring teams of
people (and paying them), growing, hiring more people (and paying them),
growing more, perhaps becoming a corportation.
Obama wants to effectively say: here's a penalty for all that--pay more
taxes. The house majority Republicans should block that (unless they have
betrayers among them, the RINOs who will side with the Democrats but
continue to call themselves Republicans).
> If they did NOTHING---they would rake in millions just on interest on
> banked wealth alone
>
And? Why should they pay more for making the right investment choices? It
took time for them to get to that point, they didn't all become rich
overnight.
> Name any "work" that Rumney has done in the last 20 Years
>
Um, a governor runs the state--think of them as a president at the state
level.
And, didn't he just run for president? That required funding his campaign,
traveling the country and making speeches, basically trying to convince the
nation he was the right man for the job.
> Signing name is not "work" in the American sense of the word
>
Then all apply the same logic--all Obama has done so far is travel the
world, make speech, and sign or veto bills. So much for a working president.
Or, if Obama has done work, the Romney did work. Simple as that.
news:n08t98h8gtrvbh8gh...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:56:06 -0800, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
> <dwro...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>
>>Yep, he expects the rich who got that way due to hard work and good
>>rewards
>>for hard work to subsidize the country.
>
> You simpleton
> <dwro...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>
>>Yep, he expects the rich who got that way due to hard work and good
>>rewards
>>for hard work to subsidize the country.
>
>
As if that's going to offend me? It really is that simple.
> When that class of people who own 70% of ALL wealth in America make
> millions---they DO NOT work. They use amassed wealth to use markets
> to rake in millions---at tax rates lower than a burger flipper.
>
Um, unless they won the lottery or got a significant inheritance, it was
their hard work that got them where they are today. Making their own
business, making the right investments, becoming a company, hiring teams of
people (and paying them), growing, hiring more people (and paying them),
growing more, perhaps becoming a corportation.
Obama wants to effectively say: here's a penalty for all that--pay more
taxes. The house majority Republicans should block that (unless they have
betrayers among them, the RINOs who will side with the Democrats but
continue to call themselves Republicans).
> If they did NOTHING---they would rake in millions just on interest on
> banked wealth alone
>
And? Why should they pay more for making the right investment choices? It
took time for them to get to that point, they didn't all become rich
overnight.
> Name any "work" that Rumney has done in the last 20 Years
>
Um, a governor runs the state--think of them as a president at the state
level.
And, didn't he just run for president? That required funding his campaign,
traveling the country and making speeches, basically trying to convince the
nation he was the right man for the job.
> Signing name is not "work" in the American sense of the word
>
Then all apply the same logic--all Obama has done so far is travel the
world, make speech, and sign or veto bills. So much for a working president.
Or, if Obama has done work, the Romney did work. Simple as that.
Matt
Nov 10, 2012, 4:53:32 PM11/10/12
to
MattB <trdell1...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:u7vs98ddmca2ekkrt...@4ax.com:
Er, Obama won by well over 100 electoral votes. Romney essentially won
the core Red states and that was it. Nobody wanted him, even with a
black President and a poor economy. This says all you need to know about
the Republicans.
And what is the first thing Mr. Boehner says? "We aren't going to
change." Good move. Two years of horrible things await us, then the
Republicans will be gone forever. A full Democratic Senate and House,
everything we want, and no Republicans in office again.
Then we will see things get done.
Matt
news:u7vs98ddmca2ekkrt...@4ax.com:
the core Red states and that was it. Nobody wanted him, even with a
black President and a poor economy. This says all you need to know about
the Republicans.
And what is the first thing Mr. Boehner says? "We aren't going to
change." Good move. Two years of horrible things await us, then the
Republicans will be gone forever. A full Democratic Senate and House,
everything we want, and no Republicans in office again.
Then we will see things get done.
Matt
Matt
Nov 10, 2012, 4:56:44 PM11/10/12
to
David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote in
news:XpqdnZ62MbeM6wPN...@giganews.com:
Why?
Republicans are a failed ideology. They don't matter.
Let the country fail for two years, blame it all on them because they
caused it, and kick them out.
You really don't have a clue, do you? You believed Romney the Failure
would win.
Goodbye David. We don't really care what you want anymore. You are part
of the useless 10%.
Matt
news:XpqdnZ62MbeM6wPN...@giganews.com:
Republicans are a failed ideology. They don't matter.
Let the country fail for two years, blame it all on them because they
caused it, and kick them out.
You really don't have a clue, do you? You believed Romney the Failure
would win.
Goodbye David. We don't really care what you want anymore. You are part
of the useless 10%.
Matt
Steve
Nov 10, 2012, 5:42:28 PM11/10/12
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:38:50 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt....@gmail.com>
wrote:
Milt's knowledge of basic economics has already been documented..
"I would also point out that Black Friday is a horrible day
for retailers, profit-wise. Many retailers who enjoy a 25-30% gross
profit margin the rest of the year end up with less than half that for
Black Friday, while having to keep every available employee on the
floor to take care of customers... it's one of the dumber things the
retail industry does every year, and I've never understood it... "
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/msg/8c100bcab9b3ee49
wrote:
"I would also point out that Black Friday is a horrible day
for retailers, profit-wise. Many retailers who enjoy a 25-30% gross
profit margin the rest of the year end up with less than half that for
Black Friday, while having to keep every available employee on the
floor to take care of customers... it's one of the dumber things the
retail industry does every year, and I've never understood it... "
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/msg/8c100bcab9b3ee49
MattB
Nov 10, 2012, 9:16:37 PM11/10/12
to
close.
>
>And what is the first thing Mr. Boehner says? "We aren't going to
>change." Good move. Two years of horrible things await us, then the
>Republicans will be gone forever. A full Democratic Senate and House,
>everything we want, and no Republicans in office again.
I heard that for this election. Much can happen in 2 years. They
>And what is the first thing Mr. Boehner says? "We aren't going to
>change." Good move. Two years of horrible things await us, then the
>Republicans will be gone forever. A full Democratic Senate and House,
>everything we want, and no Republicans in office again.
could surprise us and work together.
>
>Then we will see things get done.
No moe than the first 2 years of Obama's presidency.
>Then we will see things get done.
>
>Matt
David Hartung
Nov 11, 2012, 7:28:28 AM11/11/12
to
percentage points. That fact tells us that almost half the people, from
all over the USA, want Obama gone.
Matt
Nov 11, 2012, 9:01:20 AM11/11/12
to
David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote in
news:MOudnTHVwPhxBALN...@giganews.com:
Which is why the Republicans will never win again. Are you going to call
for the repeal of the Electoral College now?
Matt
Message has been deleted
Phlip
Nov 11, 2012, 11:16:30 AM11/11/12
to
> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
If Obama thinks he can turn a 332 EC vote squeaker into a mandate,
he's got another think coming. He didn't RUN on "raise taxes on the
rich".
Dubya, by contrast, ran on "let's LOWER the taxes for the rich", in
2000!
<a beat>
C-;
Message has been deleted
Phlip
Nov 11, 2012, 1:07:07 PM11/11/12
to
On Nov 11, 9:43 am, Morgoth Bauglir <Mel...@Mordor.com> wrote:
> >> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> > If Obama thinks he can turn a 332 EC vote squeaker into a mandate,
> > he's got another think coming. He didn't RUN on "raise taxes on the
> > rich".
>
> You weren't paying attention.
> >> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> > If Obama thinks he can turn a 332 EC vote squeaker into a mandate,
> > he's got another think coming. He didn't RUN on "raise taxes on the
> > rich".
>
Sarcasm alert.
Obama ran on "raise taxes for the rich". Dubya ran on "peace & freedom
& bromance & remember how good things were under my dad?"
But the same GOP pundants (sic) who claimed >330 for Romney would be a
landslide are now calling >330 for Obama a "squeaker".
> > Dubya, by contrast, ran on "let's LOWER the taxes for the rich", in
> > 2000!
>
He also didn't win the election - a failure of our democratic system,
for which the country has paid a terrible price.
Vandar
Nov 11, 2012, 1:07:48 PM11/11/12
to
> We should have SPENT our way out of this economic mess. We'd be much
> better off.
Vandar
Nov 11, 2012, 1:12:18 PM11/11/12
to
>>Personally, I think that the Bush Tax cuts should be made
>>permanent, all Obamacare taxes repealed(and Obamacare implementation
>>suspended), and the programed "fiscal cliff" budget cuts allowed to
>>happen. If that does not get the budget under control, then, and only
>>then, do we look at tax increases.
>
>
> So, you want to explode the deficit. Good to know. EVERYTHING you note
> above would double the deficit AND throw us into another recession.
> Again; why do you people not get that government spending actually
> goes into people's pockets and creates economic activity? Why is there
> such a disconnect?
Obama sold his stimulus on the premise of rebuilding our "crumbling
roads and bridges". Then he gave the money to unions and "green"
companies destined to fail.
Now he proposes another stimulus to rebuild our "crumbling roads and
bridges", and you still think that's a good idea.
MattB
Nov 11, 2012, 1:21:07 PM11/11/12
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:03:46 -0800, "Where's all the China Blue food?"
