OT Reagan dying makes meplay more games
bunboy
video games. Lately though with my TV shows getting interrupted what seems
like every other few minutes with Reagan burial crap I have surrendered and
given up on TV. Hell I even got an x box game something I haven't done in
ages to have something to watch on TV (Riddick Chronicles actually an
amazing game truly amazing).
What the heck is the story with this guy. I never liked him as an
actor governor or Pres but I understand he did some important things and
should have his ceremony but everyday for a week? Jesus only gets one day!
Same with Princess Di. I am plumb sick of watching Nancy and that General
with the pole up his butt walking to hail to the Chief more often than the
beer twins are on. Really this was a totally dysfunctional family who all
hated each other until daddies mind took an unfortunate vacation.
I really find the whole thing instead of moving which it really
was the first time to now be a revolting show of hypocrisy that is fueled by
Nancy's love of ceremony and the Republicans so happy to get naked Iraqis
off the tube for a week.
Like I said he wasn't my favorite but I think he would have been
happier with something simple one day with a bunch of horses and old
Hollywood friends around without this week of nonsense. I can only think
that people around the world again are going to be looking at us and
wondering what makes us tick and not likeing the answer in many cases.
--
The people who can smile when things go wrong have found someone else to
blame
Bunboy
Briarroot
...and this is your brain on drugs!
(This Public Service Announcement has been brought to by Pfizer Inc)
magnulus
wrap themselves in the flag and have a real tear jerker. Honestly, Ronald
Reagan may have been a nice guy in his private life... or not, who knows...
but as a President, he was a mean spirited sack of shit. Wheather it was
his handlers' fault or his own, who knows. All I do know is its pretty sad
some of the trailer trash that was actually raped by this guy, standing
around in line for hours to see his putrid corpse.
BTW, isn't it amazing how Nancy Reagan is suddenly an advocate for stem
cell research? I guess her Republican handlers haven't gotten to her yet.
Michael Starke
"magnulus" <magn...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:DcUxc.1773$Kd5....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Cripes, did you even live through the 80's as an adult? Do you remember what
life was like in the US before he became president? I was a pharmacy tech
typing prescription labels for Jimmy Carter's hemorrhoid prescriptions on
a WW II vintage typewriter at Andrews AFB then. I remember not only getting
IBM Selectrics, but a nice raise from President Reagan as well! My world
changed radically in the armed forces, and I think he re-awoke national
pride in a lot of Americans who where feeling pretty bad at the time.
For myself I can say that is absolutely true.
Now, I'm a Libertarian, so I see things somewhat differently than most,
but what I have heard from the liberal leaning alphabet networks
today was some pretty heavy handed contrasting between the then gentle,
persuasive Reagan and the now hawkish cowboy Bush. Same thing
with the D-Day coverage. Contrast the then "just" WW II with Bush's current
evil war like "aggression".
I've never heard anybody describe Reagan as
"mean spirited". History will sort things out ...eventually. The fog of
politics is too thick right now. Just remember that everything we see
and hear is filtered out, selected and interpreted by someone
else. (And they generally are not Republicans....believe me on
that. I have first hand experience)
From what I know, nobody is against stem cell research, only the
harvesting of those types of stem cells that come the unborn.
There's a difference. The idea that Nancy Reagan has Republican
handlers sounds ridiculous. Who are they?
Walter Mitty
> I can only think
> that people around the world again are going to be looking at us and
> wondering what makes us tick and not likeing the answer in many cases.
You got that right. He was hardly Winston Churchill.
magnulus
"Michael Starke" <mikes...@DeletThiscomcast.net> wrote in message
news:iaSdnRtMa7i...@comcast.com...
> Cripes, did you even live through the 80's as an adult?
Nope. I was a child in the 80's.
> I was a pharmacy tech
> typing prescription labels for Jimmy Carter's hemorrhoid prescriptions on
> a WW II vintage typewriter at Andrews AFB then. I remember not only
getting
> IBM Selectrics, but a nice raise from President Reagan as well!
My dad was in the military too (an officer) and is a big time
Republican. But I'm not my dad. Alot of the military types like
Republicans for some reason. That, and a pathological hatred for Jane
Fonda. To be in the military you have to be physically fit in every way,
no disease... but you don't need many grey cells, either.
> My world
> changed radically in the armed forces, and I think he re-awoke national
> pride in a lot of Americans who where feeling pretty bad at the time.
> For myself I can say that is absolutely true.
He certainly got the trailer trash idiot vote out. Is that a good thing?
He liked to rant and rave aganist the "evil empire", but at least the
Soviet Union tried to feed every citizen and give them a meaningful job.
Reagan would have gutten all that so his buddies like Michael Milken could
rape and pillage a little while longer.
>
> Now, I'm a Libertarian, so I see things somewhat differently than most,
> but what I have heard from the liberal leaning alphabet networks
> today was some pretty heavy handed contrasting between the then gentle,
> persuasive Reagan and the now hawkish cowboy Bush. Same thing
> with the D-Day coverage. Contrast the then "just" WW II with Bush's
current
> evil war like "aggression".
Like I said, Reagan was probably a nice guy in person, but the people he
hung out with, his speech writers and his cabinet, were 100 percent evil.
That makes him at best a tainted idiot. Far from fighting for freedom, the
Reagan administration was all for making sure that every corrupt, murdering
pro-American regime out there stayed in place, as long as they were fighting
the "godless commies".
>
> I've never heard anybody describe Reagan as
> "mean spirited".
He was. He invented ficticious stories about Chicago "welfare queens",
who lived impossibly beyond there means driving new Cadillacs, etc.- all
fiction. Granted, it would take another ten years for a Republican Congress
to finish gutting the Great Society initiatives (and signed into law by Bill
Clinton no less, ouch), but Reagan got the foot in the door.
>
> From what I know, nobody is against stem cell research, only the
> harvesting of those types of stem cells that come the unborn.
Oh, I take it you think a clump of cells are "unborn"? Every sperm is
sacred. The same types that are against stem cell research have no problems
going to the fertility clinic because they are rich and they cannot
concieve, and they end up throwing out alot of embryos into the garbage
anyways. Wierd logic.
No matter, Europe will lead the world in stem cell research and leave the
US behind. The research will get done... eventually.
> There's a difference. The idea that Nancy Reagan has Republican
> handlers sounds ridiculous. Who are they?
I'm joking, of course. Bush obviously has handlers, though. Can you say
"Karl Rove"? He's there to make sure the overgrown, dry-drunk fratboy can
remember to read from the cue card.s.
RogerM
>
> Cripes, did you even live through the 80's as an adult? Do you remember what
> life was like in the US before he became president? I was a pharmacy tech
> typing prescription labels for Jimmy Carter's hemorrhoid prescriptions on
> a WW II vintage typewriter at Andrews AFB then. I remember not only getting
> IBM Selectrics, but a nice raise from President Reagan as well! My world
> changed radically in the armed forces, and I think he re-awoke national
> pride in a lot of Americans who where feeling pretty bad at the time.
> For myself I can say that is absolutely true.
>
Re-awakening national pride is not exactly a mark of great
humanitarians.
>
> I've never heard anybody describe Reagan as
> "mean spirited".
He was a conservative. The two tend to go together.
>History will sort things out ...eventually.
History rarely sorts things out. Its more of a consensus of lies.
> The fog of
> politics is too thick right now. Just remember that everything we see
> and hear is filtered out, selected and interpreted by someone
> else. (And they generally are not Republicans....believe me on
> that. I have first hand experience)
>
> From what I know, nobody is against stem cell research,
Christian Scientists? Jehovah's Witnesses? Your point about the method
of gather material for the research is well-taken, but I think there are
people who oppose it on other grounds.
--
People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed
The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.
For those who care: it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.
RogerM
A sperm is not a complete, viable human life. It will die in a few days
unless it fertilizes an egg. A human embryo is. It will likely live
about 70 years, learn, love, and reproduce.
Any law that gives one human the privilege of deciding another human's
life is of no value is immoral.
> The same types that are against stem cell research have no problems
> going to the fertility clinic because they are rich and they cannot
> concieve, and they end up throwing out alot of embryos into the garbage
> anyways. Wierd logic.
>
I agree. Both practices are immoral. But the point is, that if you
create a market for the embryos, more will be created. Which means more
killing of innocent humans.
> No matter, Europe will lead the world in stem cell research and leave the
> US behind. The research will get done... eventually.
>
Falling behind on the road to Hell. The idea of destroying human life to
treat illness (of course, it's mostly about money, like most medical
research) in other humans is morally offensive to me.
Robespierre
<mitt...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> I can only think
>> that people around the world again are going to be looking at us and
>> wondering what makes us tick and not likeing the answer in many cases.
Well, you all watch Fox news, think Iraq was responsible for 9/11,
Amercian soliders are heros....and do I have to go on?
Your test comes November.
J Hoppe
"Robespierre" <an...@anon.com> wrote in message
news:upmgc01ncfi2q8242...@4ax.com...
Perhaps they will run Reagan as VP, most pundits think hs is "more
lifelike."
J Hoppe
"Michael Starke" <mikes...@DeletThiscomcast.net> wrote in message
news:iaSdnRtMa7i...@comcast.com...
> typing prescription labels for Jimmy Carter's hemorrhoid prescriptions on
> a WW II vintage typewriter at Andrews AFB then. I
> Just remember that everything we see
> and hear is filtered out, selected and interpreted by someone
> else. (And they generally are not Republicans....believe me on
> that. I have first hand experience)
Sometimes there is no need to comment. I can just read this over and over.
bunboy
have to be deaf dub and blind to miss the fact these mourners are whiter
than the new born snow. The point anyway of my original post wasn't just
that I didn't agree or like the guy in most cases but that this is being so
dragged out it is ridiculous. I just heard on the news Nancy and his staff
had worked out a 300 page manual for this weeks festivities. For those of
you who rejoice in his renewing American nationalistic pride miss the point
that it is that "renewal" that makes most of the world distrust us and do
things like ignore the rest of the world on things like the environment and
Iraq. Loving ones culture and its people (if you include all of them) is
not a bad thing. Thinking and telling others that ours is better or best is
foolish. I am a allot more concerned about a President who incurs a huge
deficit, resulting in 15 percent mortgage rates and then allowing the Iran
Contra mess with a family that would barely speak with him than a guy who
got a little action under the desk,balanced the budget, and kept interest
rates nice and low. By the way anybody besides me having difficulty when
Nancy is on this week having any difficulty separating her from those
Stepford Wife commercials going on?
"J Hoppe" <jhoppe...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:PNZxc.9032$K45.7524@fed1read02...
JoeSmooth
"Michael Starke" <mikes...@DeletThiscomcast.net> wrote in message
news:iaSdnRtMa7i...@comcast.com...
>
Liberal compared to the evenly balanced network like what... FOX NEWS and
TALK RADIO? There is liberal media out there, but the major networks don't
represent it.
> today was some pretty heavy handed contrasting between the then gentle,
> persuasive Reagan and the now hawkish cowboy Bush. Same thing
> with the D-Day coverage. Contrast the then "just" WW II with Bush's
current
> evil war like "aggression".
>
> I've never heard anybody describe Reagan as
> "mean spirited".
He cut medicade and medicare and food stamps and cut funding badly for the
metally ill to the point that many were put out onto the streets. In
California they were calling these people "Ronnie's People". While the AIDS
crisis raged he sat by and did nothing. When he took office, the highest
tax bracket was 46%. By the time he left, it was 34%. Meanwhile the
country was in a long recession while millions of dollars poured into making
nukes despite the fact that the US could already decimate the entire USSR
several times over. He also poured tons of money into the bottomless hole
dubed the STAR WARS program, and nothing every really came of it. The worst
thing is he did it all with huge deficit spending. It really takes nerve to
cut taxes for the rich and cut programs for the poor then spend money on
military programs will no value and then make your grandchildren foot the
bill. Bush W is doing the same thing.
Oh, and then there's the Iran Contra thing where US government lies to
congress and trades arms with a terrorist state.
But, on a personal level, Reagan had charm and was a good speaker, not
unlike Clinton. He was an actor, afterall. He knew how to reassure people
even if his policies went another way. If you look at the gallop polls, he
really wasn't any more or less popular or liked than any other modern
president. I was born during the vietnam war. I've haven't seen the death
of many presidents. Nixon barely got mentioned in the news. I can't
remember if Ford's still living. There really haven't been a lot of former
presidents dying. Carter's still around. LBJ died when I was too little to
remember. Maybe a ceremonial burial will be the norm for Carter and Clinton
too. We'll see. However, it's pretty clear the republicans are milking it
for all it's worth which is pretty ironic after they way some conservatives
(FOX NEWS) chastized and lied about the alleged propanda surrounding
Wellstone's death (liberal Senator).
> History will sort things out ...eventually.
Really? I doubt it. We write the history as we go along. I'd say a good
chuck of what the average american believes about history is bullshit.
Jim Vieira
news:DcUxc.1773$Kd5....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
As was predicted by many a pundit, you bitter, loathsome lefties
just couldnt' even contain yourself till after he was in the ground to
start throwing the shit around. No class whatsoever. You have
just been writing in pain for the last few days, seeing that so many
millions of Americans loved this guy. You can't abide it. His
success, and your sides failure to demonize him, must be really
sticking in your craw. And so you lash out.
How very low of you though, and the original poster, to piss all
over him before he's even in the ground. Have a bit of class, eh?
Methinks you lefties forgot about the Senator Wellstone memorial
and funeral. That whole thing went on for days and days. And every
single Democrat who spoke at his memorial spent more time bashing
Bush (and extremely rudely), than singing any of his praises. And no
Republican's complained that that coverage was "overblown" or that
he didn't deserve it because he was a pinko lefty communist. And he
was just a senator from a midwest state. Hardly a well known and
loved figure.
Now you fools have the audacity to complain about this. About a
man who was loved by millions. He did win in two major landslides,
and the term 'Reagan Democrats' wasn't just invented out of thin-air. It's
because the majority of people loved him and thought he was a good,
honest man. I know it just kills you guys that you can't make your
scandals stick to him. That you can't make him out to be a big evil
son of a bitch, and have it actually stick. That's why you are so angry.
You see that for the last 20 years, as you have run him down and made
him out to be the devil himself, it has of course had NO effect, as people
are lining up for 10+ hours just to see his casket.
So of course there is alot of coverage of him this week. And the media
anchors whining about it can also kiss my ass. Fucking hypocrites, all
of you. Suck it up. Or cry me a river, just don't do it on TV or in
public. But any way you look at it, GET OVER IT.
How about you put your petty little bullshit aside and show some respect
for a former president and just ignore it. How about if you save the shit
throwing till after he's burried? You'll note that no one on our side did
this shit about Senator Wellstone, and I guarantee you we won't do this
when the day comes that Carter or Clinton die. Because, as has always
been the case, we have class, and manners, and maturity. And your
side is fully of bitter, imature, loathesome little bastards and attention
whores.
In other words, how about you grow up, and stop being hypocrites.
It's funny how that line applies to the left, nearly every day, on nearly
every subject.
Jim Vieira
Jim Vieira
It's too bad you already have failed your own test. Fucking
simpleton.
Jim Vieira
have a right to dislike or even hate Reagan. But for crying out
loud, how little class do you have to start these kinds of rants
about him before he's even buried?
Seriously, don't argue, because you are wrong. You have
the rest of eternity to belittle and rip on him. But to use the
opportunity of his death for such political hate speech is
just so completely imature and rude, it's not even funny.
I know you guys will find a way to rationalize it, but you are
wrong. You are showing zero class and maturity here. You are
just letting your own personal hatred for the man, and blind,
unwavering devotion to your political side, cause you to behave
like jackasses. Get a clue. You can bitch all you want in a
few days. But show some damn class and at least shut your
damn whiny traps until he's in the ground.
This thread is just further proof of how truly ignorant and
bitter you lefties really are. "Intellectuals".. HAHAHAHA,
you only kid yourselves. You always do stupid shit like this
that demonstrate how blindly you are loyal to your party, and
how little you actually think for yourselves, and how governed
you all are by your EMOTIONS and not by your LOGIC.
Ryan E.
<woo...@iwonantispam.com> wrote:
>...and this is your brain on drugs!
Fried long ago before MMORPG's (even AD&D I'd wager).
RogerM
>
> "magnulus" <magn...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:DcUxc.1773$Kd5....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> > It's funny how this whole thing has become a chance for Republicans to
> > wrap themselves in the flag and have a real tear jerker. Honestly, Ronald
> > Reagan may have been a nice guy in his private life... or not, who
> knows...
> > but as a President, he was a mean spirited sack of shit. Wheather it was
> > his handlers' fault or his own, who knows. All I do know is its pretty
> sad
> > some of the trailer trash that was actually raped by this guy, standing
> > around in line for hours to see his putrid corpse.
> >
> > BTW, isn't it amazing how Nancy Reagan is suddenly an advocate for stem
> > cell research? I guess her Republican handlers haven't gotten to her yet.
>
> As was predicted by many a pundit, you bitter, loathsome lefties
Clearly, no bitterness there, right?
To make sure he's dead and gone?
> So of course there is alot of coverage of him this week. And the media
> anchors whining about it can also kiss my ass. Fucking hypocrites, all
> of you. Suck it up. Or cry me a river, just don't do it on TV or in
> public. But any way you look at it, GET OVER IT.
>
Nope, no bitterness there.
> How about you put your petty little bullshit aside and show some respect
> for a former president and just ignore it. How about if you save the shit
> throwing till after he's burried?
I was shitting on Reagan when he was in office.
> You'll note that no one on our side did
> this shit about Senator Wellstone, and I guarantee you we won't do this
> when the day comes that Carter or Clinton die.
Carter is a good man, apparently. No wonder he was unpopular.
Clinton is an ass, but he probably killed fewer people than Reagan.
> Because, as has always
> been the case, we have class, and manners, and maturity.
"Hooray for my tribe!"
>And your
> side is fully of bitter, imature, loathesome little bastards and attention
> whores.
>
> In other words, how about you grow up, and stop being hypocrites.
> It's funny how that line applies to the left, nearly every day, on nearly
> every subject.
Remember your criticizing the lefties for their bitterness? Or are you
like Reagan and conveniently forget unfavorable details?
J Hoppe
"Jim Vieira" <Whipl...@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote in message
news:X10yc.92111$oQ6....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> I just can't believe this shit. No one is saying you guys don't
> have a right to dislike or even hate Reagan. But for crying out
> loud, how little class do you have to start these kinds of rants
> about him before he's even buried?
>
> Seriously, don't argue, because you are wrong. You have
> the rest of eternity to belittle and rip on him. But to use the
> opportunity of his death for such political hate speech is
> just so completely imature and rude, it's not even funny.
You are right, better to wrap the shrub in the flag and call him Reagan's
Prodigy.
Hell that is nothing, I haven't seen this bad a state funernal since Kim the
first died in NK. Its right up their with the death of Bismark and its use
by 30's Germany.
PS. Godwin is a prick and proves that by not mentioning something you allow
it to happen again.
Here is a bone...Tax and spend! Tax and spend!
J Hoppe
>
> In other words, how about you grow up, and stop being hypocrites.
> It's funny how that line applies to the left, nearly every day, on nearly
> every subject.
We will see if you can squeeze out more Jesus freaks or if we can get 1
percent of the 100 million who don't vote.
You all made this political, it has been a Republican love fest, trying to
prop up his body in the corner and pointing saying, "he would have done
Iraq."
If he was "doing Iraq" he would have invaded Fiji when Falluja got bad.
Osuma hit us 1,000 days ago. And he is still alive...and NOT in Iraq.
Fortunately, the new 1,000 year empire will only last a little over 1,000
days....
Jeff George
added the following words of wisdom:
And even dead, the old brainless fart is still smarter than Chimpler.
--
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Look upon me and despair, for
I bring forth pestilence and famine, fear and piss poor Sopranos
episodes, even unto the tenth generation. For lo, I have great power
and great hunger, and hang you on hooks in high places. Two score less
four years ago my Father brought forth in this land a new Being,
conceived in Morality, and dedicated to the proposition that no man
can be my equal. I am the Alpha and Omega, verily I am the Eggman.
Goob goob goo joob
agray
> How very low of you though, and the original poster, to piss all
> over him
Unfortunately, due to the long lines and whatnot, I never got the chance.
Reagan was a murderer who effectively sold the poor people of the US and of
the world into economic slavery. Worse, he slipped the knife in while
praising jeebus with a handsome smile, while wrapped in the flag of US
nationalistic jingoism.
He is no hero. He deserves no better burial than a dumpster behind 7/11.
OK, as a concession, toss him in one on the shady side of the street so he
doesn't smell too bad.
--
"By this logic, teaching anti-discrimination against ethnic minorities is
going to turn white people black." --OrangeSFO on rec.gambling.poker
JoeSmooth
"Jim Vieira" <Whipl...@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote in message
news:vQ%xc.39557$to.3...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
We give Reagan his due and let those that wish to pay their respects.
However, let's not make the man into a saint. Say all you want about his
charm or personality, but when people start giving him more political credit
than he was due I think it's fair and necessary to offer a more balanced
view.
>
> Methinks you lefties forgot about the Senator Wellstone memorial
> and funeral. That whole thing went on for days and days. And every
> single Democrat who spoke at his memorial spent more time bashing
> Bush (and extremely rudely), than singing any of his praises.
Total fabrication. Al Franken does an excellent job showing exactly how
this story was made up in his book "Lying Liars and the Lying Liars that
tell them." There was a segment of the ceremony in which there was a rally
for the democrates put on by one of the people who spoke there. That's all.
One guy. One part of a much large memorial service. The fox news people
that were basing the event hadn't even seen it. Franken goes into detail
debunking this falsehood.
> And no
> Republican's complained that that coverage was "overblown" or that
> he didn't deserve it because he was a pinko lefty communist. And he
> was just a senator from a midwest state. Hardly a well known and
> loved figure.
No, they just took things out of context and made up a bunch of stuff that
didn't happen in order to falsely state that the democrates were using the
ceremony for political purposes. Much like the way many are now accusing
the republican party of using Reagans death to promote their views. WBush
is speaking at the funeral and I saw on the news that Cheney was walking
Nancy around the coffin. It's been on the news all week. Give the man his
due. Many americans admired and loved him. That's okay with me.
>
> Now you fools have the audacity to complain about this. About a
> man who was loved by millions. He did win in two major landslides,
> and the term 'Reagan Democrats' wasn't just invented out of thin-air. It's
> because the majority of people loved him and thought he was a good,
> honest man.
He was admired and like but not really more or less than any other modern
president.
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/reagan-myth-reality.html
> I know it just kills you guys that you can't make your
> scandals stick to him.
I think Iran Contra did some well deserved damage to him as did Lebanon.
> That you can't make him out to be a big evil
> son of a bitch, and have it actually stick. That's why you are so angry.
> You see that for the last 20 years, as you have run him down and made
> him out to be the devil himself, it has of course had NO effect, as people
> are lining up for 10+ hours just to see his casket.
Instead of name calling and labeling people you don't like with a broad
brush, why not just react directly to what you think is misrepresented by
people you oppose. I'm left of center but I'm not angry about the attention
his corpse is getting. Many americans did admire him and their grief is
real and deserves to be expressed. I don't think he's evil. I don't think
he's the devil. Are you familiar with the term strawmanning?
>
> So of course there is alot of coverage of him this week. And the media
> anchors whining about it can also kiss my ass. Fucking hypocrites, all
> of you. Suck it up. Or cry me a river, just don't do it on TV or in
> public. But any way you look at it, GET OVER IT.
>
> How about you put your petty little bullshit aside and show some respect
> for a former president and just ignore it. How about if you save the shit
> throwing till after he's burried? You'll note that no one on our side did
> this shit about Senator Wellstone, and I guarantee you we won't do this
> when the day comes that Carter or Clinton die. Because, as has always
> been the case, we have class, and manners, and maturity. And your
> side is fully of bitter, imature, loathesome little bastards and attention
> whores.
>
> In other words, how about you grow up, and stop being hypocrites.
> It's funny how that line applies to the left, nearly every day, on nearly
> every subject.
It applies to a lot of people who hold political views, especially the ones
who utterly lack objectivity and tend to see things in terms of absolutes...
or rather tend to put things in absolutes because they can't deal with a
ambiguity.
>
>
bunboy
"Dutch" until his body is in the ground and buried is derived from Reagan
himself who refused to comment or even use the word Aids while
thousands,even millions of people were dying, and being buried from such a
terrible illness. All this time I though he was being cruel and
insensitive on the issue. Now I understand it, he was just being polite and
waiting for everybody to die and be put in the ground before commenting.news:X10yc.92111$oQ6....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
Del
> Like I said he wasn't my favorite but I think he would have been
>happier with something simple one day with a bunch of horses and old
>Hollywood friends around without this week of nonsense. I can only think
>that people around the world again are going to be looking at us and
>wondering what makes us tick and not likeing the answer in many cases.
So, Ronald Ray-Gun is dead. I'm sure those Nicaraguan death-squads,
Mujahideen and apartheid supporters will all be crying into their beers
on Friday.
--
"The President's Brain is Still Missing"
Del
Malachias Invictus
"Michael Starke" <mikes...@DeletThiscomcast.net> wrote in message
news:iaSdnRtMa7i...@comcast.com...
>
national
> pride in a lot of Americans who where feeling pretty bad at the time.
Must...resist...temptation...to...Godwin...
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Malachias Invictus
"JoeSmooth" <f...@ke.net> wrote in message
news:40c86db7$0$249$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
> butting in with my 2 cents....
>
left,
> it was 34%.
...and you think this is a *bad* thing? For fuck's sake, *no one* should be
required to pay a tax rate that high. I don't give a damn if they shit
Tiffany cufflinks daily. The government can damn well start doing their job
and running the country like a business.
> Meanwhile the country was in a long recession while millions of dollars
*Millions*?!? You are off by several orders of magnitude.
> poured into making nukes despite the fact that the US could already
> decimate the entire USSR several times over.
...and we are doing the same sort of stupid military overspending right now,
padding the same pockets.
Vince
> [snipped] as a President, he was a mean spirited sack of shit.
If anyone else comes up with a more accurate epitaph, I'd like to hear it.
Vince
> Cripes, did you even live through the 80's as an adult? Do you remember
what
> life was like in the US before he became president? I was a pharmacy tech
> typing prescription labels for Jimmy Carter's hemorrhoid prescriptions on
> a WW II vintage typewriter at Andrews AFB then. I remember not only
getting
> IBM Selectrics, but a nice raise from President Reagan as well!
That's the main thing.
Malachias Invictus
> "magnulus" <magn...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:DcUxc.1773$Kd5....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> > It's funny how this whole thing has become a chance for Republicans
to
> > wrap themselves in the flag and have a real tear jerker. Honestly,
Ronald
> > Reagan may have been a nice guy in his private life... or not, who
> knows...
> > but as a President, he was a mean spirited sack of shit. Wheather it
was
> > his handlers' fault or his own, who knows. All I do know is its pretty
> sad
> > some of the trailer trash that was actually raped by this guy, standing
> > around in line for hours to see his putrid corpse.
> >
> > BTW, isn't it amazing how Nancy Reagan is suddenly an advocate for
stem
> > cell research? I guess her Republican handlers haven't gotten to her
yet.
>
> As was predicted by many a pundit, you bitter, loathsome lefties
> just couldnt' even contain yourself till after he was in the ground to
> start throwing the shit around.
...
> Because, as has always
> been the case, we have class, and manners, and maturity.
"Maturity" is not a word I would use to in describing someone who bins
everyone in little "our side/your side" boxes. "Wingnut" is far more
appropriate.
> And your side is fully of bitter, imature, loathesome little bastards and
attention
> whores.
Funnily enough, *your* "side" is exactly the same as "their side".
> In other words, how about you grow up, and stop being hypocrites.
The irony here is overwhelming.
> It's funny how that line applies to the left, nearly every day, on nearly
> every subject.
It's funny how that line applies to wingnuts of *any* persuasion.
Beetlecat
"Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FdSdneWrpK0...@megapath.net...
>
> "Michael Starke" <mikes...@DeletThiscomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:iaSdnRtMa7i...@comcast.com...
> >
> > My world changed radically in the armed forces, and I think he re-awoke
> national
> > pride in a lot of Americans who where feeling pretty bad at the time.
>
> Must...resist...temptation...to...Godwin...
>
Oh why not??? Hehehe.
*He Who Must Not Be Named* has already been mentioned in a couple other
Reagan threads in other newsgroups. Godwin isn't getting proper respect
these days :(
-layne
Malachias Invictus
Yes, it is. Good thing the re-test is in November.
Malachias Invictus
Malachias Invictus
"Jim Vieira" <Whipl...@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote in message
news:X10yc.92111$oQ6....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> I know you guys will find a way to rationalize it, but you are
> wrong. You are showing zero class and maturity here. You are
> just letting your own personal hatred for the man, and blind,
> unwavering devotion to your political side,
What "side" is that, pray tell?
Robespierre
<Whipl...@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote:
>It's too bad you already have failed your own test. Fucking
>simpleton.
Lol!
F r e e
Im not against Ronny, nor pro, but it's true, i can't watch TV these days
--
F r e e
Beetlecat
"J Hoppe" <jhoppe...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:oh0yc.10289$K45.2349@fed1read02...
I think Godwin is a just a tool and by no means is meant as a form of
thought control. It just keeps the handful of people who know about it or
care about it from racing right for that comparison, when a far more subtle
or creative one could be made. I guess it's easier (and cheaper) than
making reading usenet posts into a drinking game for whenever somebody
(outside of a WWII newsgroup) mentions the mustacioed madman and his
tribe...
-layne
Bob Perez
> Because, as has always
> been the case, we have class, and manners, and maturity. And your
> side is fully of bitter, imature, loathesome little bastards and attention
> whores.
Amen, brother. You speak the truth and you and I both know that it hurts
them to hear it. That sound you're hearing is the fragile, crushing ego of
leftists worldwide getting their asses handed to them. Communism failed,
totalitarianism is failing and evil empires are for the first time in
history starting to be held accountable by *someone*.
After decades of popular appeal based on the illusory appeal of
anything-goes amorality, the tide has finally turned against these guys and
people have wised up. Like any change, it doesn't come without massive
disruption to the system and the usual gang of idiots on the periphery
putting all sides in a bad light. But the core of the movement is rooted in
the common sense wisdom of most ordinary people who've finally had enough of
the failed policies of the left. That so many millions of people around the
world are standing up and taking recognition of Ronald Reagan's life can't
just be explained as the passing of a popular US President. The overt,
spontaneous and enormous-beyond-expectation celebration of Ronald Reagan
represents much, much more and it just baffles the hell out of these guys
why.
--
Bob Perez
"The farther backwards you can look, the farther forward you are likely to
see." - Winston Churchill
Holden
> I just can't believe this shit. No one is saying you guys don't
> have a right to dislike or even hate Reagan. But for crying out
> loud, how little class do you have to start these kinds of rants
> about him before he's even buried?
They have every right to say whatever they choose to say.
> Seriously, don't argue, because you are wrong. You have
Seriously, don't argue, because you are wrong.
> the rest of eternity to belittle and rip on him. But to use the
> opportunity of his death for such political hate speech is
> just so completely imature and rude, it's not even funny.
And to use the opportunity of his death for political grandstanding and to
garner partisan support is not immature and rude?
> I know you guys will find a way to rationalize it, but you are
> wrong. You are showing zero class and maturity here.
Ditto
> just letting your own personal hatred for the man, and blind,
> unwavering devotion to your political side, cause you to behave
> like jackasses. Get a clue.
Again, ditto.
> This thread is just further proof of how truly ignorant and
> bitter you lefties really are. "Intellectuals".. HAHAHAHA,
All this thread shows is how bitter you are.
> you only kid yourselves. You always do stupid shit like this
> that demonstrate how blindly you are loyal to your party, and
> how little you actually think for yourselves, and how governed
> you all are by your EMOTIONS and not by your LOGIC.
Ditto.
Diskhead
<mikes...@DeletThiscomcast.net> wrote:
>I've never heard anybody describe Reagan as
>"mean spirited".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair
In the Iran-Contra Affair, United States President Ronald Reagan's
administration secretly sold arms to Iran, which was engaged in a
bloody war with its neighbor Iraq from 1980 to 1988 (see Iran-Iraq
War), and diverted the proceeds to the Contra rebels fighting to
overthrow the leftist democratically-elected Sandinista government of
Nicaragua. Those sales thus had a dual goal: appeasing Iran, which
held American hostages and supported bombings in Western European
countries, and funding an anti-Communist guerilla war.