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Yet in the end, Obama's margin in the popular vote was less than 3
>> percentage points. That fact tells us that almost half the people, from
>> all over the USA, want Obama gone.
>
>Perhaps, But it was still more than for Romney or Boenher.
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Yet in the end, Obama's margin in the popular vote was less than 3
>> percentage points. That fact tells us that almost half the people, from
>> all over the USA, want Obama gone.
>
Do you believe a simple majority equals mandate?
Phlip
Nov 11, 2012, 1:35:04 PM11/11/12
to
On Nov 11, 10:12 am, MattB <trdell1234N...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:03:46 -0800, "Where's all the China Blue food?"
>
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:03:46 -0800, "Where's all the China Blue food?"
>
> <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Yet in the end, Obama's margin in the popular vote was less than 3
> >> percentage points. That fact tells us that almost half the people, from
> >> all over the USA, want Obama gone.
>
> >Perhaps, But it was still more than for Romney or Boenher.
>
> Do you believe a simple majority equals mandate?
Only if it's a Republican. If it's a Democrat, it's a squeaker.
> >> Yet in the end, Obama's margin in the popular vote was less than 3
> >> percentage points. That fact tells us that almost half the people, from
> >> all over the USA, want Obama gone.
>
> >Perhaps, But it was still more than for Romney or Boenher.
>
> Do you believe a simple majority equals mandate?
Fortunately, Obama has a "landslide". Which is what the GOP predicted
for Romney, with >330 EC votes.
Message has been deleted
Milt
Nov 11, 2012, 1:49:26 PM11/11/12
to
On Nov 11, 5:28 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 03:53 PM, Matt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > MattB <trdell1234N...@gmail.com> wrote in
> On 11/10/2012 03:53 PM, Matt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
screaming "mandate" then.
Besides, when you subtract out the over-vote from the racists who just
wanted "the black guy" out (they were calling him much worse than that
on Twitter), it was a landslide.
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
Nov 11, 2012, 1:58:48 PM11/11/12
to
"Phlip" <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:30788232-e71a-4952...@v9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
> > Dubya, by contrast, ran on "let's LOWER the taxes for the rich", in
> > 2000!
>
> .....and LOST the popular vote.
He also didn't win the election - a failure of our democratic system,
for which the country has paid a terrible price.
*** Bush did win the election. Al Gore wanted a recount to include all voter
errors as a vote for Gore. A pregnant chad is a voter error--they didn't
punch the chad all the way through and leave only a hole in the punch card.
A single corner chad, swinging door chad, tri-chad--same thing, voter error.
news:30788232-e71a-4952...@v9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 11, 9:43 am, Morgoth Bauglir <Mel...@Mordor.com> wrote:
> >> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> > If Obama thinks he can turn a 332 EC vote squeaker into a mandate,
> > he's got another think coming. He didn't RUN on "raise taxes on the
> > rich".
>
> You weren't paying attention.
Sarcasm alert.
Obama ran on "raise taxes for the rich". Dubya ran on "peace & freedom
& bromance & remember how good things were under my dad?"
But the same GOP pundants (sic) who claimed >330 for Romney would be a
landslide are now calling >330 for Obama a "squeaker".
*** Because it is, certainly not a landslide vote.
> >> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> > If Obama thinks he can turn a 332 EC vote squeaker into a mandate,
> > he's got another think coming. He didn't RUN on "raise taxes on the
> > rich".
>
> You weren't paying attention.
Sarcasm alert.
Obama ran on "raise taxes for the rich". Dubya ran on "peace & freedom
& bromance & remember how good things were under my dad?"
But the same GOP pundants (sic) who claimed >330 for Romney would be a
landslide are now calling >330 for Obama a "squeaker".
> > Dubya, by contrast, ran on "let's LOWER the taxes for the rich", in
> > 2000!
>
> .....and LOST the popular vote.
He also didn't win the election - a failure of our democratic system,
for which the country has paid a terrible price.
errors as a vote for Gore. A pregnant chad is a voter error--they didn't
punch the chad all the way through and leave only a hole in the punch card.
A single corner chad, swinging door chad, tri-chad--same thing, voter error.
Dänk 42Ø
Nov 11, 2012, 2:05:37 PM11/11/12
to
still controlled by Republicans (and thus represents the majority of
Americans), Obama will not be able to raise taxes. You can bitch about
it all you want, but this is democracy in action.
I personally believe taxes need to be raised. EVERYONE should pay more,
and a national sales tax might be the solution. In fact, a national
sales tax would be ideal in that the federal government could become
official collector of state and sales taxes, allowing interstate online
sales to be efficiently taxed (they are untaxed now), bringing in so much
revenue for local governments that they would no longer require federal
handouts.
And every dollar in new tax revenue must be matched by a dollar or more
in spending cuts. We need communist style long-term planning, a five-
year plan to eliminate the annual budget deficit, and a twenty-year plan
to repay the national debt. This will not happen without a balanced-
budget amendment, and such an amendment wouldn't work because both ruling
parties routinely violate the Constitution. But in theory, forcing
Americans to pay for the services they demand is the only way to get them
to agree to spending cuts.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
MattB
Nov 11, 2012, 8:23:36 PM11/11/12
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:48:40 -0800, "Where's all the China Blue food?"
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <r2rv9857arf01ae63...@4ax.com>,
>No, of course not. Like Republicans I believe a simple loss equals mandate.
Personally I think mandate is more than a 51% vote. Looks like America
is as divided as ever.
If a simple 51% is a mandate then all Republ;icans that won also have
a mandate.
To me the divide in the vote means they need to Compromise.
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <r2rv9857arf01ae63...@4ax.com>,
Personally I think mandate is more than a 51% vote. Looks like America
is as divided as ever.
If a simple 51% is a mandate then all Republ;icans that won also have
a mandate.
To me the divide in the vote means they need to Compromise.
Message has been deleted
MattB
Nov 11, 2012, 8:50:38 PM11/11/12
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:32:34 -0800, "Where's all the China Blue food?"
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <imj0a89qq4vrkc9kk...@4ax.com>,
>reelection.
AHHHH You are talking of the past again. I'm more concerned for
the future and Obama's future claimed mandate.
If Mcconnel is trying to prevent Obama from being elected again.
Won't have to work to hard.
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <imj0a89qq4vrkc9kk...@4ax.com>,
> MattB <trdell1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:48:40 -0800, "Where's all the China Blue food?"
>> <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <r2rv9857arf01ae63...@4ax.com>,
>> > MattB <trdell1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:03:46 -0800, "Where's all the China Blue food?"
>> >> <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Yet in the end, Obama's margin in the popular vote was less than 3
>> >> >> percentage points. That fact tells us that almost half the people, from
>> >> >> all over the USA, want Obama gone.
>> >> >
>> >> >Perhaps, But it was still more than for Romney or Boenher.
>> >>
>> >> Do you believe a simple majority equals mandate?
>> >
>> >No, of course not. Like Republicans I believe a simple loss equals mandate.
>>
>>
>> Personally I think mandate is more than a 51% vote. Looks like America
>> is as divided as ever.
>
>That explains why McConnell decided he had a mandate to prevent Obama's
>
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:48:40 -0800, "Where's all the China Blue food?"
>> <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <r2rv9857arf01ae63...@4ax.com>,
>> > MattB <trdell1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:03:46 -0800, "Where's all the China Blue food?"
>> >> <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Yet in the end, Obama's margin in the popular vote was less than 3
>> >> >> percentage points. That fact tells us that almost half the people, from
>> >> >> all over the USA, want Obama gone.
>> >> >
>> >> >Perhaps, But it was still more than for Romney or Boenher.
>> >>
>> >> Do you believe a simple majority equals mandate?
>> >
>> >No, of course not. Like Republicans I believe a simple loss equals mandate.
>>
>>
>> Personally I think mandate is more than a 51% vote. Looks like America
>> is as divided as ever.
>
>reelection.
AHHHH You are talking of the past again. I'm more concerned for
the future and Obama's future claimed mandate.
If Mcconnel is trying to prevent Obama from being elected again.
Won't have to work to hard.
Man of Mind
Nov 11, 2012, 11:48:19 PM11/11/12
to
On 11/11/2012 9:00 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> Tyco toga parties and spending billions on weapons systems the military
>> doesn't want and can't use is a good idea.
>>
>> Perhaps you didn't notice, but the Republicans LOST the election.
>
> Then why is the House still Republican?
Dunno, but no-one's gone broke underestimating how stupid
the right-wingers have become. F'rinstance..
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/11/the-most-racist-states/
--Oh, and that $300 million lost that Karl Rove is getting blamed for..
> On 11/11/2012 12:58 PM, Morgoth Bauglir wrote:
>>
>>> Now he proposes another stimulus to rebuild our "crumbling roads and
>>> bridges", and you still think that's a good idea.
>>
>> .....whereas the Republicans insist that maintaining Dennis Koslowski's
>>
>>> Now he proposes another stimulus to rebuild our "crumbling roads and
>>> bridges", and you still think that's a good idea.
>>
>> Tyco toga parties and spending billions on weapons systems the military
>> doesn't want and can't use is a good idea.
>>
>> Perhaps you didn't notice, but the Republicans LOST the election.
>
> Then why is the House still Republican?