J Hoppe
"Beetlecat" <beet...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dbfafa34fb54e95...@news.teranews.com...
>> >
> > PS. Godwin is a prick and proves that by not mentioning something you
> allow
> > it to happen again.
> >
>
> I think Godwin is a just a tool and by no means is meant as a form of
> thought control. It just keeps the handful of people who know about it or
> care about it from racing right for that comparison, when a far more
subtle
> or creative one could be made. I guess it's easier (and cheaper) than
> making reading usenet posts into a drinking game for whenever somebody
> (outside of a WWII newsgroup) mentions the mustacioed madman and his
> tribe...
>
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make
constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other
paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing
and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of
enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are
persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of
"need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture,
summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The
people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to
eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious
minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic
problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government
funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service
are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be
almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender
roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are
suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the
family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled
by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by
government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives.
Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational
tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist
nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to
manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from
government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are
diametrically opposed
to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business
aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government
leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government
relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is
the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either
eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to
promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is
not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even
arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the
police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are
often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in
the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with
virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are
governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to
government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect
their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for
national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright
stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a
complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns
against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation
to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation
of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to
manipulate or control elections.
Robespierre
>That so many millions of people around the
>world are standing up and taking recognition of Ronald Reagan's life can't
>just be explained as the passing of a popular US President. The overt,
>spontaneous and enormous-beyond-expectation celebration of Ronald Reagan
>represents much, much more and it just baffles the hell out of these guys
>why.
Yes, I hate to think what news source you got that from. Does it begin
with 'F'?
Robespierre
wrote:
Rest assured, all Empires fall...its a law of history.
magnulus
as your spokesmen, do I need to say more? It's the conservatives in this
country who have no morality. The left on the other hand is the one that
has the moral high ground. The right wraps themselves in the language of
Christianity and traditional morality all the while they have been the ones
largely responsable for gutting the economic stability that made much of the
"traditional family" and its "values" possible.
mattchu
with me while between gasps of breath let out:
> Meanwhile the
>country was in a long recession while millions of dollars poured into making
>nukes despite the fact that the US could already decimate the entire USSR
>several times over.
I'm just chirping in with a little comment: 3.7 billion dollars per
year in research and development of nuclear weapons was the Cold War
average.
--
best regards, mattchu
np: the exploding hearts - still crazy
Alan Bernardo
Turn the TV off.
I haven't seen one second of that stuff.
Alanb
mattchu
<Whipl...@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> made out with me while between gasps of
breath let out:
<snip>
Who let the prune in?
Scott
> There is liberal media out there, but the major networks don't
>represent it.
That takes the cake. I have truly not "laughed out loud" this hard in
a decade of perusing on the internet and usenet.
JoeSmooth
>
> "JoeSmooth" <f...@ke.net> wrote in message
> news:40c86db7$0$249$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
> > butting in with my 2 cents....
> >
> > When he took office, the highest tax bracket was 46%. By the time he
> left,
> > it was 34%.
>
> ...and you think this is a *bad* thing? For fuck's sake, *no one* should
be
> required to pay a tax rate that high.
I disagree. I think that those who benefit most from our capitalist system
should pay a higher cost at least as long as there are those who are
struggling to meet the basic needs of life. In fact, I think they should
raise the highest bracket even higher for the uber wealthy. I'm not trying
to convince you of anything, just offering a different view.
I also think they should simplify the tax code and start getting serious
about filling the loopholes that let big corporations get so many tax
breaks. I heard the average tax paid by a corporation is around 7%.
> I don't give a damn if they shit
> Tiffany cufflinks daily. The government can damn well start doing their
job
> and running the country like a business.
If the country was run more efficiently we wouldn't need such high taxes.
On that I agree with you. But we both know there's a lot of back
scratching, lobbying and pork. I think the answer is campaign fiance
reform and more transparency in government. Everything on evey issue is for
sale right now.
>
> > Meanwhile the country was in a long recession while millions of dollars
>
> *Millions*?!? You are off by several orders of magnitude.
? You mean I should have said billions?
http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/50.HTM
>
> > poured into making nukes despite the fact that the US could already
> > decimate the entire USSR several times over.
>
> ...and we are doing the same sort of stupid military overspending right
now,
> padding the same pockets.
From what I read in newsweek, it's now fair to say that the United States
spends more on defense than the entire world combined spends on their
defense.
JoeSmooth
"Scott" <bill...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d5shc05bmcfmgain0...@4ax.com...
First of all, you agree that talk radio is almost exclusively conservative,
right? And then you've got FOX NEWS which is notoriously conservative
although they insult our intelligence by denying it. But for major
networks, say, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN.... well, you've got John Stossel on
ABCNEWS... total conservative corporate agenda. What about the rest? I
hear a lot that the rest of the media has a liberal slant, but what are you
examples? I'm not trying to get in your face. I hear this a lot. Maybe
because I'm left of center I can't hear it or maybe because you're right of
center you see it where it isn't? I donno. Give me some examples.
Malachias Invictus
>
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:FdSdneWrpK0...@megapath.net...
> >
> > "Michael Starke" <mikes...@DeletThiscomcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:iaSdnRtMa7i...@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > My world changed radically in the armed forces, and I think he
re-awoke
> > national
> > > pride in a lot of Americans who where feeling pretty bad at the time.
> >
> > Must...resist...temptation...to...Godwin...
> >
>
> Oh why not??? Hehehe.
>
> *He Who Must Not Be Named* has already been mentioned in a couple other
> Reagan threads in other newsgroups.
What does H. P. Lovecraft have to do with it?
--
GamePlayer No. 1058
funeral plans, he took care of a great deal of the things that need to be
taken care of down to what music or singers were going to be present (of
course times change, and people die, so he may not have gotten who he had
planned for speaking and singing), but he planned out his own funeral, and
ceremony according to the radio many years ago when he was still of sound
mind.
Personally I dont care about him or his family, but I feel the need to show
my respect for the sole reason that he was one of our presidents and
deserves to be honored in his death.
The Reagans were all about ceremony and show, and I think thats what people
liked about them. Gerald and Betty were frumpy as were the Carters, so the
Reagans showed style and class while in the White House. For that I applaud
them, and I think every presidential family should show the same class and
style *cough, cough* Clinton *cough, cough*
It will be over soon enough then you can get back to watching your regularly
scheduled programs.
"bunboy" <bun...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:PKSxc.26319$1c4.12821@fed1read06...
> As a shut in I divide my time pretty much between watching TV and playing
> video games. Lately though with my TV shows getting interrupted what
seems
> like every other few minutes with Reagan burial crap I have surrendered
and
> given up on TV. Hell I even got an x box game something I haven't done in
> ages to have something to watch on TV (Riddick Chronicles actually an
> amazing game truly amazing).
> What the heck is the story with this guy. I never liked him as an
> actor governor or Pres but I understand he did some important things and
> should have his ceremony but everyday for a week? Jesus only gets one
day!
> Same with Princess Di. I am plumb sick of watching Nancy and that General
> with the pole up his butt walking to hail to the Chief more often than the
> beer twins are on. Really this was a totally dysfunctional family who all
> hated each other until daddies mind took an unfortunate vacation.
> I really find the whole thing instead of moving which it really
> was the first time to now be a revolting show of hypocrisy that is fueled
by
> Nancy's love of ceremony and the Republicans so happy to get naked Iraqis
> off the tube for a week.
> Like I said he wasn't my favorite but I think he would have been
> happier with something simple one day with a bunch of horses and old
> Hollywood friends around without this week of nonsense. I can only think
> that people around the world again are going to be looking at us and
> wondering what makes us tick and not likeing the answer in many cases.
>
> --
> The people who can smile when things go wrong have found someone else to
> blame
>
> Bunboy
>
>
Teknoho
> As a shut in I divide my time pretty much between watching TV and
> playing video games. Lately though with my TV shows getting
> interrupted what seems like every other few minutes with Reagan
> burial crap I have surrendered and given up on TV. Hell I even got
> an x box game something I haven't done in ages to have something to
Man: You sit here, dear.
Wife: All right.
Man: Morning!
Waitress: Morning!
Man: Well, what've you got?
Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and
Reagan; egg bacon and Reagan; egg bacon sausage and Reagan; Reagan bacon
sausage and Reagan; Reagan egg Reagan Reagan bacon and Reagan; Reagan
sausage Reagan Reagan bacon Reagan tomato and Reagan;
Vikings: Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan...
Waitress: ...Reagan Reagan Reagan egg and Reagan; Reagan Reagan Reagan
Reagan Reagan Reagan baked beans Reagan Reagan Reagan...
Vikings: Reagan! Lovely Reagan! Lovely Reagan!
Waitress: ...or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in
a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle
pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and Reagan.
Wife: Have you got anything without Reagan?
Waitress: Well, there's Reagan egg sausage and Reagan, that's not got much
Reagan in it.
Wife: I don't want ANY Reagan!
Man: Why can't she have egg bacon Reagan and sausage?
Wife: THAT'S got Reagan in it!
Man: Hasn't got as much Reagan in it as Reagan egg sausage and Reagan, has
it?
Vikings: Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan... (Crescendo through next few
lines...)
Wife: Could you do the egg bacon Reagan and sausage without the Reagan
then?
Waitress: Urgghh!
Wife: What do you mean 'Urgghh'? I don't like Reagan!
Vikings: Lovely Reagan! Wonderful Reagan!
Waitress: Shut up!
Vikings: Lovely Reagan! Wonderful Reagan!
Waitress: Shut up! (Vikings stop) Bloody Vikings! You can't have egg bacon
Reagan and sausage without the Reagan.
Wife: I DON'T LIKE REAGAN!
Man: Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your Reagan. I love it. I'm
having Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan beaked beans
Reagan Reagan Reagan and Reagan!
Vikings: Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan. Lovely Reagan! Wonderful Reagan!
Waitress: Shut up!! Baked beans are off.
Man: Well could I have her Reagan instead of the baked beans then?
Waitress: You mean Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan... (but it is
too late and the Vikings drown her words)
Vikings: Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan. Lovely Reagan! Wonderful Reagan!
Reagan Re-e-e-e-a-gan Reagan Re-e-e-e-a-gan Reagan. Lovely Reagan! Lovely
Reagan! Lovely Reagan! Lovely Reagan! Lovely Reagan! Reagan Reagan Reagan
Reagan!
Malachias Invictus
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "JoeSmooth" <f...@ke.net> wrote:
> > > butting in with my 2 cents....
> > >
> > > When he took office, the highest tax bracket was 46%. By the time he
> > left,
> > > it was 34%.
> >
> > ...and you think this is a *bad* thing? For fuck's sake, *no one*
should
> > be required to pay a tax rate that high.
>
> I disagree. I think that those who benefit most from our capitalist
system
> should pay a higher cost at least as long as there are those who are
> struggling to meet the basic needs of life.
Even if they pay the same percentage as everyone, they are still paying a
much higher cost. I do not begrudge anyone the basic needs of life, as long
as they are willing to put some effort in. It just needs to be set up
differently than it generally is.
> In fact, I think they should raise the highest bracket even higher
> for the uber wealthy.
I think that is just insane. Why not just raise it to 75%? How about 85%?
Why don't we just cap maximum net worth and require all surplus to be
donated to the State? I think punishing high earners is a bad idea. When
you have unconscionable tax rates for the wealthy, they will either bribe
government officials into making exceptions for them, cheat like crazy,
and/or move their business elsewhere.
> I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just offering a different
view.
>
> I also think they should simplify the tax code and start getting serious
> about filling the loopholes that let big corporations get so many tax
> breaks. I heard the average tax paid by a corporation is around 7%.
I agree with this. Lower the tax rate to something reasonable, simplify the
tax code, and eliminate the exceptions and loopholes. That way, the
government gets their tithe, but the burden is not quite as unreasonable.
> > I don't give a damn if they shit
> > Tiffany cufflinks daily. The government can damn well start doing their
> job
> > and running the country like a business.
>
> If the country was run more efficiently we wouldn't need such high taxes.
You hit the nail right on the head, sir.
> On that I agree with you. But we both know there's a lot of back
> scratching, lobbying and pork. I think the answer is campaign fiance
> reform and more transparency in government. Everything on evey issue is
for
> sale right now.
I think getting rid of riders is the key. When every individual issue has
to pass or fail on its own merits, there is less room for pork.
> > > Meanwhile the country was in a long recession while millions of
dollars
> >
> > *Millions*?!? You are off by several orders of magnitude.
>
> ? You mean I should have said billions?
> http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/50.HTM
Looks more like *trillions*.
> > > poured into making nukes despite the fact that the US could already
> > > decimate the entire USSR several times over.
> >
> > ...and we are doing the same sort of stupid military overspending right
> > now, padding the same pockets.
>
> From what I read in newsweek, it's now fair to say that the United States
> spends more on defense than the entire world combined spends on their
> defense.
Defense? Not hardly. Don't repeat the doublespeak.
--
JoeSmooth
"Bob Perez" <ab...@fcc.gov> wrote in message
news:10chgbn...@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Jim Vieira" <Whipl...@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote in message
> news:vQ%xc.39557$to.3...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> > Because, as has always
> > been the case, we have class, and manners, and maturity. And your
> > side is fully of bitter, imature, loathesome little bastards and
attention
> > whores.
>
> Amen, brother. You speak the truth and you and I both know that it hurts
> them to hear it. That sound you're hearing is the fragile, crushing ego of
> leftists worldwide getting their asses handed to them. Communism failed,
> totalitarianism is failing and evil empires are for the first time in
> history starting to be held accountable by *someone*.
Really? for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY?
?? Besides, one man's evil empire is another man's light in the darkness.
Ask the souix and cherokee who the evil empire is.
>
> After decades of popular appeal based on the illusory appeal of
> anything-goes amorality, the tide has finally turned against these guys
and
> people have wised up. Like any change, it doesn't come without massive
> disruption to the system and the usual gang of idiots on the periphery
> putting all sides in a bad light. But the core of the movement is rooted
in
> the common sense wisdom of most ordinary people who've finally had enough
of
> the failed policies of the left. That so many millions of people around
the
> world are standing up and taking recognition of Ronald Reagan's life can't
> just be explained as the passing of a popular US President.
Really, because that's how I'd explain it.
> The overt,
> spontaneous and enormous-beyond-expectation celebration of Ronald Reagan
> represents much, much more and it just baffles the hell out of these guys
> why.
What exactly did Reagan do while in office that was so great? He played a
role in Truman's idea of containment. Other than that, what did he do for
america? What did he do for the average Joe? I'm not talking about touchy
feely intangible crap that has no link to anything pragmatic. What policies
or programs did he do to make america better?
bunboy
everyone agrees on I believe was just mainly one of those "opiate the masses
things". In my lifetime I have had a lot of contact with big govt, little
govt and big corporations and had an opportunity to look at all of them
fairly closely. The truth is I see very little difference between any of
them but particularly government and the private sector. Four out of every
five businesses fail. Four out of every five people are either lazy stupid
or morons whether they are in the public or private sector.
Big business can be just as inefficient as the government if not more
so. Products that don't work or are unsafe, people working on the payroll
that don't belong or paying to much for supplies than necessary are just as
likely to be found in the private sector. The main thing that is different
in the private sector is there is less scrutiny so there is more opportunity
for corruption and actual criminal activity. Come on folks lets be honest
with ourselves, look around our jobs. In the majority of cases isn't it
amazing anything even gets done or works as well as it does. Look at the
gaming industry we talk about here all the time, how efficient is it in any
of the areas of gaming from development to marketing. It is of course just
anecdotal but when I look at the world I see no evidence that the Enrons of
the world are any better or worse than some government scandal where
somebody paid a thousand dollars for a toilet seat.
Government is us and no more or less efficient than our society as a
whole.news:AP8yc.29425$Sw.6926@attbi_s51...
bunboy
his popularity was neither higher nor lower than most of the Presidents of
recent times. Nothing to justify a week of this nonsense. I was young when
Kennedy was buried but I remember like one or two days of morning and a
funeral procession and he was a sitting President who had been assassinated.