Dunno, but no-one's gone broke underestimating how stupid
the right-wingers have become. F'rinstance..
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/11/the-most-racist-states/
--Oh, and that $300 million lost that Karl Rove is getting blamed for..
Eddie Haskell
Nov 12, 2012, 4:53:44 PM11/12/12
to
"wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:fbc7a314-9957-45f8...@y6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 10, 10:43 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>
> > Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
>
> > Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> >http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> > President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
> > affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
> > crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
> > Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
> He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases, he
> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>
> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
> going to have to learn how to compromise.
> Obama already compromised with his $4 trillion dollar cut back
>
> > President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
> > affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
> > crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
> > Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
> He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases, he
> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>
> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
> going to have to learn how to compromise.
Smoke and mirrors lie and you damned well know it.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Nov 12, 2012, 4:57:50 PM11/12/12
to
"Milt" <milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5d7afff2-9348-4d24...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 10, 10:22 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 10:39 AM, Sid9 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "MattB" <trdell1234N...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:u7vs98ddmca2ekkrt...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:43:12 -0600, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
> >>>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> >>>>http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> >>>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases
> >>>> on
> >>>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end
> >>>> fiscal
> >>>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
> >>>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the
> >>>> rich.
>
> >>> He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases,
> >>> he
> >>> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
> >>> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
> >>> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>
> >>> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
> >>> going to have to learn how to compromise.
>
>
> >>> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
> >>>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> >>>>http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> >>>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases
> >>>> on
> >>>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end
> >>>> fiscal
> >>>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
> >>>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the
> >>>> rich.
>
> >>> He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases,
> >>> he
> >>> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
> >>> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
> >>> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>
> >>> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
> >>> going to have to learn how to compromise.
>
> >> I've noticed that the liberals instead of wanting to work to a better
> >> future are still pointing to the past.
>
> >> Obama's so called mandate he says he has is BS. With a election this
> >> close by voter count I see no mandate.
> >> future are still pointing to the past.
>
> >> Obama's so called mandate he says he has is BS. With a election this
> >> close by voter count I see no mandate.
> > .
> > .
> > Republicans will cave.
> > Obama has nothing to lose.
> > Call him John "Mitt" B hner
>
> > In two years B hner and Mc Connell must face the voters
>
> In two years Obama's policies may well have completely trashed the
> economy, and we may be in a full fledged depression. What then? Blame
> Bush?
> Not possible, unless the GOP allows us to go off the fiscal cliff.
> That won't happen.
> Again, why do you seem to be under the impression that all government
> spending just goes into a hole, and has no positive effect on the
> economy? When we build roads, bridges
Show me where that's happening, stupid stupid stupid stupid.
> > .
> > Republicans will cave.
> > Obama has nothing to lose.
> > Call him John "Mitt" B hner
>
> > In two years B hner and Mc Connell must face the voters
>
> In two years Obama's policies may well have completely trashed the
> economy, and we may be in a full fledged depression. What then? Blame
> Bush?
> Not possible, unless the GOP allows us to go off the fiscal cliff.
> That won't happen.
> Again, why do you seem to be under the impression that all government
> spending just goes into a hole, and has no positive effect on the
> economy? When we build roads, bridges
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/asia/06japan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Nov 12, 2012, 5:00:03 PM11/12/12
to
> economy? When we build roads, bridges, and even weapons programs, what
> do you imagine happens to that money? Now, imagine all of that
> activity stops. What happens to those people who were making money
> from government contracts? There are fewer of them, which means fewer
> taxpayers.
> You guys keep bitching about Greece. Do you even know WHY the Greek
> economy failed?
> Austerity.
I'm so goddamn sick of listening to your newest stupid DNC talking point.
> do you imagine happens to that money? Now, imagine all of that
> activity stops. What happens to those people who were making money
> from government contracts? There are fewer of them, which means fewer
> taxpayers.
> You guys keep bitching about Greece. Do you even know WHY the Greek
> economy failed?
> Austerity.
Start giving a fuck about your country for god's sake.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Nov 12, 2012, 5:17:05 PM11/12/12
to
"MattB" <trdell1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ctus98dhiqghppmv7...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 07:47:36 -0800 (PST), Phlip <phli...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 10, 7:38 am, MattB <trdell1234N...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> I don t want to box myself in, he said. I don t want to box anybody
>>> >> else in. I think it s important for us to come to an agreement with
>>> >> the president. But this is his opportunity to lead.
>>>
>>> >You left out the part where he promised to veto any bill with a tax
>>> >increase on the middle class.
>>>
>>> My apologize
>>
>>I meant "you plural"; I'd suspect the news media is down-playing this
>>aspect.
>>
>>> "'While Obama was careful not to demand that tax rates rise, Jay
>>> Carney, the White House press secretary, said just an hour later that
>>> the president would veto any legislation extending the expiring tax
>>> cuts for families making $250,000 or more.""
>>>
>>> Personally they should do away with the Bush Tax cuts for everyone and
>>> start over. IMO.
>>
>>that would raise taxes on the middle class.
>
>
> Well the way I look at it if the Middle Class wants to pay for others
> health care and free Phones. they should not expect to not help pay
> for it.
Translation: babble.
> Personally I think the deduction system is the problem. The tax
> brackets don't allow for not paying any taxes it is the deduction
> system.
Translation: Babble babble.
-Eddie Haskell
Message has been deleted
Milt
Nov 12, 2012, 6:01:08 PM11/12/12
to
On Nov 12, 3:01 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com> wrote:
> "Milt" <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
We're not Japan.
> "Milt" <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Steve
Nov 12, 2012, 6:45:23 PM11/12/12
to
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:00:57 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt....@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> "Milt" <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>I do, fucktard. I'm talking about mimicking the same behavior that
>made us the richest country on the planet. It's only been since we
>became cheapskates that we're falterng.
Milt has become a parasite. He thinks that parasitic behavior is just
fine.
wrote:
>> "Milt" <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>made us the richest country on the planet. It's only been since we
>became cheapskates that we're falterng.
Milt has become a parasite. He thinks that parasitic behavior is just
fine.
Tyrone
Nov 12, 2012, 7:21:37 PM11/12/12
to
"may well have completely trashed the
economy,'.....too late, been there, done that under the control of bush and the republofascists...a repeat of 1929. What is it with rwingers that their memory stops at January 20, 2009?
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 11:22:41 AM UTC-6, David Hartung wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 10:39 AM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> >
>
>
> > news:u7vs98ddmca2ekkrt...@4ax.com...
>
> >> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:43:12 -0600, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>
> >>>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
>
> >>>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
>
> >>>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
>
> >>>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases, he
>
> >>> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
>
> >>> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
>
> >>> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
>
> >>> going to have to learn how to compromise.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I've noticed that the liberals instead of wanting to work to a better
>
> >> future are still pointing to the past.
>
> >>
>
> >> Obama's so called mandate he says he has is BS. With a election this
>
> >> close by voter count I see no mandate.
>
> > .
>
> > .
>
> > Republicans will cave.
>
> > Obama has nothing to lose.
>
> > Call him John "Mitt" B�hner
> > news:u7vs98ddmca2ekkrt...@4ax.com...
>
> >> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:43:12 -0600, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>
> >>>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
>
> >>>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
>
> >>>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
>
> >>>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases, he
>
> >>> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
>
> >>> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
>
> >>> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
>
> >>> going to have to learn how to compromise.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I've noticed that the liberals instead of wanting to work to a better
>
> >> future are still pointing to the past.
>
> >>
>
> >> Obama's so called mandate he says he has is BS. With a election this
>
> >> close by voter count I see no mandate.
>
> > .
>
> > .
>
> > Republicans will cave.
>
> > Obama has nothing to lose.
>
>
> >
>
> > In two years B�hner and Mc Connell must face the voters
Tyrone
Nov 12, 2012, 8:02:57 PM11/12/12
to
You should have thought of that in 2001 when the bush tax cuts were implemented in the first place.....unfunded war, unfunded Part D, wall street run wild, economic collapse, all culminating in a $12 trillion debt by October 2009 (the end of criminal bush's budgets), and nowhere to go but to deficit spend to keep the economy afloat....the repugs get credit for ALL of it.
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 11:27:12 AM UTC-6, David Hartung wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 10:58 AM, Milt wrote:
>
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 11:27:12 AM UTC-6, David Hartung wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 10:58 AM, Milt wrote:
>
> > On Nov 10, 8:43 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> >>
>
> >>> http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> >>
>
> >>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
>
> >>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
>
> >>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
>
> >>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
> >>
>
> >> He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases, he
>
> >> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
>
> >> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
>
> >> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>
> >>
>
> >> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
>
> >> going to have to learn how to compromise.
>
> >
>
>
> >> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> >>
>
> >>> http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> >>
>
> >>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
>
> >>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
>
> >>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
>
> >>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
> >>
>
> >> He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases, he
>
> >> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
>
> >> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
>
> >> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>
> >>
>
> >> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
>
> >> going to have to learn how to compromise.
>
> >
>
> > BTW, the other "compromise" would be to allow the tax cuts to expire
>
> > on December 31, as designed, and then come in on January 3, with the
>
> > new Congress and reinstate them for all but those making $250,000.