I also heard on Fox news yes Fox news that Nancy and her staff over the
years have drafted a 300 page book on every detail of how this whole week
long process should be handled. We can't even get a decent manual of 30
pages for a complicated computer game, where are the priorities? Keep in
mind 300 pages is the manual, I have no idea how long the strategy guide is.news:40c91a7a$0$248$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
Boogie With Stu
> Like I said he wasn't my favorite but I think he would have been
>happier with something simple one day with a bunch of horses and old
>Hollywood friends around without this week of nonsense. I can only think
>that people around the world again are going to be looking at us and
>wondering what makes us tick and not likeing the answer in many cases.
I didn't know the man. To me it's like any other person's death
announced on the news.
--
Boogie With Stu
JoeSmooth
>
> "JoeSmooth" <f...@ke.net> wrote in message
> news:40c90855$0$254$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
> > "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > "JoeSmooth" <f...@ke.net> wrote:
>
> > > > butting in with my 2 cents....
> > > >
> > > > When he took office, the highest tax bracket was 46%. By the time
he
> > > left,
> > > > it was 34%.
> > >
> > > ...and you think this is a *bad* thing? For fuck's sake, *no one*
> should
> > > be required to pay a tax rate that high.
> >
> > I disagree. I think that those who benefit most from our capitalist
> system
> > should pay a higher cost at least as long as there are those who are
> > struggling to meet the basic needs of life.
>
> Even if they pay the same percentage as everyone, they are still paying a
> much higher cost.
I still disagree. What you say is accurate in the sense that 10% of $10,000
is more than %10 of $100, but when you look at it in terms of cost of living
it's a different story. If I make a poor wage trying to support a family on
a low income and you take 10% of that income the cost to me might be the
cost of proper nutrition, or proper healthcare, or proper housing or decent
schooling. However, if I make a million dollars a year and you take 40%
away the cost to me might be in the form of not belonging to the social club
I wanted to go to or not being able to get the right kind of mortage on the
beach house, etc.
> I do not begrudge anyone the basic needs of life, as long
> as they are willing to put some effort in.
I agree with that statement.
Now this is a little off our topic, but here's what I just don't understand.
There are many people who are poor and lower middle class who really resent
the poor and immigrants who they perceive to be living off the fruits of
their labor via welfare of one sort or another. So, because the republicans
are the ones who are always cutting all forms of social programs, these
kinds of people often vote republican. But, what I just don't get is how
these people can think nothing of the way republicans give huge tax breaks
to the wealthy therfore putting the tax burden more squarely on the backs of
these same poor and lower middle class people. It's not just the income tax
laws. The reduction in taxes on people living on trust funds and off the
stock market has been huge. Talk about people who contribute nothing to
society! Why are they getting the big tax breaks? And same with the
inheritance tax which effects something like less than 1% of the population.
And then you look at the way Bush has expanded the retirement savings plans
and the newere LSA's he has planned for next year... the list goes on and
on.
> It just needs to be set up
> differently than it generally is.
I agree. The tax system is terrible. The government is full of pork. The
bureacracy itself eat up way too much. Our political system is bought and
paid for by special interests to the detriment of everyone else which in
turn slow reform in all areas of government. BUT until it is better than it
is, it's the best we've got for now and we have to function within that
reality. And the way it is right now, the wealth is power and the way the
system is now the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That's a
statistical fact. As long as the system favors the rich so heavily, they
should pay a higher burden. That may not be right or moral, but in my
opinion, it's fair.
>
> > In fact, I think they should raise the highest bracket even higher
> > for the uber wealthy.
>
> I think that is just insane. Why not just raise it to 75%? How about
85%?
> Why don't we just cap maximum net worth and require all surplus to be
> donated to the State?
I'd be willing to entertain that idea maybe in terms of income. Let's make
a new bracket that starts at, oh hell, I donno, say 5 million dollars a year
(and we can adjust it automatically for inflation). Let's say the tax
burden for 5 million is 100%. After the jets and the the yachts and
mansions are paid for, what would one person possibly do with over 5 million
dollars a year in income? How are you hurting that person by saying okay,
for the good of society, we are capping you off right there.
Let's face it. We don't live in a society people are monetarily rewarded
according in correlation to their contribution to society. Does a laywer
contribute more to society than a teacher? A social worker? Does a
politician contribute more to society than a priest? Does a CEO contribute
more to society than a nurse? Does a professional baseball player
contribute more than a soldier?
Of course in some cases and in some ways the answer to the above questions
are yes, but I think you see where I'm going. The arguement you usually
hear is that the bottom line is, so-and-so EARNED his money. Well, if I
work 50 hour weeks my whole life working in a company making $40,000 a year
while the CEO is making 4 million a year, you could still argue that the CEO
is being compensated for more responsibility or maybe that he's had to pay
off more schooling or that in some way or another does more that I do or has
more responsibility than I do, therefore he deserves more money. Okay, I can
understand that. But well, he can't really work a lot more hours than I
do... certainly not more than a few hours a week... I donno, say he works 60
hours a week. And well, his job could be harder probably in a stressful
sort of way and all that, so maybe he his job overall could be a LOT harder
than mine... maybe twice as hard or even maybe three times as hard.... But
100 times as hard? Has he worked 100 times harder for his money than I
have? Does he reallly EARN that 4 million in the same sense that I EARNED
my $40,000? I don't think so.
The specifics vary depending on your source, but the fact is, wealth in the
US is getting more and more concentrated into the hands of a minority that
only ever gets smaller and smaller each year. It's realistic (and somewhat
conservative) to say that 90% of the wealth in the US is concentrated in
significantly less than 10% of the population. Should the inheritance tax
be abolished, this accelerating trend will grow exponentially. There is
nothing wrong with being wealthy. I have no beef with rich people. I just
take issue with what wealth is doing to our government and they way in which
wealth (and lack of it) affects how we get represented in our legal system.
>I think punishing high earners is a bad idea. When
> you have unconscionable tax rates for the wealthy, they will either bribe
> government officials into making exceptions for them, cheat like crazy,
> and/or move their business elsewhere.
Friend, they are all ready doing that. The do it not out of contempt for
our current system. They do for the same reason a dog licks his balls. Our
system of business is setup so that the companies that lobby the most and
profit the most survive while those that don't, fall to the wayside. If you
don't lobby congress for favorable laws and your competition does, you will
weaken and he will grow stronger until one day you are out of business or
effectively nullfied. If the average manufacturing wage in mexico is $2/day
and the average wage in the US is $18, how long can you stay in business if
you DON'T take your business elsewhere? As for cheating I'm not sure just
what you're referring to. However, there's nothing wrong with cheating if
you don't get caught, and, sadly, we've seen that there's nothing wrong with
getting caught either. The only thing that can hurt is getting punished,
and even that doesn't matter much if the fine you pay is something you can
make back in a couple days of business or if you can make the worst of it go
away by a perfectly legal contribution to the appropriate office holder.
This is the system we live in.
>
> > I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just offering a different
> view.
Well, at this point I guess I've crossed over into trying to convince you. I
must have more time on my hands. lol.
> >
> > I also think they should simplify the tax code and start getting serious
> > about filling the loopholes that let big corporations get so many tax
> > breaks. I heard the average tax paid by a corporation is around 7%.
>
> I agree with this. Lower the tax rate to something reasonable, simplify
the
> tax code, and eliminate the exceptions and loopholes. That way, the
> government gets their tithe, but the burden is not quite as unreasonable.
The devil is in the details. Remember a few years back there was talk of
corporations taking unfair advantage of a loophole in the tax code by
locating an office offshore in say, Bermuda. This results in literally
millions and millions of dollars dodged in taxes. Yet, to date, no bill
has even made it to congress (to my knowledge) to close this loophole.
However, a bill did make it to congress which proposed that we should not
give government contracts to companies who take part in exactly these kinds
of unethical (but legal) tax dodges. Think about that a minute. A bill to
close the loophole can't even get a hearing. It's so bad that they had to
introduce another bill as a work around and that bill was voted on and
failed. Our system is broken and it's getting worse.
>
> > > I don't give a damn if they shit
> > > Tiffany cufflinks daily. The government can damn well start doing
their
> > job
> > > and running the country like a business.
> >
> > If the country was run more efficiently we wouldn't need such high
taxes.
>
> You hit the nail right on the head, sir.
>
> > On that I agree with you. But we both know there's a lot of back
> > scratching, lobbying and pork. I think the answer is campaign fiance
> > reform and more transparency in government. Everything on evey issue is
> for
> > sale right now.
>
> I think getting rid of riders is the key.
I'm ignorant on that. How do "riders" work?
> When every individual issue has
> to pass or fail on its own merits, there is less room for pork.
>
> > > > Meanwhile the country was in a long recession while millions of
> dollars
> > >
> > > *Millions*?!? You are off by several orders of magnitude.
> >
> > ? You mean I should have said billions?
> > http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/50.HTM
>
> Looks more like *trillions*.
That's what I mean. How come we can send robots to mars and spend like mad
on our military and create a huge deficit, but there's just not enough money
to fully fund the education bill? Few people think twice about the billions
of dollars we lose to tax loopholes created and exploited by big
corporations, yet we get pissed off at the idea of somone buying cigarettes
with their food stamp change? Both anoy me, but let's get it into
perspective.
>
> > > > poured into making nukes despite the fact that the US could already
> > > > decimate the entire USSR several times over.
> > >
> > > ...and we are doing the same sort of stupid military overspending
right
> > > now, padding the same pockets.
> >
> > From what I read in newsweek, it's now fair to say that the United
States
> > spends more on defense than the entire world combined spends on their
> > defense.
>
> Defense? Not hardly. Don't repeat the doublespeak.
What, you don't think you can spend more on defense that the rest of the
world combined and still call it defense?
JoeSmooth
> I saw on Nightline last night the numbers that showed that during his
term
> his popularity was neither higher nor lower than most of the Presidents of
> recent times. Nothing to justify a week of this nonsense. I was young
when
> Kennedy was buried but I remember like one or two days of morning and a
> funeral procession and he was a sitting President who had been
assassinated.
> I also heard on Fox news yes Fox news that Nancy and her staff over the
> years have drafted a 300 page book on every detail of how this whole week
> long process should be handled. We can't even get a decent manual of 30
> pages for a complicated computer game, where are the priorities? Keep in
> mind 300 pages is the manual, I have no idea how long the strategy guide
is.
I'm repeating myself from elsewhere in this thread, but I am trying to give
out a little benefit of the doubt. I was born during the vietnam war and I
really haven't seen a lot of x-presidents die. I don't remember if Ford got
any fanfare, but he wasn't even elected and served for what... a year? (He
is dead, right?) LBJ died before I was born or when I was too young to
remember. I do remember Nixon's death but he was obviously seen very
negatively so that's no surprise there was no fanfare. Carter's still
alive. So is papa Bush and Clinton. My point is, there haven't been a lot
of full term non-crook presidents dying lately, so a moderately popular
president dying is something new. These days we live in a society where the
most stupid crap can memorize our media for a month. Plus, we love to mourn
stuff and be sentinmental especially in these nationalistic times. It
doesn't really surprise me that Reagan get's a bunch of attention.
But sure I think the republican's are milking it. It's all part of modern
politics.
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/reagan-myth-reality.html
Ryan E.
wrote:
>Unfortunately, due to the long lines and whatnot, I never got the chance.
Long lines/whatnot actually being too many pit stops at fast food
drive-thrus.
<snip rubbish>
CD
> > butting in with my 2 cents....
> >
> > When he took office, the highest tax bracket was 46%. By the time he
> left,
> > it was 34%.
>
> ...and you think this is a *bad* thing? For fuck's sake, *no one* should be
> Tiffany cufflinks daily. The government can damn well start doing their job
> and running the country like a business.
What, you mean by not concentrating on extracting money from the wealthy?
C.David
Michael Starke
"Diskhead" <di...@head.invalid> wrote in message
news:s5ihc0hs800fbaq3d...@4ax.com...
Your source seems somewhat bias.
I don't know how you can describe a communist dictatorship as
"democratically elected".
"In 1979 the Sandinistas launched an offensive from Costa Rica and Honduras
that toppled Somoza. They established a junta that nationalized such
industries as banking and mining, postponed elections, and moved steadily to
the left, eventually espousing Marxist-Leninist positions."
The whole affair was blown out proportion by a Democrat controlled congress.
The Boland amendment prohibited the spending of US tax money on "regime
change" in Central America. Further, the amount of money obtained from
overcharging
Iran for those arms was miniscule compared to the billions that came
in from other countries supporting the operation. (Things haven't
changed much over the years. Democrats still seem to be fond of
supporting such governments.)
When Reagan took office there were at least seven communist
dictators in the southern hemisphere. Now there is only one...Castro.
Thank you Ronnie.
BTW, if you want to read a more truthful account of Iran Contra:
Michael Starke
"J Hoppe" <jhoppe...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mTZxc.9076$K45.3220@fed1read02...
>
> "Michael Starke" <mikes...@DeletThiscomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:iaSdnRtMa7i...@comcast.com...
> > typing prescription labels for Jimmy Carter's hemorrhoid prescriptions
on
> > a WW II vintage typewriter at Andrews AFB then. I
>
> > Just remember that everything we see
> > and hear is filtered out, selected and interpreted by someone
> > else. (And they generally are not Republicans....believe me on
> > that. I have first hand experience)
>
> Sometimes there is no need to comment. I can just read this over and over.
You don't believe it?
Dude, read it from the sources:
Michael Starke
> > I just can't believe this shit. No one is saying you guys don't
> > have a right to dislike or even hate Reagan. But for crying out
> > loud, how little class do you have to start these kinds of rants
> > about him before he's even buried?
> >
> > Seriously, don't argue, because you are wrong. You have
> > the rest of eternity to belittle and rip on him. But to use the
> > opportunity of his death for such political hate speech is
> > just so completely imature and rude, it's not even funny.
>
> You are right, better to wrap the shrub in the flag and call him Reagan's
> Prodigy.
>
> Hell that is nothing, I haven't seen this bad a state funernal since Kim
the
> first died in NK. Its right up their with the death of Bismark and its use
> by 30's Germany.
>
> PS. Godwin is a prick and proves that by not mentioning something you
allow
> it to happen again.
>
>
CSPAN 2 replayed LBJ's funeral today. Quite a contrast.
I hope they replay Gov. Wellstone's "memorial" aka political rally
again sometime.
Michael Starke
One sign plagiarists hold untenable positions:
1. They copy and paste meaningless tripe without crediting the author.
...who is BTW, Lawrence Britt.
Where is number 15, which might be "Murders own citizens"?
Or, "Seizes property and farmlands so millions starve"?
Or, "Bans all expression of religion in public places"?
If the implications of this were really true, Lawrence Britt
would have disappeared by now along with "Free Inquiry", where
it was originally published. (No axe to grind at that site, eh?)
This is an old rhetorical trick, or logical fallacy where you describe a
specific thing
or person in detail, then ascribe some fictitious attributes.
The fact is America is nowhere near a fascist state. Not as long as
I have my guns at least.
Diskhead
Don't BS me. The US has always tried to put a stop to the spread of
communism whether it was their business or not. But Reaganism went one
step further and sold arms to Iran (US supported Iraq at the time) and
used the profits to support a guerilla war - which caused the deaths
of countless innocents. SHAME!
Diskhead
<mikes...@DeletThiscomcast.net> wrote:
>When Reagan took office there were at least seven communist
>dictators in the southern hemisphere. Now there is only one...Castro.
Instead there are six dictatorships. Wow! Good job.
J Hoppe
"Michael Starke" <mikes...@DeletThiscomcast.net> wrote in message
*rattles a bag of Oxycotin* This has been covered, quite well, in Frankens
book, who was there.
And the guards where just blowing off steam right?
J Hoppe
"Michael Starke" <mikes...@DeletThiscomcast.net> wrote in message
> > >
> >
> > The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
> >
> >
> > 14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations
are
> a
> > complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns
> > against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of
legislation
> > to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and
> manipulation
> > of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to
> > manipulate or control elections.
>
>
> One sign plagiarists hold untenable positions:
>
> 1. They copy and paste meaningless tripe without crediting the author.
>
> ...who is BTW, Lawrence Britt.
Thank you oh great god of footnoting. But it still is applicable to the US
government today.
And now you add "stuff" to it so you can deny its validity....
>
> Where is number 15, which might be "Murders own citizens"?
> Or, "Seizes property and farmlands so millions starve"?
> Or, "Bans all expression of religion in public places"?
>
> The fact is America is nowhere near a fascist state. Not as long as
> I have my guns at least.
And what makes you think your gun will protect you?
JoeSmooth
"CD" <cda...@euromail.sk> wrote in message
news:cc2aac93.04061...@posting.google.com...
Rather the opposite. How about concentrating on NOT looking for every
opportunity to decrease the tax burden of the wealthy whether in the form of
income, market investment, inheritance, or tax dodging loopholes. Since
WWII their tax burden has dramatically lessened and if Bush is re-elected
the burden will get even lighter. And, because he's not proposing any real
ways to pay for this tax cut, the deficit will just get bigger and bigger.
Even if you don't agree the wealthy should pay a bigger share, at least
understand that the idea they are being persecuted is a myth. Their tax
just keeps going down down down.
>
> C.David
Richard Hutnik
> HAHAHAHA
>
> Im not against Ronny, nor pro, but it's true, i can't watch TV these
> days
You big mouse!
- Richard Hutnik
JoeSmooth
"Michael Starke" <mikes...@DeletThiscomcast.net> wrote in message
Really? The actual service or the make believe one created by the right?
>
>
>
JoeSmooth
"Michael Starke" <mikes...@DeletThiscomcast.net> wrote in message
So now they are all democracies with good human rights records, right? So
now they are better off than when we got invovled? Wasn't it just last year
that we supported the overthrow of Haiti? Now the leader is the head of a
former death squad instead of the deomocratically elected president who we
helped to banish. It's not something mainstream media focuses on but do you
know the history of CIA involvement in Guatemala? Do understand how bad the
human rights records are of those we support in many latin american
countires like Nicaragua and Honduras? Are you aware of how we supported
the Shah of Iran despite the fact that we has a dictator not unlike Sadam?
And speaking of Sadam, we didnt' seem to have any problem with him while he
was gassing his own people. It wasn't until he invaded kuwait.
I'm not saying we should be the police of the world creating democracy and
good human rights everywhere we go. However, I am saying that clearly we
don't do this and those that think we are are kidding themselves.
The bad about the Iran Contra affair isn't about how much money it cost or
didn't cost. The problem with it is that Reagan wanted to help the contras
and took his argument to congress and congress said no. So instead of
respecting the democratic process he thwarted it and traded arms with a
terrorist state to support rebels who were rebellion against a popularly
Here's an excerpt form the same website you cited:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/nicrgu_history.asp
Somoza returned to the presidency in 1974 as objections to his regime
increased. The opposition was grouped under two large factions, the
Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) and the Democratic Liberation
Union (UDEL). Violent clashes between the Somoza government and the
opposition mounted throughout the 1970s until in 1979 the FSLN and UDEL
toppled the Somoza government. The more radical, left-wing FSLN (or
Sandinistas ) took control of the government, instituting widespread social,
political, and economic changes. Many economic institutions and resources
were nationalized, land was redistributed, and social services such as
health care and education were improved.
In 1981 the United States, politically unsupportive of the Sandinista
government and suspicious of its relations with the Soviet Union and Cuba,
cut off economic aid and began supporting counterrevolutionary military
forces, or contras. After the U.S. Congress acted to cut off aid to the
contras, it was continued covertly (see Iran-contra affair ). In 1984 the
United States illegally mined Nicaragua's principal export harbors, and in
1985 it instituted a trade embargo. In 1984, under pressure, the regime held
elections, in which the junta leader, Daniel Ortega Saavedra , was chosen
president. The Sandinista government was popular especially with the
peasants and the urban poor. Although it received substantial Soviet aid, it
was increasingly unable to maintain the economy, and it curtailed civil
liberties to silence dissent.
In the Feb., 1990, elections, held under a Central American peace
initiative, the FSLN was defeated by an opposition coalition, and Violeta
Barrios de Chamorro , a political moderate, became president. The United
States subsequently lifted its trade embargo, and the contras ceased
fighting. Chamorro sought, with mixed success, to revive the economy and
generate a conciliatory political environment; tense relations between the
Sandinistas and their opponents at times threatened to undermine her
government. Ortega ran for president again in 1996, but was defeated by José
Arnoldo Alemán Lacayo, leader of the Liberal Alliance, a conservative
coalition.
---
Their is no evidence the Sandinistas ever took any aid from the USSR until
after the US got involved with them. If you are a tiny third world country
and a super power takes the side of your opposition wouldn't you look to
help from another superpower? That's exactly what the US did when it was
just a minor world power back in 1776.
I don't know how you read the above excerpt but it sounds to me like
Nicaragua was in the best shape it had been in in a long time under the
Sandinistas no matter how socialistic they were. Under Reagan, we broke
our own laws and broke international laws to destroy and discredit that
government causing a great deal of bloodshed in the process
Jeff George
<Whipl...@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> added the following words of wisdom:
>"magnulus" <magn...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:DcUxc.1773$Kd5....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> It's funny how this whole thing has become a chance for Republicans to
>> wrap themselves in the flag and have a real tear jerker. Honestly, Ronald
>> Reagan may have been a nice guy in his private life... or not, who knows...
>> but as a President, he was a mean spirited sack of shit. Wheather it was
>> his handlers' fault or his own, who knows. All I do know is its pretty sad
>> some of the trailer trash that was actually raped by this guy, standing
>> around in line for hours to see his putrid corpse.
>>
>> BTW, isn't it amazing how Nancy Reagan is suddenly an advocate for stem
>> cell research? I guess her Republican handlers haven't gotten to her yet.
>
>As was predicted by many a pundit, you bitter, loathsome lefties
>just couldnt' even contain yourself till after he was in the ground to
>start throwing the shit around. No class whatsoever.
Bonzo doesn't deserve any consideration. Where was his consideration
for those that died from his policies?
>You have just been writing in pain for the last few days, seeing that so many
>millions of Americans loved this guy.
No one ever said Americans were smart.
> You can't abide it. His success, and your sides failure to demonize him, must be really
>sticking in your craw.
Not at all. It's just good to have another war pig gone.
>And so you lash out.
>
You are just telling yourself all this to make yourself feel better
about your worship of the guy.
>How very low of you though, and the original poster, to piss all
>over him before he's even in the ground.
It's rather hard to piss on him after he's in the ground.
>Have a bit of class, eh?
>
Bonzo is being treated exactly the way he deserves.
>Methinks you lefties forgot about the Senator Wellstone memorial
>and funeral. That whole thing went on for days and days. And every
>single Democrat who spoke at his memorial spent more time bashing
>Bush (and extremely rudely), than singing any of his praises.
Absolutely wrong. But listen to Rush some more and continue to be
stupid and uninformed.
>And no Republican's complained that that coverage was "overblown" or that
>he didn't deserve it because he was a pinko lefty communist.
Really? Ha! Are you truly that stupid?
>Now you fools have the audacity to complain about this. About a
>man who was loved by millions. He did win in two major landslides,
>and the term 'Reagan Democrats' wasn't just invented out of thin-air. It's
>because the majority of people loved him and thought he was a good,
>honest man. I know it just kills you guys that you can't make your
>scandals stick to him.
You mean like the Iran-Contra? You fuckheads are so deluded.
>That you can't make him out to be a big evil
>son of a bitch, and have it actually stick.
Ask the world. Don't get your news and opinions from Rush.
>That's why you are so angry.
Who's angry? It's a time to be glad that the old buzzard is dead.
>You see that for the last 20 years, as you have run him down and made
>him out to be the devil himself, it has of course had NO effect, as people
>are lining up for 10+ hours just to see his casket.
>
>So of course there is alot of coverage of him this week. And the media
>anchors whining about it can also kiss my ass. Fucking hypocrites, all
>of you.
Hypocritical how?
>Suck it up. Or cry me a river, just don't do it on TV or in
>public. But any way you look at it, GET OVER IT.
>
Blah blah freakin' blah. Sounds more like you're the one crying
.
>How about you put your petty little bullshit aside and show some respect
>for a former president and just ignore it.
What did he do to earn any respect? Funny how none right wing fanatics
can give an answer to this question other than "because".
>How about if you save the shit throwing till after he's burried?
What difference does it make? Dead is dead?
>ou'll note that no one on our side did
>this shit about Senator Wellstone, and I guarantee you we won't do this
>when the day comes that Carter or Clinton die.
Liar.
>ecause, as has always been the case, we have class, and manners, and maturity.
You are a comedy writer, aren't you?
>And your side is fully of bitter, imature, loathesome little bastards and attention
>whores.
>
Yep, you are a comedy writer.
>In other words, how about you grow up, and stop being hypocrites.
Too ironic to even address.
>It's funny how that line applies to the left, nearly every day, on nearly
>every subject.
>
More irony. Phew. If you're not a comedy writer than you are a
complete wacko.
--
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Look upon me and despair, for
I bring forth pestilence and famine, fear and piss poor Sopranos
episodes, even unto the tenth generation. For lo, I have great power
and great hunger, and hang you on hooks in high places. Two score less
four years ago my Father brought forth in this land a new Being,
conceived in Morality, and dedicated to the proposition that no man
can be my equal. I am the Alpha and Omega, verily I am the Eggman.
Goob goob goo joob
Walter Mitty
> Clinton is an ass, but he probably killed fewer people than Reagan.
The 90 day bombing of Yugoslavia not withstanding? Total infrastructure
wipe out. Clinton was a cunt.
Malachias Invictus
> It is of course just anecdotal but when I look at the world I see no
evidence that the Enrons of
> the world are any better or worse than some government scandal where
> somebody paid a thousand dollars for a toilet seat.
Interestingly enough, when I worked at Aerojet I worked with someone who was
involved with this, as well as the $150K or so (by his estimation) the
government paid for ashtrays for bomber planes. Essentially, these things
were being re-outfitted. The schematics had everything that belonged on the
planes, including the ashtrays, which obviously were no longer being used,
since smoking had not been allowed on military planes for some time. You
have to realize that these, like rockets, have to have *everything* from the
design schematics on them, down to the last screw. Of course, the ashtrays
had long since been thrown out. However, the re-outfitting could not be
approved, because a piece was missing (the ashtrays). First, the engineers
said "why don't we just skip the ashtrays?" They were told that in order to
do that, the planes would have to be re-engineered (a process that would
have cost half a million dollars *at least*, *and* delayed things for six
months to a year, *and* was not guaranteed to pass muster, because the regs
had changed and these planes were essentially in on a "grandfather clause").
They then suggested going out and buying some. Turns out, there are no
longer companies that sell aircraft ashtrays, let alone ones for military
use (big surprise). They were able to buy one at a fairly exhorbitant cost
from a collector. They then had to hire an engineering firm to design exact
replicas of the ashtray, and hire a specialized manufacturing facility to
produce the dozen or so they needed. Heh.
J Hoppe
Except that Cuba is in the Northern Hemisphere.
And name the seven....Nicaragua was in the north hemisphere. Chile? Pinochet
is now on trial and had his immunity waived.
Jeff George
<Whipl...@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> added the following words of wisdom:
>I just can't believe this shit. No one is saying you guys don't
>have a right to dislike or even hate Reagan. But for crying out
>loud, how little class do you have to start these kinds of rants
>about him before he's even buried?
>
>Seriously, don't argue, because you are wrong. You have
>the rest of eternity to belittle and rip on him. But to use the
>opportunity of his death for such political hate speech is
>just so completely imature and rude, it's not even funny.
>
>I know you guys will find a way to rationalize it, but you are
>wrong. You are showing zero class and maturity here. You are
>just letting your own personal hatred for the man, and blind,
>unwavering devotion to your political side, cause you to behave
>like jackasses. Get a clue. You can bitch all you want in a
>few days. But show some damn class and at least shut your
>damn whiny traps until he's in the ground.
>
>This thread is just further proof of how truly ignorant and
>bitter you lefties really are. "Intellectuals".. HAHAHAHA,
>you only kid yourselves. You always do stupid shit like this
>that demonstrate how blindly you are loyal to your party, and
>how little you actually think for yourselves, and how governed
>you all are by your EMOTIONS and not by your LOGIC.
>
Wow. This guy really doesn't know the meaning of the word "irony".
Malachias Invictus
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:AP8yc.29425$Sw.6926@attbi_s51...
> > Even if they pay the same percentage as everyone, they are still paying
a
> > much higher cost.
> I still disagree. What you say is accurate in the sense that 10% of
$10,000
> is more than %10 of $100, but when you look at it in terms of cost of
living
> it's a different story. If I make a poor wage trying to support a family
on
> a low income and you take 10% of that income the cost to me might be the
> cost of proper nutrition, or proper healthcare, or proper housing or
decent
> schooling.
If you are *that* poor, I have no problem with you not paying much in the
way of taxes at all. In fact, that seems to generally be the case. I paid
little-to-no taxes most of my adult life, even when my income approached
$40K a year. Now, of course, I have to pay, and pay a tax accountant to
boot.
> However, if I make a million dollars a year and you take 40%
> away the cost to me might be in the form of not belonging to the social
club
> I wanted to go to or not being able to get the right kind of mortage on
the
> beach house, etc.
Yeah, and it might also might be in the form of a new venture that creates
jobs, raises to my employees, or other less frivolous things. I earned that
money, and charity-at-gunpoint is something I violently disagree with. Yes,
*everyone* should have some basic things provided for them (and I feel that
basic healthcare is one of those things), but beyond that, I think it starts
to become punishment for being successful.
> > I do not begrudge anyone the basic needs of life, as long
> > as they are willing to put some effort in.
> I agree with that statement.
>
> Now this is a little off our topic, but here's what I just don't
understand.
> There are many people who are poor and lower middle class who really
resent
> the poor and immigrants who they perceive to be living off the fruits of
> their labor via welfare of one sort or another. So, because the
republicans
> are the ones who are always cutting all forms of social programs, these
> kinds of people often vote republican.
Go figure. To drag things further off-topic, I think the design of the
welfare system is part of the whole problem. For example, my secretary is a
single mom. In order to work full time, she needs daycare for her child.
If she just sits on her ass not working, she gets food stamps, money, free
childcare to look for a job, free heathcare coverage (that is, incidentally,
vastly superior to what I get to pay over $100 a month through my employer
to have), etc. If she makes a *really* crappy wage, she loses some of that,
but still gets some food stamps, the health care coverage, and the
childcare. However, she *constantly* needs to take time off from working to
fill out paperwork for Child Action, make calls to keep from being cut off,
etc. The problem is, when I hired her, I started paying her a decent wage
($10), and gave her an almost immediate raise (to $12). Now she is freaking
out, because the government has decided that she makes enough now for them
to pull the rug out from underneath her. The problem is,
minimum-wage-plus-healthcare/food stamps/free childcare is worth a lot more
than $12 and hour plus workplace-provided benefits. *That* is where I feel
the government really fucks up. The "just climbing out of dirt poor and
trying hard to make good" people get totally fucked.
> > It just needs to be set up
> > differently than it generally is.
>
> I agree. The tax system is terrible. The government is full of pork.
The
> bureacracy itself eat up way too much. Our political system is bought and
> paid for by special interests to the detriment of everyone else which in
> turn slow reform in all areas of government. BUT until it is better than
it
> is, it's the best we've got for now and we have to function within that
> reality. And the way it is right now, the wealth is power and the way the
> system is now the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That's a
> statistical fact. As long as the system favors the rich so heavily, they
> should pay a higher burden. That may not be right or moral, but in my
> opinion, it's fair.
The problem is, when the rate is unconscionable (as 40% is), the rich simply
find ways around it (as they do now). I know guys who *easily* make three
times what I do, and who pay less taxes, percentage-wise.
> > > In fact, I think they should raise the highest bracket even higher
> > > for the uber wealthy.
> >
> > I think that is just insane. Why not just raise it to 75%? How about
> 85%?
> > Why don't we just cap maximum net worth and require all surplus to be
> > donated to the State?
>
> I'd be willing to entertain that idea maybe in terms of income. Let's
make
> a new bracket that starts at, oh hell, I donno, say 5 million dollars a
year
> (and we can adjust it automatically for inflation). Let's say the tax
> burden for 5 million is 100%. After the jets and the the yachts and
> mansions are paid for, what would one person possibly do with over 5
million
> dollars a year in income?
Invest in a business. Hire more people.
> How are you hurting that person by saying okay,
> for the good of society, we are capping you off right there.
You are taking something that is rightfully theirs.
> Let's face it. We don't live in a society people are monetarily rewarded
> according in correlation to their contribution to society.
Sure, and no society has ever worked that way.
> Of course in some cases and in some ways the answer to the above questions
> are yes, but I think you see where I'm going. The arguement you usually
> hear is that the bottom line is, so-and-so EARNED his money.