>
> >
>
> > I think it's despicable that ALL Republicans in Congress show more
>
> > allegiance to Grover Norquist than to their own country and its debt
>
> > situation. I can't believe you're okay with that.
>
>
>
> You assume that for the good of the country we mus raise taxes. I am not
>
> > on December 31, as designed, and then come in on January 3, with the
>
> > new Congress and reinstate them for all but those making $250,000.
>
> >
>
> > I think it's despicable that ALL Republicans in Congress show more
>
> > allegiance to Grover Norquist than to their own country and its debt
>
> > situation. I can't believe you're okay with that.
>
>
>
>
> convinced that is the case. Before we raise taxes, we must frst reduce
>
> spending. Personally, I think that the Bush Tax cuts should be made
> convinced that is the case. Before we raise taxes, we must frst reduce
>
Man of Mind
Nov 13, 2012, 9:39:45 AM11/13/12
to
On 11/13/2012 5:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 11/13/2012 12:14 AM, Gary DW wrote:
>>
>> David Hartung says...
>>>
>>> On 11/12/2012 03:55 PM, wy wrote:
....
>>>> You still haven't disproved that the money didn't get filtered through
>>>> the economy and that people and businesses still benefited just the
>>>> same. Boy, you're getting stupider by the minute.
>>>
>>> You have yet to make a valid case.
>>
>> Kind of tough to do with Faux News fueled morons that
>> have no clue what the multiplier effect is.
>
> The major difference between us on this,
Ah, the smell of false dichotomies in the morning..
"The major difference between us on this"
You're trying to 'redefine' something as tangible that
exists only in your imagination, David..
> you and Wy see the government as an engine of economic growth
Now, tell us how you would know such a thing, past your
usual judgmental gain-saying. Take your time on this,
your answer might give some insight as to what you're thinking,
rather than just asking for any and all to simply believe..
> I see the government as an entity which hinders economic growth
Oh, so regulations that prevent unsafe drinking water, food
and drugs from reaching you and yours "hinders economic growth"?
What were we thinking..
> The government produces nothing, it only take from those who earn
What do you "produce", sky pilot?
--Come on, let's hear it..
>
> On 11/13/2012 12:14 AM, Gary DW wrote:
>>
>> David Hartung says...
>>>
>>> On 11/12/2012 03:55 PM, wy wrote:
....
>>>> You still haven't disproved that the money didn't get filtered through
>>>> the economy and that people and businesses still benefited just the
>>>> same. Boy, you're getting stupider by the minute.
>>>
>>> You have yet to make a valid case.
>>
>> Kind of tough to do with Faux News fueled morons that
>> have no clue what the multiplier effect is.
>
> The major difference between us on this,
Ah, the smell of false dichotomies in the morning..
"The major difference between us on this"
You're trying to 'redefine' something as tangible that
exists only in your imagination, David..
> you and Wy see the government as an engine of economic growth
Now, tell us how you would know such a thing, past your
usual judgmental gain-saying. Take your time on this,
your answer might give some insight as to what you're thinking,
rather than just asking for any and all to simply believe..
> I see the government as an entity which hinders economic growth
Oh, so regulations that prevent unsafe drinking water, food
and drugs from reaching you and yours "hinders economic growth"?
What were we thinking..
> The government produces nothing, it only take from those who earn
What do you "produce", sky pilot?
--Come on, let's hear it..
Eddie Haskell
Nov 13, 2012, 11:13:56 AM11/13/12
to
news:e9f52545-772b-4e6e...@v3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
freedom is what made us a great nation. Everything that the left is doing
it's damnedest to destroy.
Getting us off a phony borrow and spend economy and back on to a self
sustaining private economy is going to be like a dope addict going through
withdrawals. That short term pain is what you call failure, but it has to be
done or the country will die in the long run. This idea that austerity
doesn't work because it causes short term pain is DNC / socialist
fuckwittedness at it's finest. Like everything else democrat, it's a fucking
lie. And telling the lie trying to make people believe it is like pouring
arsenic in the water.
-Eddie Haskell
On Nov 12, 3:01 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com> wrote:
> "Milt" <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> I do, fucktard. I'm talking about mimicking the same behavior that
> made us the richest country on the planet. It's only been since we
> became cheapskates that we're falterng.
An industrious, moral people, coupled with a limited government that allowed
> made us the richest country on the planet. It's only been since we
> became cheapskates that we're falterng.
freedom is what made us a great nation. Everything that the left is doing
it's damnedest to destroy.
Getting us off a phony borrow and spend economy and back on to a self
sustaining private economy is going to be like a dope addict going through
withdrawals. That short term pain is what you call failure, but it has to be
done or the country will die in the long run. This idea that austerity
doesn't work because it causes short term pain is DNC / socialist
fuckwittedness at it's finest. Like everything else democrat, it's a fucking
lie. And telling the lie trying to make people believe it is like pouring
arsenic in the water.
-Eddie Haskell
Tyrone
Nov 13, 2012, 11:27:04 AM11/13/12
to
Sure that is why the greatest growth in prosperity for the greatest number of people EVER occurred in the US with max marginal income taxes 70-90%, large union membership, and much higher corporate federal tax revenue. That is what the WWII vets wanted, not an economy with 1% of the population owning 40% of the US net worth, which basically makes them the the takers, the parasites of the economy. Continued concentration of wealth and capital investing in Asia is really dumb economics for 80% of Americans.
Milt
Nov 13, 2012, 11:45:40 AM11/13/12
to
Republicans are in charge we have a serious recession or depression.
>
> Getting us off a phony borrow and spend economy and back on to a self
> sustaining private economy is going to be like a dope addict going through
> withdrawals.
Then why do you support the GOP. Roughly 90% of our current debt came
> Getting us off a phony borrow and spend economy and back on to a self
> sustaining private economy is going to be like a dope addict going through
> withdrawals.
from them.
>That short term pain is what you call failure, but it has to be
> done or the country will die in the long run. This idea that austerity
> doesn't work because it causes short term pain is DNC / socialist
> fuckwittedness at it's finest. Like everything else democrat, it's a fucking
> lie. And telling the lie trying to make people believe it is like pouring
> arsenic in the water.
>
You're a hypocrite.
The only way to balance the budget and pay off the debt is to increase
revenues. There are two ways to do that; raise taxes or increase the
number of taxpayers. My method increases the number of taxpayers.
Apparently, you'd rather raise taxes. Fair enough.
Eddie Haskell
Nov 13, 2012, 12:38:50 PM11/13/12
to
news:4899b533-ce41-41ac...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
We were operating under Reaganomics during nineties because the average top
marginal rate was lower than even Reagan thanks to the republican congress.
Now we're operating under tickle down government and the country is in the
shitter.
> When
> Republicans are in charge we have a serious recession or depression.
Thanks to democrat policies.
> Getting us off a phony borrow and spend economy and back on to a self
> sustaining private economy is going to be like a dope addict going through
> withdrawals.
> Then why do you support the GOP. Roughly 90% of our current debt came
> from them.
Thanks to the bank bailout made necessary by democrat polices. Now you take
the one year of the bank bailout and use it as a baseline to run up trillion
dollar plus deficits year after years in your failed Keynesian schemes that
are bankrupting the country.
>That short term pain is what you call failure, but it has to be
> done or the country will die in the long run. This idea that austerity
> doesn't work because it causes short term pain is DNC / socialist
> fuckwittedness at it's finest. Like everything else democrat, it's a
> fucking
> lie. And telling the lie trying to make people believe it is like pouring
> arsenic in the water.
>
> For years, you supported Bush, Jr.
> You're a hypocrite.
> The only way to balance the budget and pay off the debt is to increase
> revenues. There are two ways to do that; raise taxes
The democrat way is to raise taxes and reduce revenues so as to play class
warfare for votes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894
> or increase the
> number of taxpayers. My method increases the number of taxpayers.
> Apparently, you'd rather raise taxes. Fair enough.
Your method is your Keynesian schemes that are a proven failure and have
fewer people working than ever, while my method is Reaganomics which worked
for JFK, Reagan, Clinton and Bush. Our way works and yours doesn't. That's
been proven.
Between the recession, 9/11 and the dot com bust, and the democrat's
financial crisis, revenues were going up, while the deficit was going down
and on a trajectory to balance.
http://tinyurl.com/5tm83dm
http://tinyurl.com/6le35qr
The average top marginal rate was lower during Clinton than even Reagan
thanks to the republican congress thereby proving Reaganomics.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
Reagan: 48.2%
Clinton: 37.4%
The financial crisis and debt under Bush was the result of democrat policy
that Bush tried unsuccessfully to stop.
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into
securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more"
"In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases
of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under
that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and
creative in stimulating minority gains."
"The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to
loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers"
"Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is
resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more
loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers."
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807
"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory
overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a
decade ago."
"Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency
would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the
two largest players in the mortgage lending industry."
http://tinyurl.com/6lp5qu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8LA8hPgQtI
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
"McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie"
"Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as HUMAN EVENTS
learned from the letter shown in full text below."
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28973
Unlike Bush and McCain, as senator, Obama did nothing, other than earn the
distinction of becoming the second largest recipient of F&F contributions in
the entire congress, even in his short stint there.
Bill Clinton himself said it best:
"I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting
any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to
put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
-Bill Clinton
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any
kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on
these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
-Eddie Haskell
marginal rate was lower than even Reagan thanks to the republican congress.
Now we're operating under tickle down government and the country is in the
shitter.
> When
> Republicans are in charge we have a serious recession or depression.
> Getting us off a phony borrow and spend economy and back on to a self
> sustaining private economy is going to be like a dope addict going through
> withdrawals.
> Then why do you support the GOP. Roughly 90% of our current debt came
> from them.
the one year of the bank bailout and use it as a baseline to run up trillion
dollar plus deficits year after years in your failed Keynesian schemes that
are bankrupting the country.
>That short term pain is what you call failure, but it has to be
> done or the country will die in the long run. This idea that austerity
> doesn't work because it causes short term pain is DNC / socialist
> fuckwittedness at it's finest. Like everything else democrat, it's a
> fucking
> lie. And telling the lie trying to make people believe it is like pouring
> arsenic in the water.
>
> For years, you supported Bush, Jr.
> You're a hypocrite.
> The only way to balance the budget and pay off the debt is to increase
> revenues. There are two ways to do that; raise taxes
warfare for votes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894
> or increase the
> number of taxpayers. My method increases the number of taxpayers.
> Apparently, you'd rather raise taxes. Fair enough.
fewer people working than ever, while my method is Reaganomics which worked
for JFK, Reagan, Clinton and Bush. Our way works and yours doesn't. That's
been proven.
Between the recession, 9/11 and the dot com bust, and the democrat's
financial crisis, revenues were going up, while the deficit was going down
and on a trajectory to balance.
http://tinyurl.com/5tm83dm
http://tinyurl.com/6le35qr
The average top marginal rate was lower during Clinton than even Reagan
thanks to the republican congress thereby proving Reaganomics.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
Reagan: 48.2%
Clinton: 37.4%
The financial crisis and debt under Bush was the result of democrat policy
that Bush tried unsuccessfully to stop.
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into
securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more"
"In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases
of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under
that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and
creative in stimulating minority gains."
"The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to
loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers"
"Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is
resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more
loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers."
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807
"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory
overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a
decade ago."
"Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency
would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the
two largest players in the mortgage lending industry."
http://tinyurl.com/6lp5qu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8LA8hPgQtI
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
"McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie"
"Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as HUMAN EVENTS
learned from the letter shown in full text below."
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28973
Unlike Bush and McCain, as senator, Obama did nothing, other than earn the
distinction of becoming the second largest recipient of F&F contributions in
the entire congress, even in his short stint there.
Bill Clinton himself said it best:
"I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting
any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to
put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
-Bill Clinton
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any
kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on
these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Nov 13, 2012, 12:39:51 PM11/13/12
to
news:c48c0a2e-4404-4772...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
You're not in the world of giving a fuck about your country.
-Eddie Haskell
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Nov 13, 2012, 12:44:14 PM11/13/12
to
news:5ec151f5-6f07-4c75...@v9g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
You already got a stimulus and it didn't work, and no, we're not going to
let you spend us deeper into the hole so that money can be laundered through
public sector unions to end up in democrat coffers.
"The private sector is doing fine... if Republicans want to be helpful, if
they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they
should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments"
-Eddie Haskell
On Nov 10, 10:27 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 10:58 AM, Milt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/10/2012 10:58 AM, Milt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 8:43 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>
> >>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> >>>http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> >>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
> >>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
> >>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
> >>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
> >> He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases,
> >> he
> >> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
> >> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
> >> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>
> >> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
> >> going to have to learn how to compromise.
>
> >> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>
> >>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> >>>http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> >>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
> >>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
> >>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
> >>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
> >> He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases,
> >> he
> >> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
> >> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
> >> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>
> >> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
> >> going to have to learn how to compromise.
>
> > BTW, the other "compromise" would be to allow the tax cuts to expire
> > on December 31, as designed, and then come in on January 3, with the
> > new Congress and reinstate them for all but those making $250,000.
>
> > I think it's despicable that ALL Republicans in Congress show more
> > allegiance to Grover Norquist than to their own country and its debt
> > situation. I can't believe you're okay with that.
>
> You assume that for the good of the country we mus raise taxes.
> if the GOP isn't going to pass stimulus and create more taxpayers,
> > on December 31, as designed, and then come in on January 3, with the
> > new Congress and reinstate them for all but those making $250,000.
>
> > I think it's despicable that ALL Republicans in Congress show more
> > allegiance to Grover Norquist than to their own country and its debt
> > situation. I can't believe you're okay with that.
>
> You assume that for the good of the country we mus raise taxes.
You already got a stimulus and it didn't work, and no, we're not going to
let you spend us deeper into the hole so that money can be laundered through
public sector unions to end up in democrat coffers.
"The private sector is doing fine... if Republicans want to be helpful, if
they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they
should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments"
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Nov 13, 2012, 12:48:01 PM11/13/12
to
news:5a0e18d1-e80d-4d37...@h15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
If republicans wanted to fuck you they'd just sit back and let you have your
way, but since they put country first, like they did during the nineties
with Reaganomics while you democrats wanted the country lose a war during
Bush because he is a republican.
-Eddie Haskell
On Nov 10, 8:43 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>
> > Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> >http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> > President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
> > affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
> > crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
> > Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
> He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases, he
> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>
> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
> going to have to learn how to compromise.
> BTW, the other "compromise" would be to allow the tax cuts to expire
> on December 31, as designed, and then come in on January 3, with the
> new Congress and reinstate them for all but those making $250,000.
> I think it's despicable that ALL Republicans in Congress show more
> allegiance to Grover Norquist than to their own country and its debt
> situation. I can't believe you're okay with that.
Raising taxes will further slow economic growth, job creation and revenues.
> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>
> > Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> >http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> > President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
> > affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
> > crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
> > Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
> He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases, he
> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>
> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
> going to have to learn how to compromise.
> BTW, the other "compromise" would be to allow the tax cuts to expire
> on December 31, as designed, and then come in on January 3, with the
> new Congress and reinstate them for all but those making $250,000.
> I think it's despicable that ALL Republicans in Congress show more
> allegiance to Grover Norquist than to their own country and its debt
> situation. I can't believe you're okay with that.
If republicans wanted to fuck you they'd just sit back and let you have your
way, but since they put country first, like they did during the nineties
with Reaganomics while you democrats wanted the country lose a war during
Bush because he is a republican.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Nov 13, 2012, 12:53:18 PM11/13/12
to
news:cc49e59f-de58-4fb4...@s12g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...
To nowhere near the 70% he inherited. Reaganomics was kept in place.
> followed by Bush and
> Clinton doing so
Only if you cheery pick one year from each, but if you average it out over
the 8 years of Clinton and Reagan you'll find that the average top marginal
rate was lower during Clinton than even Reagan The nineties ended with 20
year run of Reaganomics and we grew our way out of the deficits just like
Reagan said we would.
No we see trickle down government, and it's proven not to work.
> as well that didn't work to get the country out of
> recessions and bolster the economy? I'd love to hear the answer to
> that, which no Repugnant can ever come up with in any convincing
> fashion or on any credible level.
> Before we raise taxes, we must frst reduce
> spending. Personally, I think that the Bush Tax cuts should be made
> permanent, all Obamacare taxes repealed(and Obamacare implementation
> suspended), and the programed "fiscal cliff" budget cuts allowed to
> happen. If that does not get the budget under control, then, and only
> then, do we look at tax increases.
> Wow, you really flunked math big time in school, didn't you? Yes, you
> certainly did and you're not hiding it in the slightest.
You lose again.
Average top marginal rate:
Reagan: 48.2%
Clinton: 37.4%
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
-Eddie Haskell
On Nov 10, 12:27 pm, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 10:58 AM, Milt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/10/2012 10:58 AM, Milt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 8:43 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>
> >>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> >>>http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> >>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
> >>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
> >>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
> >>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
> >> He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases,
> >> he
> >> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
> >> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
> >> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>
> >> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
> >> going to have to learn how to compromise.
>
> > BTW, the other "compromise" would be to allow the tax cuts to expire
> > on December 31, as designed, and then come in on January 3, with the
> > new Congress and reinstate them for all but those making $250,000.
>
> > I think it's despicable that ALL Republicans in Congress show more
> > allegiance to Grover Norquist than to their own country and its debt
> > situation. I can't believe you're okay with that.
>
> >> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>
> >>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>
> >>>http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>
> >>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
> >>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
> >>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
> >>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>
> >> He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases,
> >> he
> >> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
> >> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
> >> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>
> >> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
> >> going to have to learn how to compromise.
>
> > BTW, the other "compromise" would be to allow the tax cuts to expire
> > on December 31, as designed, and then come in on January 3, with the
> > new Congress and reinstate them for all but those making $250,000.
>
> > I think it's despicable that ALL Republicans in Congress show more
> > allegiance to Grover Norquist than to their own country and its debt
> > situation. I can't believe you're okay with that.
>
> You assume that for the good of the country we mus raise taxes. I am not
> convinced that is the case.
> What is it about Reagan having raised taxes,
> convinced that is the case.