I do not care how they got it, the money is rightfully theirs.
> The specifics vary depending on your source, but the fact is, wealth in
the
> US is getting more and more concentrated into the hands of a minority that
> only ever gets smaller and smaller each year. It's realistic (and
somewhat
> conservative) to say that 90% of the wealth in the US is concentrated in
> significantly less than 10% of the population. Should the inheritance
tax
> be abolished, this accelerating trend will grow exponentially. There is
> nothing wrong with being wealthy. I have no beef with rich people. I
just
> take issue with what wealth is doing to our government and they way in
which
> wealth (and lack of it) affects how we get represented in our legal
system.
I can buy that. The problem is, those few are so well-connected that they
are not about to sit by and get fucked. They have the clout to do something
about it, too.
> >I think punishing high earners is a bad idea. When
> > you have unconscionable tax rates for the wealthy, they will either
bribe
> > government officials into making exceptions for them, cheat like crazy,
> > and/or move their business elsewhere.
>
> Friend, they are all ready doing that. The do it not out of contempt for
> our current system. They do for the same reason a dog licks his balls.
Heh.
> > > I also think they should simplify the tax code and start getting
serious
> > > about filling the loopholes that let big corporations get so many tax
> > > breaks. I heard the average tax paid by a corporation is around 7%.
> >
> > I agree with this. Lower the tax rate to something reasonable, simplify
> > the tax code, and eliminate the exceptions and loopholes. That way, the
> > government gets their tithe, but the burden is not quite as
unreasonable.
>
> The devil is in the details.
Indeed. Hell, the only reason we *have* these high tax rates is because
they look good on paper. No one actually pays that rate.
> > I think getting rid of riders is the key.
>
> I'm ignorant on that. How do "riders" work?
Essentially, it is a little bill, non-viable by itself, that gets tacked on
to a bigger bill, usually a popular, must-pass one. If the big one passes,
all the riders pass. Here is an example of the crap that gets pulled:
http://www.pcdf.org/meadows/riders.html
> That's what I mean. How come we can send robots to mars and spend like
mad
> on our military and create a huge deficit, but there's just not enough
money
> to fully fund the education bill? Few people think twice about the
billions
> of dollars we lose to tax loopholes created and exploited by big
> corporations, yet we get pissed off at the idea of somone buying
cigarettes
> with their food stamp change? Both anoy me, but let's get it into
> perspective.
Sure. The thing I find most disturbing are the educational trends. Look at
how we match up with the rest of the world.
> > > From what I read in newsweek, it's now fair to say that the United
> States
> > > spends more on defense than the entire world combined spends on their
> > > defense.
> >
> > Defense? Not hardly. Don't repeat the doublespeak.
>
> What, you don't think you can spend more on defense that the rest of the
> world combined and still call it defense?
It is not the money, it is the way it is spent and used.
Malachias Invictus
"Michael Starke" <mikes...@DeletThiscomcast.net> wrote in message
news:9PmdnRJaSNI...@comcast.com...
> When Reagan took office there were at least seven communist
> dictators in the southern hemisphere. Now there is only one...Castro.
How many other-than-Communist dictators are there? Who gives a damn anymore
whether a country is Communist or not? I don't.
Malachias Invictus
> It's funny that Republican lecture Democrats on morality. With Don King
> as your spokesmen, do I need to say more? It's the conservatives in this
> country who have no morality. The left on the other hand is the one that
> has the moral high ground.
*Neither* has anything resembling moral high ground. If you think
otherwise, you are fooling yourself.
JoeSmooth
But even people who are not *that* poor still have trouble getting
affordable health care and in some places it's hard to find a decent school.
>
> > However, if I make a million dollars a year and you take 40%
> > away the cost to me might be in the form of not belonging to the social
> club
> > I wanted to go to or not being able to get the right kind of mortage on
> the
> > beach house, etc.
>
> Yeah, and it might also might be in the form of a new venture that creates
> jobs, raises to my employees, or other less frivolous things. I earned
that
> money, and charity-at-gunpoint is something I violently disagree with.
Yes,
> *everyone* should have some basic things provided for them (and I feel
that
> basic healthcare is one of those things), but beyond that, I think it
starts
> to become punishment for being successful.
Well, healthcare isn't one of those things right now. Social security and
medicare is something that provides those kinds of basic things for seniors
but both those programs are in trouble or soon will be considering the huge
deficit we are creating largely because huge tax cuts for the wealthy.
But yes, wealthy people can help create jobs, but that usually doesn't
transfer too well into "raises for employees". If you want to stimulate the
economy why not give the tax breaks to those who are more likely to put it
back into the economy. If you don't have much desposable income you are
going to spend what you have.
I don't see heavier taxes for higher incomes as punishment. I responded to
this and the "I EARNED it" arguement later on.
I think the welfare system is far from perfect and I think there are those
people take advantage of it. No doubt. Single mothers are one of the worst
case senarios. You say you paid $10/hour. That's not a bad wage in in a
lot of places. What is mim wage now? $6 and change? I donno. But let's
say you started paying her $12/hour which isn't bad. In fact, it's pretty
good relative to what's out there especially if you add benefits. (I was
working manual labor in a wearhouse making $8.50 just a few years ago in
Delaware, and not long ago I was making $10.50 doing techincal support) So
let's say she makes $12 X 40 hours X 52 weeks = $24,960. I'm to lazy to do
the math so let's just say we knock off 13% for federal income tax (not
figurinig for state tax or local tax if there is any). That leaves $21,715.
Okay, now take out daycare which I think averages about $600/month = $7200
(assuming she only has one kid). That leaves $14,515 a year to live on.
Okay, what's rent? Total guess on my part. Say... $700/month ($8,400
year)? Is that fair for urban life? Now we are left with $6,115 /year to
live on. Divide that by 12 and you have about $509 a month. Now take out
for the cost of a car and to maintain the car, food, clothing, costs for the
child. How much is left?
My point is, you are paying her what society would probably call a fair wage
relative to the going rate. After all it's something like double minimum
wage, right? It's even possible you are paying her more than the going
average rate. Nevertheless, it's hard to understand how she gets by and
harder to understand what it is that she can do to work harder or longer to
get ahead.
You are looking at it as though the welfare system is encouraging her to be
a deat beat. You make a valid case. But the other side of the coin is
this. Welfare is setup to help provide for people to meet basic needs (more
or less as you described above). Given the cost of living, that's more or
less what it's doing. Of cousre it's going to give less if you work more
and supplament your income. That's just logical, right? Okay, my point...
So one could argue that the reason welfare seems to encourage dead beat
behavior is because to make it in the world is very difficult for someone
like a single mother. In other words, if our society was better at
rewarding people for working hard then more people would be getting ahead
more quickly and getting off welfare and supporting themselves.
Now, recalculate the example for someone making minimum wage or someone who
is unskilled, uneducated, or poorly educated. Factor in that people are
earning less to help employeers pay for healthcare. Factor in that programs
to help them are being cut by the same administration that is trying (and
failing) to pay for tax cuts for the rich. (I say failing because the
deficit is going up up up).
Please understand, I think welfare is a flawed system not unlike most
systems in a bureacracy. There are people who take advantage of it and that
should continue to be addressed, but it should be addressed in a way that
doesn't prevent welfare from it's idelogical mission of helping people (who
need it) meet their basic needs.
>
> > > It just needs to be set up
> > > differently than it generally is.
> >
> > I agree. The tax system is terrible. The government is full of pork.
> The
> > bureacracy itself eat up way too much. Our political system is bought
and
> > paid for by special interests to the detriment of everyone else which in
> > turn slow reform in all areas of government. BUT until it is better
than
> it
> > is, it's the best we've got for now and we have to function within that
> > reality. And the way it is right now, the wealth is power and the way
the
> > system is now the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That's a
> > statistical fact. As long as the system favors the rich so heavily,
they
> > should pay a higher burden. That may not be right or moral, but in my
> > opinion, it's fair.
>
> The problem is, when the rate is unconscionable (as 40% is), the rich
simply
> find ways around it (as they do now). I know guys who *easily* make three
> times what I do, and who pay less taxes, percentage-wise.
Yes, of course that's true. We have so many loopholes in our code it's just
crazy. Crazier still, once a loop hole is there it's very difficult to
close it. Now figure in all of the tax money that goes to generating all
the red tape of making the tax laws, figuring them out and enforcing them.
Anyway, whether or not they do it with income tax or some other way, my
point is the same. Wealthier people should bear a heavier burden in a
society that favors them. Due to the way wealth continues to concentrate
itself into a smaller and smaller minority, I don't think it's a stretch to
say it has to be this way or else society will fail due to social unrest.
40% may seem crazy but as I recall the rate used to be something like 52%
just after WW2. Yet that was a very prosperous time in the US. Most
families could be supported by a single income. Now the average familiy
requires two incomes coming in, we work longer hours and have less to show
for it. I don't pretend to know all the factors involved in this change,
but we don't seem better off.
>
> > > > In fact, I think they should raise the highest bracket even higher
> > > > for the uber wealthy.
> > >
> > > I think that is just insane. Why not just raise it to 75%? How about
> > 85%?
> > > Why don't we just cap maximum net worth and require all surplus to be
> > > donated to the State?
> >
> > I'd be willing to entertain that idea maybe in terms of income. Let's
> make
> > a new bracket that starts at, oh hell, I donno, say 5 million dollars a
> year
> > (and we can adjust it automatically for inflation). Let's say the tax
> > burden for 5 million is 100%. After the jets and the the yachts and
> > mansions are paid for, what would one person possibly do with over 5
> million
> > dollars a year in income?
>
> Invest in a business. Hire more people.
First of all there's no reason someone making that kind of money would need
to invest in business or hire or people or create more jobs. That would be
a choice if he decided to do that, but there's no reason to assume he would
do that. I'm not sure what the motivation would be. I guess you would do
that in order to make more money, but again, why would you possibly need
more money? What could you do with 6 million dollars that you aren't
already doing with an anual income of 5 million? So I guess it would be
about power, but how much more power can money buy you if you already have
more money than you know what to do with? So, I guess the motivation would
be bigger status in the business world. I guess you could have a pissing
contest with others who are making big money. I guess you could compare how
big your corporation is compared to another. I donno. I really is hard for
me to understand. But yes, there are people that would invest in more
businesses and hire more people. Those people would probably be doing that
anyway, even if they only had 5 million, but you could argue they'd do it
more if they had more.
Okay, yes, you've named something that you could spend the money on. I
guess part of your point is that in acting this way this person would
helping everyone because it would mean creating more jobs for us work and
this would be good because then all of us would benefit more. (It's too bad
people who run companies that make lots of money don't just give everyone a
bigger piece of pie... a raise, etc, but no matter how much money is made
that's not how it works). Anyway, I would argue that if helping society is
somehow the motive behind allowing such excessive largely useless wealth,
then why not just cut out the middle man and ease the tax burden on the 99%
of the rest of us that don't make 5 million a year? Is it really punishing
someone to cap their income at 5 million? What are you taking away from him
that he wouldn't already have?
Now, add to that my concerns that wealth is getting more and more
concentrated and what that's doing to society.
It's hard to argue for such and outrageous tax, I know. It has to do with
changing the way we view other people in our own country. It has to do with
how you view your responsibility to society and the treatment of your fellow
man. Your beliefs and values are what influence your idea of fair.
> > How are you hurting that person by saying okay,
> > for the good of society, we are capping you off right there.
>
> You are taking something that is rightfully theirs.
That's a valid point depending on your perspective and the way in which you
describe "rightfully". Back in the early 1900's when industrialism was
really kicking in the US had a laissez faire attitude towards business. In
other words, government stays out of business and lets it do what it wants.
Period. In those days few people would argue that all money made was
rightfully theirs despite the fact that working people had few rights and
little power. No child labor acts. No guarantee of safety in the work
place. Government support of union breaking tactics. No regulation on what
could be sold as food or how it had to be prepared. No rights to sue your
employeer if you got hurt or were fired for an unjust reason. Blacklisting
people was perfectly legal. There was no minimum wage. No pensions. No
403bs. No help for you should you get hurt or grow too old to be a good
worker. No social security or welfare. No regulation on slum lords or
living conditions. Certainly no guarantee of healthcare. And on and on...
Now you say there are things we should provide for the basic needs of
people, and even though not everyone agrees with you a lot of people as
least agree that we should do more than we did in the old days. But that
doesn't make it right. It's only right because we, as a society, have
decided it's the right of all people to have some of the basics meet. It
certainly wasn't always that way. You could argue that 100% of what you
earn is rightfully yours and you'd be no less right.
>
> > Let's face it. We don't live in a society people are monetarily
rewarded
> > according in correlation to their contribution to society.
>
> Sure, and no society has ever worked that way.
True, but just because it's never been that way doesn't mean it shouldn't
be. Although I would argue that we the current trend is that it's getting
worse in the short run (in the US), I'd also say that historically it's
better than it was in the days of kinds an peasants... in the days when
people owned other people.
> > Of course in some cases and in some ways the answer to the above
questions
> > are yes, but I think you see where I'm going. The arguement you
usually
> > hear is that the bottom line is, so-and-so EARNED his money.
>
> I do not care how they got it, the money is rightfully theirs.
Well you are right within the context of how you define "earned" and with
how you define ownership in relation to the needs of everyone else. What we
call "rightfully" today is different what it used to mean and I believe it
will continue to change in the future.
>
> > The specifics vary depending on your source, but the fact is, wealth in
> the
> > US is getting more and more concentrated into the hands of a minority
that
> > only ever gets smaller and smaller each year. It's realistic (and
> somewhat
> > conservative) to say that 90% of the wealth in the US is concentrated in
> > significantly less than 10% of the population. Should the inheritance
> tax
> > be abolished, this accelerating trend will grow exponentially. There
is
> > nothing wrong with being wealthy. I have no beef with rich people. I
> just
> > take issue with what wealth is doing to our government and they way in
> which
> > wealth (and lack of it) affects how we get represented in our legal
> system.
>
> I can buy that. The problem is, those few are so well-connected that they
> are not about to sit by and get fucked. They have the clout to do
something
> about it, too.
Clout is certainly a factor, but even if you aren't well connected, even if
all you have is money, you can do pretty well by yourself (OJ Simpson comes
to mind). Anyway, there's a obvious relationship between money and clout..
money and power, etc.
>
> > >I think punishing high earners is a bad idea. When
> > > you have unconscionable tax rates for the wealthy, they will either
> bribe
> > > government officials into making exceptions for them, cheat like
crazy,
> > > and/or move their business elsewhere.
> >
> > Friend, they are all ready doing that. The do it not out of contempt
for
> > our current system. They do for the same reason a dog licks his balls.
>
> Heh.
>
>
> > > > I also think they should simplify the tax code and start getting
> serious
> > > > about filling the loopholes that let big corporations get so many
tax
> > > > breaks. I heard the average tax paid by a corporation is around 7%.
> > >
> > > I agree with this. Lower the tax rate to something reasonable,
simplify
> > > the tax code, and eliminate the exceptions and loopholes. That way,
the
> > > government gets their tithe, but the burden is not quite as
> unreasonable.
> >
> > The devil is in the details.
>
> Indeed. Hell, the only reason we *have* these high tax rates is because
> they look good on paper. No one actually pays that rate.
True, but that doesn't much change the nature of what we are arguing about.
> > > I think getting rid of riders is the key.
> >
> > I'm ignorant on that. How do "riders" work?
>
> Essentially, it is a little bill, non-viable by itself, that gets tacked
on
> to a bigger bill, usually a popular, must-pass one. If the big one
passes,
> all the riders pass. Here is an example of the crap that gets pulled:
>
> http://www.pcdf.org/meadows/riders.html
Oh yea yea, my head was somewhere else. This happens all the time.
Congress doesn't even know half the stuff they sign anymore because these
bills get so big full of pork and special favors to lobbiest and all that.
The kind of stuff that get's tacked on often has nothing at all to do with
the nature of the larger bill being passed. It makes me sick. We really
truly do need to make some changes. It's too the point that you just can't
function as a congressman without being involved in all this crap because
you'll never have the funds to get re-elected. Doesn't matter which side of
the aisle you're on. My biggest issue right now is campaign finance
reform, second to none... well, maybe second to a few major enviornmental
issues, but the point is nothing's going to change... nothing CAN change
until we fix our system or at least start taking some cracks at fixing it.