To nowhere near the 70% he inherited. Reaganomics was kept in place.
> followed by Bush and
> Clinton doing so
Only if you cheery pick one year from each, but if you average it out over
the 8 years of Clinton and Reagan you'll find that the average top marginal
rate was lower during Clinton than even Reagan The nineties ended with 20
year run of Reaganomics and we grew our way out of the deficits just like
Reagan said we would.
No we see trickle down government, and it's proven not to work.
> as well that didn't work to get the country out of
> recessions and bolster the economy? I'd love to hear the answer to
> that, which no Repugnant can ever come up with in any convincing
> fashion or on any credible level.
> Before we raise taxes, we must frst reduce
> spending. Personally, I think that the Bush Tax cuts should be made
> permanent, all Obamacare taxes repealed(and Obamacare implementation
> suspended), and the programed "fiscal cliff" budget cuts allowed to
> happen. If that does not get the budget under control, then, and only
> then, do we look at tax increases.
> certainly did and you're not hiding it in the slightest.
You lose again.
Average top marginal rate:
Reagan: 48.2%
Clinton: 37.4%
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
-Eddie Haskell
wy
Nov 13, 2012, 12:53:15 PM11/13/12
to
On Nov 13, 12:47 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com> wrote:
> "Milt" <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
When Reagan raised taxes multiple times during and after his
recession. Ha-ha-ha-ha... boy, you're real stupid, Eddie.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-16/why-reagan-raised-taxes-and-we-should-too-echoes.html
> "Milt" <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
recession. Ha-ha-ha-ha... boy, you're real stupid, Eddie.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-16/why-reagan-raised-taxes-and-we-should-too-echoes.html
Eddie Haskell
Nov 13, 2012, 12:56:48 PM11/13/12
to
news:929cb7dc-1526-4a6c...@k6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
To nowhere near the 70% rate he inherited and the average top marginal rate
during Clinton was even lower.
Why do you lie about what works and what doesn't? Why do you hate America
and 300 million people?
-Eddie Haskell
during Clinton was even lower.
Why do you lie about what works and what doesn't? Why do you hate America
and 300 million people?
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Nov 13, 2012, 12:58:37 PM11/13/12
to
recession, which is why we haven't and why we have, instead, cut taxes"
Obama told NBC's Chuck Todd when Todd presented a question from a viewer
named Scott who asked, "Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep
recession is going to help with the economy any?"
Obama then added, "What I have to say to Scott is his economics are right.
You don't raise taxes in a recession. We haven't raised taxes in a
recession....we have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take
effect in the middle of a recession. Even the proposal that have come out of
Congress, which by the way were different than the proposals I put forward,
still wouldn't kick in until after the recession was over. So he's
absolutely right. The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the
middle of a recession."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aufAtuTwKlE
-Eddie Haskell
wy
Nov 13, 2012, 1:07:25 PM11/13/12
to
stupid.
wy
Nov 13, 2012, 1:08:21 PM11/13/12
to
stupid.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aufAtuTwKlE
>
> -Eddie Haskell
Tyrone
Nov 13, 2012, 1:37:55 PM11/13/12
to
"Why do you lie about what works and what doesn't? Why do you hate America
and 300 million people?"
What a cherry picking drama queen. Using Freddie and Fannie as the usual rwing whipping boy while ignoring $500 trillion in Credit Default Swaps generated by rip off wall street based mostly on private lending NOT guaranteed by Freddie and Fannie. criminal bush started TARP, not Obama....but by that time it was too late...the credit markets had to be unfrozen, and that did involve Obama. The republofascists have resisted every attempt to reform wall street, basically because that is a major source of their bribes. I don't know if Obama could have done more to break up Too Big to Fail...if so, that was a mistake. To make the middle class and the US economy in general to work better for all, some of this wealth and income flowing to the top has to be shaken loose...and that means revenues from them...not the US middle class.
and 300 million people?"
meerschaum
Nov 13, 2012, 3:09:38 PM11/13/12
to
On 11/12/2012 4:01 PM, Milt wrote:
> We're not Japan.
>
COMCAST.NET 76.25.49.88
1515 19th St
Boulder, CO 80302
http://www.redfin.com/CO/Boulder/1515-19th-St-80302/home/35307085
Sold on 04/27/2012
$540,000
1515 19th St
Boulder, CO 80302
BEDS: 4
BATHS: 3
SQ. FT.: 1,620
$/SQ. FT.: $333
LOT SIZE: -
PROPERTY TYPE: Residential (Detached)
STYLE: 2 Story
YEAR BUILT: 1989
> We're not Japan.
>
COMCAST.NET 76.25.49.88
1515 19th St
Boulder, CO 80302
http://www.redfin.com/CO/Boulder/1515-19th-St-80302/home/35307085
Sold on 04/27/2012
$540,000
1515 19th St
Boulder, CO 80302
BEDS: 4
BATHS: 3
SQ. FT.: 1,620
$/SQ. FT.: $333
LOT SIZE: -
PROPERTY TYPE: Residential (Detached)
STYLE: 2 Story
YEAR BUILT: 1989
meerschaum
Nov 13, 2012, 3:11:43 PM11/13/12
to
On 11/10/2012 12:30 PM, Milt wrote:
> creates economic activity? Why is there
> such a disconnect?
> creates economic activity? Why is there
> such a disconnect?
Eddie Haskell
Nov 13, 2012, 3:29:03 PM11/13/12
to
news:d4b8d4d1-bb39-4312...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
How the hell do you know?
-Eddie Haskell
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Nov 13, 2012, 3:35:00 PM11/13/12
to
news:84890e2e-3edd-4e65...@d3g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
I knew that would be your dodge lie.
Why would you not want to raise them in a recession?
Oh, and btw, GDP growth was higher back in 2010 when Hussein and the
democrats decided to leave the Bush tax cuts in place.
Explain.
-Eddie Haskell
Why would you not want to raise them in a recession?
Oh, and btw, GDP growth was higher back in 2010 when Hussein and the
democrats decided to leave the Bush tax cuts in place.
Explain.
-Eddie Haskell
wy
Nov 13, 2012, 3:41:39 PM11/13/12
to
attention. He only wants to bring it up back to what it was under
Clinton - you know, when things actually worked when tax rates were
higher than under Bush?
wy
Nov 13, 2012, 3:50:14 PM11/13/12
to
>
> Oh, and btw, GDP growth was higher back in 2010 when Hussein and the
> democrats decided to leave the Bush tax cuts in place.
in the last two years compared to 2010:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
And that's maybe because the cuts are still in place and are not
having any real positive effect on growth any longer.
>
> Explain.
I just did.
jane
Nov 13, 2012, 3:51:44 PM11/13/12
to
Clinton"
He does not want to bring back the bulk of the taxes, those for single
taxpayers under $200K or joint returns under $250k.
wy
Nov 13, 2012, 3:55:43 PM11/13/12
to
the 39% for the wealthy. Don't act so deliberately dumb, will you?
Eddie Haskell
Nov 13, 2012, 3:57:13 PM11/13/12
to
news:510782af-ad74-4da6...@q1g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, to liars like Hussein.
> You're too stupid and racist to pay
> attention.
Then how did I figure out that Hussein is a liar while you are to stupid and
racist to have figured it out?
> He only wants to bring it up back to what it was under
> Clinton - you know, when things actually worked
And the average top rate was lower than even during Reagan.
> when tax rates were
> higher than under Bush?
If you raise the rate you will hamper economic growth. That's a fact.
Why do you not raise taxes in a recession?
Until the democrat's financial crisis the deficit was going down while
revenues were going up under the Bush tax cuts.
http://tinyurl.com/5tm83dm
http://tinyurl.com/6le35qr
-Eddie Haskell
> You're too stupid and racist to pay
> attention.
racist to have figured it out?
> He only wants to bring it up back to what it was under
> Clinton - you know, when things actually worked
> when tax rates were
> higher than under Bush?
Why do you not raise taxes in a recession?
Until the democrat's financial crisis the deficit was going down while
revenues were going up under the Bush tax cuts.
http://tinyurl.com/5tm83dm
http://tinyurl.com/6le35qr
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Nov 13, 2012, 4:03:41 PM11/13/12
to
news:09915212-40f7-4784...@o30g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
And 30% on capital gains.
How come?
Explain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894
-Eddie Haskell
How come?
Explain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Nov 13, 2012, 4:14:02 PM11/13/12
to
news:0d3261f2-b606-48ed...@y6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
It's a shit economy, but that aside, why would you want to raise taxes in a
recession?
> Oh, and btw, GDP growth was higher back in 2010 when Hussein and the
> democrats decided to leave the Bush tax cuts in place.
> The cuts are still in place, but notice how the rates have been weaker
> in the last two years compared to 2010:
Yeah, and after a trillion dollar stimulus and 6 trillion in debt.
> http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
> And that's maybe because the cuts are still in place and are not
> having any real positive effect on growth any longer.
Nice admission that the Bush tax cuts on the rich had a positive effect, but
the problem now is that you have an anti-capitalist, anti-private sector
president in office and until that ends people that invest and get things
moving are going to continue to hold on to their asses.
> Explain.
> I just did.
Yeah, that you're a moron.