I'm not sure I like the idea of line item vetos either because then you've
got too much power the other way. If two congressmen have to compromise to
get a bill passed then the president unilaterally negates half the
compromise then nothing will ever get passed. Half the problem is getting
good bills to see the light of day.
(thanks for the link)
>
> > That's what I mean. How come we can send robots to mars and spend like
> mad
> > on our military and create a huge deficit, but there's just not enough
> money
> > to fully fund the education bill? Few people think twice about the
> billions
> > of dollars we lose to tax loopholes created and exploited by big
> > corporations, yet we get pissed off at the idea of somone buying
> cigarettes
> > with their food stamp change? Both anoy me, but let's get it into
> > perspective.
>
> Sure. The thing I find most disturbing are the educational trends. Look
at
> how we match up with the rest of the world.
What is the latest data on this? Just give me the general idea.
>
> > > > From what I read in newsweek, it's now fair to say that the United
> > States
> > > > spends more on defense than the entire world combined spends on
their
> > > > defense.
> > >
> > > Defense? Not hardly. Don't repeat the doublespeak.
> >
> > What, you don't think you can spend more on defense that the rest of the
> > world combined and still call it defense?
>
> It is not the money, it is the way it is spent and used.
I get your point. I was being sarcasitc about calling it "defense". But it
IS the money to some respect. It's a lot of money and a lot of wasted
money. The military's no better than the governement when it comes to waste
and they are probably worse. But yeah, we are on the same page here. If
you're suggesting we could use that money to further our aims in a
non-military fashion I think that's interesting too.
Darin Johnson
> I still disagree. What you say is accurate in the sense that 10% of $10,000
> is more than %10 of $100, but when you look at it in terms of cost of living
> it's a different story.
This is true, and it's also why Steve Forbes' "flat tax" proposal when
he was running for president still had a base amount of money that
wasn't taxed. Ie, you were only taxed on income above that amount.
No one really advocates a true flat tax rate starting from $0.
Another snag is that even though poor and middle class people are in
the majority, the majority of taxes still come from the wealthy. Thus
lowering the tax on the wealthy while keeping taxes for the poor and
middle class the same has a very significant impact on government
funding. Thus the only way to lower taxes for the wealthy without
lowering government income is to either raise taxes for poorer people,
or cut services (which typically go to poorer people).
It wasn't very long ago that I paid close to 40% (state plus federal),
and it wasn't very onerous at all; but back when I was poorer the 20%
rate was much hard to pay and I felt it much more.
> Now this is a little off our topic, but here's what I just don't understand.
> There are many people who are poor and lower middle class who really resent
> the poor and immigrants who they perceive to be living off the fruits of
> their labor via welfare of one sort or another.
Someone did a study and found that the states that gave out the most
amount of welfare and other social benefits to each recipient tended
to be very homogenous societies. Areas with more immigrants and
minorities had fewer benefits. The conclusion was that people don't
mind giving money to help people who are like themselves, but are less
charitable to "outsiders".
> But, what I just don't get is how
> these people can think nothing of the way republicans give huge tax breaks
> to the wealthy therfore putting the tax burden more squarely on the backs of
> these same poor and lower middle class people.
In the past, these were called the "Reagan Democrats", the Democrats
that crossed party lines to vote for Reagan as governor of California.
The feeling was that these people weren't responding to Reagan's
fiscal policies, but to his social policies; anti-communism, cracking
down on Berkeley protesters, moral values, etc.
This same attitude persisted when Reagan was elected president. The
religious South that once voted for Carter switched over to Reagan's
side. There are lots of issues out there that trump all others for
many people. Ie, for many, once they know the candidates' stands on
abortion there is no need to look at any other issues.
There are also a lot of class issues. Before Reagan, the conservatives
were mostly considered elitist and the Democrats were the party of the
common man. But then that switched, and now liberals are considered
the "elite", even though the Republican leadership are just as wealthy
and attended ivy league schools. (quick, which is more elitist,
Kennebunkport or Hyannisport?)
--
Darin Johnson
Support your right to own gnus.
Darin Johnson
> Instead there are six dictatorships. Wow! Good job.
That's Reagan foreign policy for you. A brutal anti-communist
dictator is preferrable to a brutal communist dictator. And a
popularly elected socialist government is of course merely a gateway
drug to a brutal communist dictatorship! So maybe they had to fund a
few future terrorists to change the dictatorships, but that's a
problem to be left for the 21st century to deal with.
--
Darin Johnson
My shoes are too tight, and I have forgotten how to dance -- Babylon 5
Malachias Invictus
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > If you are *that* poor, I have no problem with you not paying much in
the
> > way of taxes at all. In fact, that seems to generally be the case. I
> > paid little-to-no taxes most of my adult life, even when my income
approached
> > $40K a year. Now, of course, I have to pay, and pay a tax accountant to
> > boot.
>
> But even people who are not *that* poor still have trouble getting
> affordable health care
I make quite a bit ($60-80K), and *I* have trouble affording health care.
> and in some places it's hard to find a decent school.
I hear you. My kids go to school way across town, because I hate the
schools in my area (poor performance due to a *huge* influx of ESL students
in the elementary school). It is a public school, but I pay quite a bit in
school fees every year, because the school cannot afford to do the things it
needs to do on the budget it has.
> > Yes, *everyone* should have some basic things provided for them
> > (and I feel that basic healthcare is one of those things), but beyond
that,
> > I think it starts to become punishment for being successful.
> Well, healthcare isn't one of those things right now.
No, unfortunately.
> Social security and medicare is something that provides those kinds of
> basic things for seniors but both those programs are in trouble or soon
will
> be considering the huge deficit we are creating largely because huge tax
cuts
> for the wealthy.
I do not blame the deficit on tax cuts for the wealthy. I blame it on
ridiculous amounts of overspending, especially in the War Department (known
incorrectly in some circles as "Defense"). How much are we pissing away
daily?
> But yes, wealthy people can help create jobs, but that usually doesn't
> transfer too well into "raises for employees".
Not directly, no. I would rather see tax breaks given to companies who give
regular raises, and who have a higher wage on the low-medium end of their
employee scale.
> If you want to stimulate the economy why not give the tax breaks to those
> who are more likely to put it back into the economy.
That is still, in many cases, the fairly wealthy (no necessarily the
uber-rich).
> If you don't have much desposable income you are
> going to spend what you have.
Unfortuantely, yes.
> I don't see heavier taxes for higher incomes as punishment. I responded
to
> this and the "I EARNED it" arguement later on.
I do not see this as punishment either, until it reaches a ridiculous
amount.
>> *That* is where I feel the government really fucks up. The "just
climbing out of
>> dirt poor and trying hard to make good" people get totally fucked.
> I think the welfare system is far from perfect and I think there are those
> people take advantage of it. No doubt.
Agreed, although the actual dollar cost to the government is not too high if
you look at it.
> Single mothers are one of the worst case senarios. You say you paid
$10/hour.
> That's not a bad wage in in a lot of places. What is mim wage now? $6
and
> change?
Here (CA), it is $6.75 (which is what she made as a waitress previously).
> I donno.
Incidentally, she said in order to get Child Action daycare, she *had* to
apply for Welfare (even though she was ready to work and had the skills),
and she was on a waiting list for 2 1/2 years. What the fuck?!? You would
think that paying for daycare so someone could work and contribute to the
economy would be something the government would rather be doing than just
shelling out cash.
> But let's say you started paying her $12/hour which isn't bad.
That is what I raised her to.
> In fact, it's pretty good relative to what's out there especially if you
add benefits.
> (I was working manual labor in a wearhouse making $8.50 just a few years
ago in
> Delaware, and not long ago I was making $10.50 doing techincal support)
So
> let's say she makes $12 X 40 hours X 52 weeks = $24,960. I'm to lazy to
do
> the math so let's just say we knock off 13% for federal income tax (not
> figurinig for state tax or local tax if there is any).
I asked her, but she is not sure.
> That leaves $21,715. Okay, now take out daycare which I think averages
about
> $600/month = $7200 (assuming she only has one kid).
She is still getting this for free. As your calculations show, that money
is *critical*.
> That leaves $14,515 a year to live on.
> Okay, what's rent? Total guess on my part. Say... $700/month ($8,400
> year)? Is that fair for urban life?
She pays $650. Pretty close.
> Now we are left with $6,115 /year to
> live on. Divide that by 12 and you have about $509 a month. Now take out
> for the cost of a car and to maintain the car, food, clothing, costs for
the
> child. How much is left?
Exactly. Without that additional $7200 for child care, she is screwed.
Hell, even if I raised her to $14, she would likely *still* be pretty
screwed.
> My point is, you are paying her what society would probably call a fair
wage
> relative to the going rate.
Good, even. She was surprised to get it.
> After all it's something like double minimum
> wage, right? It's even possible you are paying her more than the going
> average rate. Nevertheless, it's hard to understand how she gets by and
> harder to understand what it is that she can do to work harder or longer
to
> get ahead.
Exactly. She will perpetually be stuck paycheck-to-paycheck, never able to
purchase real estate.
> You are looking at it as though the welfare system is encouraging her to
be
> a deat beat.
Yes.
> You make a valid case. But the other side of the coin is
> this. Welfare is setup to help provide for people to meet basic needs
(more
> or less as you described above). Given the cost of living, that's more
or
> less what it's doing. Of cousre it's going to give less if you work more
> and supplament your income. That's just logical, right? Okay, my
point...
> So one could argue that the reason welfare seems to encourage dead beat
> behavior is because to make it in the world is very difficult for someone
> like a single mother. In other words, if our society was better at
> rewarding people for working hard then more people would be getting ahead
> more quickly and getting off welfare and supporting themselves.
My main point is that the government should focus on programs to help the
"working poor" get a hand-up. They want to work, they want to earn their
living, but if being a deadbeat is both easier and better for their
families, the choice to do so is difficult. Things like child care (with no
ridiculous stay-at-the-state-office-all-day bureaucracy), healthcare (that
you can pay a bit for when you make more money, rather than have it be
completely yanked), and sliding scale subsidies (the more you make, the less
you are given, until you can do without it) are what we need.
> Now, recalculate the example for someone making minimum wage or someone
who
> is unskilled, uneducated, or poorly educated.
I have seen even *highly* educated people make shit wages. For example,
down the street, McGraw-Hill pays Bachelor's Degree holding employees $10 an
hour to correct high school standardized tests (I did this for a while, and
the horrible test answers from high school seniors I saw will scar me
forever). The supervisors, most of them with Master's and PhDs, make less
than $10.50.
> Please understand, I think welfare is a flawed system not unlike most
> systems in a bureacracy. There are people who take advantage of it and
that
> should continue to be addressed, but it should be addressed in a way that
> doesn't prevent welfare from it's idelogical mission of helping people
(who
> need it) meet their basic needs.
Agreed.
<snipping for brevity>
> Is it really punishing someone to cap their income at 5 million?
At *any* amount they can legitimately earn, yes.
> What are you taking away from him
> that he wouldn't already have?
You could cut my income right now by 20% and I would likely not notice it
much. That would not really be taking much away from me. However, I earned
the money, it is legitimately mine, and I think it is unfair to just take it
away arbitrarily and give it to the bloated government.
> Now, add to that my concerns that wealth is getting more and more
> concentrated and what that's doing to society.
>
> It's hard to argue for such and outrageous tax, I know. It has to do with
> changing the way we view other people in our own country. It has to do
with
> how you view your responsibility to society and the treatment of your
fellow
> man. Your beliefs and values are what influence your idea of fair.
Sure. I think, for example, the problem is much more about what the
government spends (and in many cases wastes) the money on. We *could have*
awesome schools and healthcare, at the cost of a bit of the War budget, for
example.
> Oh yea yea, my head was somewhere else. This happens all the time.
> Congress doesn't even know half the stuff they sign anymore because these
> bills get so big full of pork and special favors to lobbiest and all that.
> The kind of stuff that get's tacked on often has nothing at all to do with
> the nature of the larger bill being passed. It makes me sick.
I hear you. I think it is the biggest tool in the corrupt lawmaker's
arsenal. The Line-Item Veto was a step in the right direction, because it
would have eliminated much of this abuse, but alas, it was unconstitutional.
Of course, as you note, it gave the Executive branch too much power, which
is almost always a bad thing.
> > Sure. The thing I find most disturbing are the educational trends.
Look
> > at how we match up with the rest of the world.
> What is the latest data on this? Just give me the general idea.
This is a bit old, but some of the studies in the bibliography I know to be
solid:
http://www.apa.org/ed/geary.html
Essentially, we suck at math and science.
JoeSmooth
"Darin Johnson" <darin_@_usa_._net> wrote in message
news:cu1659x...@nokia.com...
> "JoeSmooth" <f...@ke.net> writes:
>
> > I still disagree. What you say is accurate in the sense that 10% of
$10,000
> > is more than %10 of $100, but when you look at it in terms of cost of
living
> > it's a different story.
>
> This is true, and it's also why Steve Forbes' "flat tax" proposal when
> he was running for president still had a base amount of money that
> wasn't taxed. Ie, you were only taxed on income above that amount.
> No one really advocates a true flat tax rate starting from $0.
I think we need to try SOMETHING. I don't see how we could support our
current bureaucracy on just 10% across the board, but some kind of dramatic
simplification is in order. It would be nice to simplify or greatly
eliminate the deductions and credits and close the loopholes and cut down on
the use of tax lawyers. One idea is to eliminate income tax and have a
national sales tax instead. I'm not saying I'm for that but it might be
time to start thinking outside the box.
>
> Another snag is that even though poor and middle class people are in
> the majority, the majority of taxes still come from the wealthy. Thus
> lowering the tax on the wealthy while keeping taxes for the poor and
> middle class the same has a very significant impact on government
> funding. Thus the only way to lower taxes for the wealthy without
> lowering government income is to either raise taxes for poorer people,
> or cut services (which typically go to poorer people).
I'd add deficit spending to that list of outcomes...
>
> It wasn't very long ago that I paid close to 40% (state plus federal),
> and it wasn't very onerous at all; but back when I was poorer the 20%
> rate was much hard to pay and I felt it much more.
>
> > Now this is a little off our topic, but here's what I just don't
understand.
> > There are many people who are poor and lower middle class who really
resent
> > the poor and immigrants who they perceive to be living off the fruits of
> > their labor via welfare of one sort or another.
>
> Someone did a study and found that the states that gave out the most
> amount of welfare and other social benefits to each recipient tended
> to be very homogenous societies. Areas with more immigrants and
> minorities had fewer benefits. The conclusion was that people don't
> mind giving money to help people who are like themselves, but are less
> charitable to "outsiders".
I wasn't aware of such a study, but it doesn't surprise me. Even people
who have a very strong belief in the world as a dog-eat-dog
everybody-for-himeself enviornment will still tend to help out family
members even if those family members might be considered dead beats or
losers.
> > But, what I just don't get is how
> > these people can think nothing of the way republicans give huge tax
breaks
> > to the wealthy therfore putting the tax burden more squarely on the
backs of
> > these same poor and lower middle class people.
>
> In the past, these were called the "Reagan Democrats", the Democrats
> that crossed party lines to vote for Reagan as governor of California.
> The feeling was that these people weren't responding to Reagan's
> fiscal policies, but to his social policies; anti-communism, cracking
> down on Berkeley protesters, moral values, etc.
I think that's all true and accurate. There are things that I think are
clearly important but I can understand why the average Joe may not care at
all about. However, I just don't get how Average Joe doesn't get worked up
over these huge tax cuts for the wealthy. Most wage earning people share
the belief that the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer. They
see their dollars not going as far.
>
> This same attitude persisted when Reagan was elected president. The
> religious South that once voted for Carter switched over to Reagan's
> side. There are lots of issues out there that trump all others for
> many people. Ie, for many, once they know the candidates' stands on
> abortion there is no need to look at any other issues.
That's true. To a lesser extent, gun control and the enviornment are other
examples.
>
> There are also a lot of class issues. Before Reagan, the conservatives
> were mostly considered elitist and the Democrats were the party of the
> common man. But then that switched, and now liberals are considered
> the "elite", even though the Republican leadership are just as wealthy
> and attended ivy league schools.
Yeah, I dont' get that. I guess it's the idea of a liberal being associated
with college campus intellectualism?? It doesn't help when liberals go
around using terms like trailer trash and suggesting that people in the
military are dimwits. Granted, I'm coming from the left, but when I see the
right's propaganda aimed at attracting the Average Joe it just seems so
contrived.