-Eddie Haskell
recession?
> Oh, and btw, GDP growth was higher back in 2010 when Hussein and the
> democrats decided to leave the Bush tax cuts in place.
> The cuts are still in place, but notice how the rates have been weaker
> in the last two years compared to 2010:
> http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
> And that's maybe because the cuts are still in place and are not
> having any real positive effect on growth any longer.
the problem now is that you have an anti-capitalist, anti-private sector
president in office and until that ends people that invest and get things
moving are going to continue to hold on to their asses.
> Explain.
> I just did.
Yeah, that you're a moron.
-Eddie Haskell
Steve
Nov 13, 2012, 4:24:03 PM11/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:45:40 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt....@gmail.com>
wrote:
"You have $100,000.
You borrowed money to buy $10,000 worth of stock.
[now] you're worth $110,000."
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/296d8d12c064282a?hl=en
"And Roth's don't pay shit in interest these days."
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/1434b188779dea12?hl=en
Well, a loss is negative equity."
--Milt.Shook..
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bedc09d4?hl=en&
"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."[...] the
corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper.
--Milt.Shook..
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0403172013.7bb7c449%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&
"I'm at a loss as to why you think increasing the necessary collateral, while not
decreasing the value of the loan, is not a net loss."
Milt.Shook..
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/eca4b4662ef2cc82?hl=en&
"I am incorporated. But MiltCo (not the actual name of the corporation)
is not me. The corporation is a wholly separate entity from me. The
corporation pays me a salary and I pay taxes on that salary. THE
CORPORATION pays the taxes on the corporation."
--Milt Shook Mar 18 2004,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.liberalism/msg/f7a3aebb956b7ff7
"And one of the ironies of this entire discussion is that a company
that pays corporate income taxes one year can deduct them as a
business expense the next.
--Milt Shook, Feb 4, 2008 who claims to have been a business
consultant and have his own corporation.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b0151278e691117b.
"Yeah. If you bought the stock at $50 a share and it's now worth $25,
the shares have a negative equity of 50%. I mean, DUH!
-- Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bedc09d4?hl=en&
"And if I sell stock, my asset level is reduced by the
amount of that stock, EVEN IF the stock I sell is sold
for more than I paid for it."
--Milt Shook.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?hl=en&
"When you're (sic) margin is called, that's a liability, not an asset.
If you have an account with $100,000 in it, and you borrow $10,000 to
buy with, you only have $100,000 in assets; until you pay the loan,
that $10,000 is not an asset; it's a liability. When the margin is
called (for shits and giggles, let's say for the full amount of
$10,000), there is no way to say that you haven't lost $10,000. In
fact, you're actually out $20,000, because you're out the $10,000
for the loan and the $10,000 to call the margin."
-- Milt Shook Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?hl=en&
"The price of goods and services is based solely -- and I mean SOLELY
-- on how much people are willing to pay for the goods and services."
--Milt Shook Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:07:49 -0800 (PST)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/5ad9f80a29911b0b?dmode=source
"Supply and demand determine price? Are you shitting me? Price DICTATES
demand, you ignorant fuck."
--Milt shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.california/msg/c049eb138b04797b?hl=en
wrote:
You borrowed money to buy $10,000 worth of stock.
[now] you're worth $110,000."
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/296d8d12c064282a?hl=en
"And Roth's don't pay shit in interest these days."
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/1434b188779dea12?hl=en
Well, a loss is negative equity."
--Milt.Shook..
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bedc09d4?hl=en&
"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."[...] the
corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper.
--Milt.Shook..
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0403172013.7bb7c449%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&
"I'm at a loss as to why you think increasing the necessary collateral, while not
decreasing the value of the loan, is not a net loss."
Milt.Shook..
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/eca4b4662ef2cc82?hl=en&
"I am incorporated. But MiltCo (not the actual name of the corporation)
is not me. The corporation is a wholly separate entity from me. The
corporation pays me a salary and I pay taxes on that salary. THE
CORPORATION pays the taxes on the corporation."
--Milt Shook Mar 18 2004,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.liberalism/msg/f7a3aebb956b7ff7
"And one of the ironies of this entire discussion is that a company
that pays corporate income taxes one year can deduct them as a
business expense the next.
--Milt Shook, Feb 4, 2008 who claims to have been a business
consultant and have his own corporation.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b0151278e691117b.
"Yeah. If you bought the stock at $50 a share and it's now worth $25,
the shares have a negative equity of 50%. I mean, DUH!
-- Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bedc09d4?hl=en&
"And if I sell stock, my asset level is reduced by the
amount of that stock, EVEN IF the stock I sell is sold
for more than I paid for it."
--Milt Shook.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?hl=en&
"When you're (sic) margin is called, that's a liability, not an asset.
If you have an account with $100,000 in it, and you borrow $10,000 to
buy with, you only have $100,000 in assets; until you pay the loan,
that $10,000 is not an asset; it's a liability. When the margin is
called (for shits and giggles, let's say for the full amount of
$10,000), there is no way to say that you haven't lost $10,000. In
fact, you're actually out $20,000, because you're out the $10,000
for the loan and the $10,000 to call the margin."
-- Milt Shook Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?hl=en&
"The price of goods and services is based solely -- and I mean SOLELY
-- on how much people are willing to pay for the goods and services."
--Milt Shook Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:07:49 -0800 (PST)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/5ad9f80a29911b0b?dmode=source
"Supply and demand determine price? Are you shitting me? Price DICTATES
demand, you ignorant fuck."
--Milt shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.california/msg/c049eb138b04797b?hl=en
scum chuggers
Nov 13, 2012, 5:47:34 PM11/13/12
to
On 11/13/2012 1:55 PM, wy wrote:
> It's the number he always keeps talking about he wants to bring back -
Pierre Wy
> It's the number he always keeps talking about he wants to bring back -
Montreal, QC H1A 1A1
514-903-2639
-------------------------------------------------
Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
scum chuggers
Nov 13, 2012, 5:47:55 PM11/13/12
to
On 11/13/2012 1:50 PM, wy wrote:
> And that's maybe because the cuts are still in place and are not
> having any real positive effect on growth any longer.
> And that's maybe because the cuts are still in place and are not
> having any real positive effect on growth any longer.
scum chuggers
Nov 13, 2012, 5:48:13 PM11/13/12
to
On 11/13/2012 1:41 PM, wy wrote:
> you know, when things actually worked when tax rates were
> higher than under Bush?
>
> you know, when things actually worked when tax rates were
> higher than under Bush?
>
David Hartung
Nov 13, 2012, 6:15:44 PM11/13/12
to
all but the highest income levels.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
wy
Nov 13, 2012, 6:33:48 PM11/13/12
to
tax, don't you?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-16/why-reagan-raised-taxes-and-we-should-too-echoes.html
And:
In 1983 Reagan signed the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of
1982 which more than doubled the tax on gasoline from 4 to 9 cents per
gallon. Keep in mind that a gallon of gas cost around $1.25. While
many Republicans complain about the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), it
was President Reagan that signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which
would ensure that more people qualify for this additional tax. In
addition, the tax act of 1983 increased payroll taxes for corporations
further encouraging companies to outsource their workforce.
Acknowledging that Government is in the way of economic prosperity
during his campaign, Reagan proved his point not by solving the
problem but by implanting policies that perpetuated it. As a result
the productive manufacturing base severely declined and left for more
business friendly nations.
http://www.wtffinance.com/2011/03/ronald-reagan-hypocrisy-the-deficit-spending-anti-free-market-conservative/
You just don;t remember it because you were in a Reagan coma and
believed he could do no wrong.
Message has been deleted
Man of Mind
Nov 14, 2012, 9:19:02 AM11/14/12
to
On 11/13/2012 8:39 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>
> On 11/13/2012 5:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> On 11/13/2012 12:14 AM, Gary DW wrote:
>>>
>>> David Hartung says...
>>>>
>>>> On 11/12/2012 03:55 PM, wy wrote:
.....
>>>>> You still haven't disproved that the money didn't get filtered through
>>>>> the economy and that people and businesses still benefited just the
>>>>> same. Boy, you're getting stupider by the minute.
>>>>
>>>> You have yet to make a valid case.
>>>
>>> Kind of tough to do with Faux News fueled morons that
>>> have no clue what the multiplier effect is.
>>
>> The major difference between us on this,
>
> Ah, the smell of false dichotomies in the morning..
>
> "The major difference between us on this"
>
> You're trying to 'redefine' something as tangible that
> exists only in your imagination, David..
>
>> you and Wy see the government as an engine of economic growth
>
> Now, tell us how you would know such a thing, past your
> usual judgmental gain-saying. Take your time on this,
> your answer might give some insight as to what you're thinking,
> rather than just asking for any and all to simply believe..
>
>> I see the government as an entity which hinders economic growth
>
> Oh, so regulations that prevent unsafe drinking water, food
> and drugs from reaching you and yours "hinders economic growth"?
>
> What were we thinking..
>
>> The government produces nothing, it only take from those who earn
>
> What do you "produce", sky pilot?
>
> --Come on, let's hear it..
*>cricket.wav<*
--"How high can you fly? You never touch the sky.."