From what I've read statistically, education doesn't have a dramatic effect
on the way people vote, although there is a slight correleation between
higher education and voting to the left rather than the right. I only have
once source for this which was an old newsweek article.
> (quick, which is more elitist,
> Kennebunkport or Hyannisport?)
Oh, I have no idea. One's in maine and one's in massachusetts. I'd guess
Hyannisport is the more liberal, but I have no idea on what the correct
answer would be.
Michael Starke
Because if have them, so do millions of others.
And also...
When I don't have them, America will indeed have become a fascist
state.
Michael Starke
The one I heard with my own ears. It was shameful and despicable.
The irony is that while Reagan's service has been criticized as planned
by the Republicans to maximize political capital, Tom Daschle used just
the opposite as an excuse for the excesses saying something like, "It
just happened".
It even embarrassed the U of M :
The wave of criticism also flowed to the University of Minnesota. "The
political overtones were surprising to me and everyone else," said Sandra
Gardebring, vice president of university relations. "I thought it was
inappropriate; that's the mildest word I can use."
If she had known the tone of the memorial, she wouldn't have given
permission, said Gardebring, a former state Supreme Court justice. "We
wouldn't have allowed an actual political rally, and if I had known what
Rick was going to say, I would not have recommended that we do this."
----Star Tribune
Booing Trent Lott....another sign of class.
Anyway, is there another version of the rally I missed?
Michael Starke
> > > butting in with my 2 cents....
> > >
> > > When he took office, the highest tax bracket was 46%. By the time he
> > left,
> > > it was 34%.
> >
> > ...and you think this is a *bad* thing? For fuck's sake, *no one*
should
> be
> > required to pay a tax rate that high.
>
system
> should pay a higher cost at least as long as there are those who are
> struggling to meet the basic needs of life. In fact, I think they should
> raise the highest bracket even higher for the uber wealthy. I'm not
trying
> to convince you of anything, just offering a different view.
>
> I also think they should simplify the tax code and start getting serious
> about filling the loopholes that let big corporations get so many tax
> breaks. I heard the average tax paid by a corporation is around 7%.
>
> > Tiffany cufflinks daily. The government can damn well start doing their
> job
> > and running the country like a business.
>
> On that I agree with you. But we both know there's a lot of back
> scratching, lobbying and pork. I think the answer is campaign fiance
> reform and more transparency in government. Everything on evey issue is
for
> sale right now.
>
> >
> > > Meanwhile the country was in a long recession while millions of
dollars
> >
> > *Millions*?!? You are off by several orders of magnitude.
>
> ? You mean I should have said billions?
> http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/50.HTM
>
>
> >
> > > poured into making nukes despite the fact that the US could already
> > > decimate the entire USSR several times over.
> >
> > ...and we are doing the same sort of stupid military overspending right
> now,
> > padding the same pockets.
>
> From what I read in newsweek, it's now fair to say that the United States
> spends more on defense than the entire world combined spends on their
> defense.
First, people who make more money probably did so
because of hard work. If you are getting A's in school does that mean
you should get more assignments and work more than those who do poorly?
We shouldn't punish people for doing well.
The US spends a lot on defense because that is what the government
is supposed to do. It's not the job of government to give money
to people who didn't earn it or buy their medicine for them. That is
the job of family, individuals, and charitable institutions.
bunboy
other such weapons that only the government may own the pea shooters common
citizens possess aren't going to do much. Make it clear I am anti gun but
gun possession as protection from government went out as a realistic
possibility somewhere in Mr.Gattling's basement or garage or whatever it
was!
"Michael Starke" <mikes...@DeletThiscomcast.net> wrote in message
Malachias Invictus
> It is well recognized fact that with the invention of the machine gun and
> other such weapons that only the government may own
You are obviously not aware of the extreme ease with which most
semiautomatic rifles can be converted to full auto.
--
JoeSmooth
"Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:J9ednbQPdvQ...@megapath.net...
Just to be clear, I really don't blame the wealthy. Most wealthy people I
know aren't pretentious or especailly selfish or bad or anything like that.
It's the institutions created and powered by wealth and wealthy interests
that are corrupting our system of government, IMO.
> I blame it on
> ridiculous amounts of overspending, especially in the War Department
(known
> incorrectly in some circles as "Defense"). How much are we pissing away
> daily?
No arguement here. I do think we need to take good care of our troops but
no, I don't like the direction we've taken and I don't like the kickbacks
we've given to special interests or the general waste.
However, I think you have to look at Bush and say hmmm.... you've taken a
lot of money from government by cutting taxes largely for the rich and
cutting social programs isn't enough to make up for the lost revenue,
espeically while you are porking up the military... so of course the deficit
starts getting bigger.
>
> > But yes, wealthy people can help create jobs, but that usually doesn't
> > transfer too well into "raises for employees".
>
> Not directly, no. I would rather see tax breaks given to companies who
give
> regular raises, and who have a higher wage on the low-medium end of their
> employee scale.
That's not a bad idea, but I know how likely that would be to pass. We
can't even keep minimum wage at a fair level. Considering inflation it's
not much compared to what it once was. I think there are some cities that
require some kind of living wage minimum (somewhere in CA? Santa Moncia?
Santa Cruiz? I forget).
Union's aren't without their flaws, but they do give the average worker
negotiating power he wouldn't otherwise have. However, unions aren't
nearly as strong as the used to be partly because laws made to protect them
and their members are not usually enforced.
>
> > If you want to stimulate the economy why not give the tax breaks to
those
> > who are more likely to put it back into the economy.
>
> That is still, in many cases, the fairly wealthy (no necessarily the
> uber-rich).
Well, it really is the uber rich that we need to look at. From what I've
read (and might have already mentioned) something like 90% of the wealth is
in the top 5% of the population. In fact, from what I've read, this is a
pretty conservative estimate. We really need to look at that richest 5%. I
bet if you could get a real no-loop hole tax out of the richest 1% you'd
make quite a big differene in the budget. I admit my figures are very ball
park. I really need to get a good almanac.
>
> > If you don't have much desposable income you are
> > going to spend what you have.
>
> Unfortuantely, yes.
And maybe borrow.
Red tape again, no doubt.
Just in case I didn't get my point across, let me restate it. (I realize
the opinions I'm reacting against aren't really yours, but I'm already on
the soap box.) The reason why welfare seems like it provides pretty much
the same lifestyle as she would have if she were working is (more or less)
because it does. Again, I'm still assuming that all welfare is doing at
most is to provide the basics and nothing more. The reason the "welfare
way" is so tempting for someone like her is because the hard-work-real-job
way isn't a more profitable option, no matter how hard you work. Put yet
another way, the opportunities our society offers someone like her simply
aren't enough for her to meet her basic needs. That's the problem. That
should be the shocking part. That's why there's no incentive. And it's a
damn shame that things have come to that in a country like ours which was
built on concepts like the american dream.
> My main point is that the government should focus on programs to help the
> "working poor" get a hand-up. They want to work, they want to earn their
> living, but if being a deadbeat is both easier and better for their
> families, the choice to do so is difficult.
I think what you describe is what welfare is supposed to be about and if
it's not it should be, IMO. (I really don't know the particulars)
> Things like child care (with no
> ridiculous stay-at-the-state-office-all-day bureaucracy), healthcare (that
> you can pay a bit for when you make more money, rather than have it be
> completely yanked), and sliding scale subsidies (the more you make, the
less
> you are given, until you can do without it) are what we need.
Well, if I understand you correctly then childcare IS available (even if it
is a hassle) and the way it NOW is that it IS based on a sliding scale
subsidies. I really don't know how the medicaid side of things work. I'm
not too educated on this. Your ideas seem sound, but how is what you
propose different from the way it is now?
>
> > Now, recalculate the example for someone making minimum wage or someone
> who
> > is unskilled, uneducated, or poorly educated.
>
> I have seen even *highly* educated people make shit wages. For example,
> down the street, McGraw-Hill pays Bachelor's Degree holding employees $10
an
> hour to correct high school standardized tests (I did this for a while,
and
> the horrible test answers from high school seniors I saw will scar me
> forever). The supervisors, most of them with Master's and PhDs, make less
> than $10.50.
Yep. I mean, what's going on? What's happening to this country? We aren't
lazy. We are willing to work. We aren't trying to get something for
nothing. Clearly there is more than enough to go around. Where have the
opportunities gone?
>
> > Please understand, I think welfare is a flawed system not unlike most
> > systems in a bureacracy. There are people who take advantage of it and
> that
> > should continue to be addressed, but it should be addressed in a way
that
> > doesn't prevent welfare from it's idelogical mission of helping people
> (who
> > need it) meet their basic needs.
>
> Agreed.
>
> <snipping for brevity>
>
> > Is it really punishing someone to cap their income at 5 million?
>
> At *any* amount they can legitimately earn, yes.
>
> > What are you taking away from him
> > that he wouldn't already have?
>
> You could cut my income right now by 20% and I would likely not notice it
> much. That would not really be taking much away from me. However, I
earned
> the money, it is legitimately mine, and I think it is unfair to just take
it
> away arbitrarily and give it to the bloated government.
I can't deny your point. However, I do think we need to find some way to
redistribute the wealth a bit. Are you saying if government was more
socialize or otherwise did more for people that then you would not see the
tax as being so arbitrary?
>
> > Now, add to that my concerns that wealth is getting more and more
> > concentrated and what that's doing to society.
> >
> > It's hard to argue for such and outrageous tax, I know. It has to do
with
> > changing the way we view other people in our own country. It has to do
> with
> > how you view your responsibility to society and the treatment of your
> fellow
> > man. Your beliefs and values are what influence your idea of fair.
>
> Sure. I think, for example, the problem is much more about what the
> government spends (and in many cases wastes) the money on. We *could
have*
> awesome schools and healthcare, at the cost of a bit of the War budget,
for
> example.
I totally agree. In fact, I really feel that if we made sure basic needs
were affordable then the tax burden on everyone would be less. Besides the
costs of police forces, it costs something like $25,000-$30,000 (or
more)/year to house a prisoner. It's a lot cheaper to try to educate and
incoporate potential criminals into our economy and society. Even if you
don't have an ounce of compassion I think helping people meet their basic
need makes sense just from looking at the bottom line.
>
> > Oh yea yea, my head was somewhere else. This happens all the time.
> > Congress doesn't even know half the stuff they sign anymore because
these
> > bills get so big full of pork and special favors to lobbiest and all
that.
> > The kind of stuff that get's tacked on often has nothing at all to do
with
> > the nature of the larger bill being passed. It makes me sick.
>
> I hear you. I think it is the biggest tool in the corrupt lawmaker's
> arsenal. The Line-Item Veto was a step in the right direction, because it
> would have eliminated much of this abuse, but alas, it was
unconstitutional.
> Of course, as you note, it gave the Executive branch too much power, which
> is almost always a bad thing.
You say corrupt, but how can you have any future in politics and not play
this game? We really need some campaign finance reform.
> > > Sure. The thing I find most disturbing are the educational trends.
> Look
> > > at how we match up with the rest of the world.
>
> > What is the latest data on this? Just give me the general idea.
>
> This is a bit old, but some of the studies in the bibliography I know to
be
> solid:
>
> http://www.apa.org/ed/geary.html
>
> Essentially, we suck at math and science.
Seems to be getting worse.
Thanks for the insights.
JoeSmooth
"Michael Starke" <mikes...@DeletThiscomcast.net> wrote in message
First of all, I'm not as convinced of that as I once was that hard work
really leads to better pay. I've always had a strong work ethic and I've
worked a variety of jobs but I can't say that work ethic was much rewarded
in terms of money. It gets you some respect and keeps higher ups from
hassling you. It's also a good way to do extra work and take on more
responsibility for the same pay. Sometimes it opens up opporutnies to move
up the ladder but that usually also means working a lot more hours and just
because you have a good work ethic doesn't mean you are necessarily suited
for managment positions.
Also, when it comes to the uber rich, there are a lot of people in that
group that don't do much of anything but live off their trusts and old
family money. Once you get that uber money it snowballs so much you don't
need to work at all to the very idea of hard work doesn't even enter the
equation.
But, I acknowledge your point. I certainly agree that people who work
harder should get a bigger monetary reward. That's a good thing and it's a
good thing about capitalism as opposed to something like pure socialism or
communism. However, there isn't much consistency within society for hard
work and better pay. It depends on the field. A teacher can work 10 times
harder at his job than a lawyer and still not make as much money. (There
are countless examples like this).
Here's the other thing that I know I mentioned elsewhere so just ignore this
if I'm repeating. Let's say I accept as given that higher income is based
on hard work. The problem is that it's not proportional. A CEO can make
millions a year while a guy working 50 hours on the floor might only be
making $30,000. Yes, the CEO works hard and has more responsibility, etc,
but not THAT much harder to justify THAT much difference in pay. Put
another way, it's not that the CEO should be punished, it's that the guy
working the floor isn't being rewarded enough.
>
> The US spends a lot on defense because that is what the government
> is supposed to do. It's not the job of government to give money
> to people who didn't earn it or buy their medicine for them. That is
> the job of family, individuals, and charitable institutions.
Well, I say the job of the goverment is whatever society decides it should
be. Most of the developed nations are much more socialized than we are.
That seems to be working for them but others disagree. Personally, I think
that the human race is evolving and there is a correlation between that
evolution and the degree to which we think of our fellow human beings as
"our family". That in turn effects our views on what government is and what
it should do or not do for us.
>
>
>
JoeSmooth
"Michael Starke" <mikes...@DeletThiscomcast.net> wrote in message
I admit I didn't hear it and a lot of what I know came from reading
Franken's book and he's certainly bias. I thought it was just Kahn that got
out of hand? Meanwhile Limbaugh was spreading rumors that there were
teleprompters telling people when to applaud.
Nicolas The Great
> As a shut in I divide my time pretty much between watching TV and playing
> video games. Lately though with my TV shows getting interrupted what seems
> like every other few minutes with Reagan burial crap I have surrendered and
> given up on TV. Hell I even got an x box game something I haven't done in
> ages to have something to watch on TV (Riddick Chronicles actually an
> amazing game truly amazing).
> What the heck is the story with this guy. I never liked him as an
> actor governor or Pres but I understand he did some important things and
> should have his ceremony but everyday for a week? Jesus only gets one day!
> Same with Princess Di. I am plumb sick of watching Nancy and that General
> with the pole up his butt walking to hail to the Chief more often than the
> beer twins are on. Really this was a totally dysfunctional family who all
> hated each other until daddies mind took an unfortunate vacation.
> I really find the whole thing instead of moving which it really
> was the first time to now be a revolting show of hypocrisy that is fueled by
> Nancy's love of ceremony and the Republicans so happy to get naked Iraqis
> off the tube for a week.
> Like I said he wasn't my favorite but I think he would have been
> happier with something simple one day with a bunch of horses and old
> Hollywood friends around without this week of nonsense. I can only think
> that people around the world again are going to be looking at us and
> wondering what makes us tick and not likeing the answer in many cases.
Print what you wrote and read it again in 30 years - The shame
that comes over you will be tremendous.
Chris F
>
> "bunboy" <bun...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:hpsyc.28556$1c4.18174@fed1read06...
> > It is well recognized fact that with the invention of the machine gun
and
> > other such weapons that only the government may own
>
> You are obviously not aware of the extreme ease with which most
> semiautomatic rifles can be converted to full auto.
As somone who's been heavily trained to fire, and who's actually fired
various automatic weapons, take my advice, you're actually better with the
semi's.
Grant Anderson
> First, people who make more money probably did so
> because of hard work. If you are getting A's in school does that mean
> you should get more assignments and work more than those who do poorly?
> We shouldn't punish people for doing well.
Actually, it often does mean you get more assignments/work, at least at
school. If you're doing that well, you (depending on the school) may get
extension work and similar things, to allow you to develop your abilities.
I don't see this as a punishment.
On the other hand, you're not getting paid for going to school, in most
circumstances.
Cheers,
Grant
elrikk
> I also heard on Fox news yes Fox news that Nancy and her staff over the
> years have drafted a 300 page book on every detail of how this whole week
> long process should be handled. We can't even get a decent manual of 30
> pages for a complicated computer game, where are the priorities? Keep in
> mind 300 pages is the manual, I have no idea how long the strategy guide
is.
LOL ;o)
Elrikk