>
> On 11/13/2012 5:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> On 11/13/2012 12:14 AM, Gary DW wrote:
>>>
>>> David Hartung says...
>>>>
>>>> On 11/12/2012 03:55 PM, wy wrote:
.....
>>>>> You still haven't disproved that the money didn't get filtered through
>>>>> the economy and that people and businesses still benefited just the
>>>>> same. Boy, you're getting stupider by the minute.
>>>>
>>>> You have yet to make a valid case.
>>>
>>> Kind of tough to do with Faux News fueled morons that
>>> have no clue what the multiplier effect is.
>>
>> The major difference between us on this,
>
> Ah, the smell of false dichotomies in the morning..
>
> "The major difference between us on this"
>
> You're trying to 'redefine' something as tangible that
> exists only in your imagination, David..
>
>> you and Wy see the government as an engine of economic growth
>
> Now, tell us how you would know such a thing, past your
> usual judgmental gain-saying. Take your time on this,
> your answer might give some insight as to what you're thinking,
> rather than just asking for any and all to simply believe..
>
>> I see the government as an entity which hinders economic growth
>
> Oh, so regulations that prevent unsafe drinking water, food
> and drugs from reaching you and yours "hinders economic growth"?
>
> What were we thinking..
>
>> The government produces nothing, it only take from those who earn
>
> What do you "produce", sky pilot?
>
> --Come on, let's hear it..
*>cricket.wav<*
--"How high can you fly? You never touch the sky.."
rin tin timkovych
Nov 14, 2012, 1:31:20 PM11/14/12
to
On 11/14/2012 7:19 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>
> *>cricket.wav<*
>
> --"How high can you fly? You never touch the sky.."
Coo Koo!!!
>
> *>cricket.wav<*
>
> --"How high can you fly? You never touch the sky.."
Kurt, you wouldn't mind if I re-hashed the story about the "Oklahoma
Space Alliance" and your involvement with the gray insect aliens?
===========================================================
Oklahoma Space Alliance News
by Syd Henderson
The December Meeting of Oklahoma Space Alliance will actually be
our annual potluck Christmas Party, December 20 at Tom Koszoru's House
in Norman. The meeting will be at 3:00 p.m., with dinner following
sometime around 4:00 p.m. Prospective members are also welcome.
Tom's house is at 514 Fenwick Court in Norman. Take the Main
Street west exit off I- 35, proceed west past the Sooner Fashion Mall,
and turn right at 36th Street, and go north until you turn right on
Rambling Oaks (about half a mile north of Main Street). Fenwick Court is
the fourth or fifth street on the left. Tom's house is the last on the
left side. (Alternatively take the Robinson Street west exit, turn
south on 36th, left on Rambling Oaks and left on Fenwick Court. I think
there may still be some construction on this route.)
In addition to being a Christmas party, this is the meeting at
which we nominate our officers.
You should be receiving a copy of UPDATE the week before the
meeting with an agenda.
Minutes of October Meeting
Oklahoma Space Alliance met on Saturday, October 18, at the Air
Space Museum at the Kirkpatrick Center in Oklahoma City. Attending were
John Northcutt, Kurt Lochner-Harrington, Claire Stephens and Syd
Henderson. Unfortunately the October UPDATE didn't get out in time for
the meeting, and several of the postcards I mailed out did not arrive in
time, so not everyone got informed in time for the meeting
This meeting was a planning meeting for our party at SoonerCon
12. Syd volunteered (argh) to send for extra copies of the most recent
Ad Astra with the 3-D Mars panorama [sent for but not yet arrived as of
November 16], and to publish a special edition of OUTREACH and prepare
other literature and printouts.
Syd and Claire will also take care of the food (so far, mostly
chips, soda, and candy), although other contributions are welcome. We
will also bring petitions, and bumper stickers and other freebies.
Claire will bring the gravity funnel for the kitty,
I found a downloadable model of the Cassini space probe at the
Cassini web site at the Jet Propulsion Lab
(http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cassini/model/) and Kurt agreed to construct
it. In addition, Kurt (and possibly Tim) will create flyers. Kurt will
try to construct balloon rockets.
We will also provide paper, crayons, colored pencils, etc., and
invite visitors to design a space colony.
Any attractive pictures we can display around the room are also
welcome.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
My condolensces, I'm just an out of work physicist.
Kurt Lochner - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Kurt.Loch...@f22.n14766.z1.FIDONET.ORG
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kurt.Loch...@f22.n14766.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Kurt Lochner)
Subject: Re: The Coverup
Date: 6 Aug 91 16:46:55 GMT
Quote:
Hi Kurt,
To add to some people's idea that the Greys look like
insects, I'm reminded of an article in the most recent
UFO Magazine in which a man describes an encounter
with beings that looked like insects to him.
----------
I 'll be happy to sent you a copy of this article if
you want it.
Hmm, I'm wondering how you'll send it to me, I presume
US Snail-mail so here's the address....
500 S. State #40
Edmond, OK 73034
I got ahold of a copy of Strieber's Majestic and find
most of it to be interesting. I still get the impression
that the Roswell debris was hijacked in mid-air and that
the government officialdom is still quite embarrassed.
--
Kurt Lochner - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Kurt.Loch...@f22.n14766.z1.FIDONET.ORG
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Haskell
Nov 14, 2012, 4:17:38 PM11/14/12
to
news:1384d974-d618-45b8...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
When it comes to the debate over Reaganomics it is.
<shoots bird>
-Eddie Haskell
<shoots bird>
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Nov 14, 2012, 4:58:16 PM11/14/12
to
"Matt" <mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA10797822FEB7ma...@88.198.244.100...
> MattB <trdell1...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:u7vs98ddmca2ekkrt...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:43:12 -0600, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>>>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>>>>
>>>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases
> on
>>>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end
> fiscal
>>>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
>>>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the
> rich.
>>>
>>>He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases,
> he
>>>is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
>>>with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
>>>Republican Senators to end the debate.
>>>
>>>Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
>>>going to have to learn how to compromise.
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>>>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>>>>
>>>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases
> on
>>>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end
> fiscal
>>>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
>>>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the
> rich.
>>>
>>>He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases,
> he
>>>is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
>>>with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
>>>Republican Senators to end the debate.
>>>
>>>Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
>>>going to have to learn how to compromise.
>>
>>
>> I've noticed that the liberals instead of wanting to work to a better
>> future are still pointing to the past.
>>
>> Obama's so called mandate he says he has is BS. With a election this
>> close by voter count I see no mandate.
>>
>
> Er, Obama won by well over 100 electoral votes. Romney essentially won
>> future are still pointing to the past.
>>
>> Obama's so called mandate he says he has is BS. With a election this
>> close by voter count I see no mandate.
>>
>
> the core Red states and that was it. Nobody wanted him, even with a
> black President and a poor economy. This says all you need to know about
> the Republicans.
>
> And what is the first thing Mr. Boehner says? "We aren't going to
> change." Good move. Two years of horrible things await us, then the
> Republicans will be gone forever. A full Democratic Senate and House,
> everything we want, and no Republicans in office again.
>
> Then we will see things get done.
You already had that and when you did you ass fucked the country.
Numb nuts.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Nov 14, 2012, 4:59:08 PM11/14/12
to
"Man of Mind" <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k7lvr8$jhc$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 11/10/2012 9:43 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>>>
>>> http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>>>
>>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
>>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
>>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
>>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>>
>> He can insist all hw wishes,
>
> Nope, your side of the aisle is going to have to quit putting
>> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>>>
>>> http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>>>
>>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases on
>>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end fiscal
>>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
>>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the rich.
>>
>> He can insist all hw wishes,
>
> your failed ideology above the needs of America..
You fuckers are deranged.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Nov 14, 2012, 5:14:31 PM11/14/12
to
news:XnsA107980C6470Cma...@88.198.244.100...
> David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote in
> news:XpqdnZ62MbeM6wPN...@giganews.com:
>> going to have to learn how to compromise.
>>
>>
>
> Why?
>
> Republicans are a failed ideology.
Why do you lie so goddamn much?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU
-Eddie Haskell
> David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote in
> news:XpqdnZ62MbeM6wPN...@giganews.com:
>
>> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>>>
>>> http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>>>
>>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases
> on
>>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end
> fiscal
>>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
>>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the
> rich.
>>
>> On 11/10/2012 09:17 AM, MattB wrote:
>>> Obama to Insist on Tax Increase for Rich
>>>
>>> http://www.cnbc.com/id/49770594
>>>
>>> President Obama said Friday that he would insist that tax increases
> on
>>> affluent Americans be part of any agreement to avoid a year-end
> fiscal
>>> crisis, setting up a possible confrontation with Congressional
>>> Republicans who say they will oppose a rise in tax rates for the
> rich.
>>
>> He can insist all hw wishes, but in order to get those tax increases,
> he
>> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
>> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
>> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>>
>> Given the current political climate, I predict that the President is
> he
>> is going to have to convince at least 24 House Republicans to go along
>> with such an increase. IN addition, he would have to convince 7
>> Republican Senators to end the debate.
>>
>> going to have to learn how to compromise.
>>
>>
>
> Why?
>
> Republicans are a failed ideology.
Why do you lie so goddamn much?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU
-Eddie Haskell
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages