To juice or not.
James
looking at all the resulting pulp I'm wondering if it's better for my
guts to eat all that fruit & veges than to drink the juice. Perhaps
juice is more about a nice drink than good health.
Al Bundy
There are pluses and minuses to juicing. I consider is a nice drink
and healthy. You can drink more juice from vegetables than you can
eat. In other words the juice from 5# of carrots is easy to drink
while eating 5# of raw carrots takes longer. You don't have to throw
all the pulp away. You can cook it and eat it too.
When you make tea, you don't usually regret towing the tea bag away
because you have gotten the essence of the product with the tea. I
feel the same with juicing vegetables unless I want the pulp for bulk
at times.
Stephanie
Yes, absolutely. The fiber and much of the nutrients is left behind in the
meat.
Myrl Jeffcoat
I'm a pretty avid juicer. But, more often than not, I just throw the
fruits and vegetables in the blender, so I retain the pulp. My
favorite concoction for the blender:
1 banana
1 carrot
1 apple
1 cup orange juice
Fresh ginger
If I have strawberries around, I like to throw them into the blender
with a few things too!
Myrl Jeffcoat
Rod Speed
> Every now and then I make a nice vege-fruit drink by juicing.
> After looking at all the resulting pulp I'm wondering if it's better
> for my guts to eat all that fruit & veges than to drink the juice.
Doesnt really make any difference.
The main difference is with your jaws/teeth, not your guts.
> Perhaps juice is more about a nice drink than good health.
It is if you would otherwise eat the same fruit/veg. Many wouldnt tho.
JR Weiss
>> Every now and then I make a nice vege-fruit drink by juicing.
>> After looking at all the resulting pulp I'm wondering if it's better
>> for my guts to eat all that fruit & veges than to drink the juice.
>
> Doesnt really make any difference.
>
> The main difference is with your jaws/teeth, not your guts.
Drinking only the juice will leave out a lot of the fiber you would get with the
fruit itself, so there is a considerable difference.
Dave
James, I have both a standard juicer and also a Vitamix. The standard
juicer takes out all the pulp, and it is great for some juices like
carrots. But, I love making juice drinks and smoothies in the Vitamix
because it just basically liquifies the whole darn kit and kaboodle,
and you get all the fibre and all in a delicious tasting, but thicker,
"juice."
Dave
JR Weiss
> I have both a standard juicer and also a Vitamix. The standard
juicer takes out all the pulp, and it is great for some juices like
carrots. But, I love making juice drinks and smoothies in the Vitamix
because it just basically liquifies the whole darn kit and kaboodle,
and you get all the fibre and all in a delicious tasting, but thicker,
"juice."
I don't think you need a special "Vitamix" for that. Use a conventional blender
or food processor to "puree" your fruit/veg.
Dennis
I suppose, just like you can use a screwdriver as a prybar.
My Vitamix will make a smoothie out of a conventional blender.
Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally
Brute
<jrweiss98...@remove.comcast.net> wrote:
>Drinking only the juice will leave out a lot of the fiber you would get with the
>fruit itself, so there is a considerable difference.
Personally, I juice because I can't eat enough vegetables, but the
juice is in addition to the vegetables that I do eat. In brief, you
don't have to stop eating fruits and vegetables just because you also
juice. You need the fiber, too.
****
Brute
"Vote McBama!"
timeOday
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:09:45 -0700, "JR Weiss"
> <jrweiss98...@remove.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "Dave" <djen...@cox.net> wrote...
>>
>>> I have both a standard juicer and also a Vitamix. The standard
>> juicer takes out all the pulp, and it is great for some juices like
>> carrots. But, I love making juice drinks and smoothies in the Vitamix
>> because it just basically liquifies the whole darn kit and kaboodle,
>> and you get all the fibre and all in a delicious tasting, but thicker,
>> "juice."
>>
>> I don't think you need a special "Vitamix" for that. Use a conventional blender
>> or food processor to "puree" your fruit/veg.
>
> I suppose, just like you can use a screwdriver as a prybar.
>
> My Vitamix will make a smoothie out of a conventional blender.
For a more frugal quality blender I recommend the Oster Beehive:
<http://www.amazon.com/Oster-4093-008-Beehive-Chrome-Blender/dp/B00006FMT9>
I got mine at Target maybe 4-5 years ago and use it to make a smoothie
with 10-12 solid-frozen ice cubes every few days. It has a metal
transmission and blasts right through them.
I never had any trouble at all with it until recently, when I cranked it
up with ice cubes already packed into the blades. (Not smart, but it
worked 100 times before). A flash, a pop, and it went dead. I took it
apart and all it needed was a new fuse. This was welded in and required
soldering to fix, but now it's like new. The fuse is still the ONLY
part I've ever changed on it.
Now I put the banana and yogurt in before the ice cubes. I still add
all 12 cubes before I start blending and it chugs right through them.
Rod Speed
Yeah, I was thinking about those who just blend the fruit and veg
and drink the entire result. It looks like he did mean juicing them
since he said that. I didnt read his original carefully enough.
Dave
Hi Abe,
Just like someone else said below my post, the Vitamix is sort of the
"King of Blenders," as it uses a chain saw motor and you can take
literally anything and liquefy it. I'm not kidding -- the wood paddle
that the thing came with got dropped inside when it was making a
smoothie and you couldn't tell the wood from the strawberry juice.
Dave
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
>> Every now and then I make a nice vege-fruit drink by juicing. After
>> looking at all the resulting pulp I'm wondering if it's better for my
>> guts to eat all that fruit & veges than to drink the juice. Perhaps
>> juice is more about a nice drink than good health.
i'd eat the whole piece of produce unless you're trying to treat some
sort of illness. ex: juice cabbage to treat stomach ulcers. you'll get
a lot more of the active ingredient you want that way.
Brute
<der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>i'd eat the whole piece of produce unless you're trying to treat some
>sort of illness. ex: juice cabbage to treat stomach ulcers. you'll get
>a lot more of the active ingredient you want that way.
Yikes. Have you actually tasted fresh cabbage juice? That is some
rough stuff. I had a raspy voice for an hour.
It has to be diluted with some other juice or water or something.
Brute
"Vote McBama"
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
--
----------------------
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice
cannot sleep forever."--Thomas Jefferson
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide
everything." -- Josef V. Stalin
www.myspace.com/bodybuildinggranny
heavy on the country music. if you don't like country, scroll down for
some surprises.
"Brute" <br...@ram.goat> wrote in message
news:r31494higf6h0puhr...@4ax.com...
well then, do that.
> "Vote McBama"
aint that the truth. two absolutely worthless choices.
Marsha
>"Vote McBama"
aint that the truth. two absolutely worthless choices.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
No matter how disappointed people may be with McCain, the two still
differ greatly on the basics. It's McCain for me, as would be just
about any Republican over just about any Democrat.
Marsha/Ohio
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"Marsha" <m...@xeb.net> wrote in message news:g6tihg$o68$3...@news.datemas.de...
republicrat/demlican. doesn't matter. what really matters is congress.
you only think they differ on the basics. our presidents are not elected,
they're selected. the powers that be have selected whom we get to choose,
and they make sure to select only those who will toe their line. this is
why you will never have a viable third party candidate. what happened
under bush, would have happened under a dem president, or an indy, or
anyone else. they get their orders and they follow them or they die. and
the american sheople get the illusion of selection.
clams_casino
>"Marsha" <m...@xeb.net> wrote in message news:g6tihg$o68$3...@news.datemas.de...
>
>
>>>"Vote McBama"
>>>
>>>
>>aint that the truth. two absolutely worthless choices.
>>
>>AllEmailDeletedImmediately
>>
>>No matter how disappointed people may be with McCain, the two still differ
>>greatly on the basics. It's McCain for me, as would be just about any
>>Republican over just about any Democrat.
>>
>>Marsha/Ohio
>>
>>
You are obviously very pleased with the results of Bush leadership.
McBush is a clone, just older & less trustworthy (have you paid any
attention to McBush's flipflops?).
>
>republicrat/demlican. doesn't matter. what really matters is congress.
>you only think they differ on the basics.
>
and in the next election - the Supreme Court will be determined /
controlled for many years by whomever is elected.
> what happened
>under bush, would have happened under a dem president, or an indy, or
>anyone else.
>
In denial or just naive?
Hint - invading Iraq was GW's choice.
Hint - raiding the surplus to enrich the top 10% at the cost of everyone
else was GW's leadership via a Republican controlled Congress.
Most all the current problems can be traced to these two blunders.
Marsha
>> "Marsha" <m...@xeb.net> wrote in message
>>> No matter how disappointed people may be with McCain, the two still
>>> differ greatly on the basics. It's McCain for me, as would be just
>>> about any Republican over just about any Democrat.
>>>
>>> Marsha/Ohio
>>>
> You are obviously very pleased with the results of Bush leadership.
> McBush is a clone, just older & less trustworthy (have you paid any
> attention to McBush's flipflops?).
In general, yes, I am pleased. Have you paid any attention to Obama's
flipflops? He said just what he needed in order to gain the nomination
and is now changing his mind so fast, the hardliner Dems are disappointed.
Marsha/Ohio
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"Marsha" <m...@xeb.net> wrote in message news:g6tmq9$o68$5...@news.datemas.de...
and he's always "correcting" himself. sos (no, not help)
clams_casino
> clams_casino wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> You are obviously very pleased with the results of Bush leadership.
>
>
> In general, yes, I am pleased.
>
> Marsha/Ohio
>
Glad to hear someone is pleased with GW.
July 31 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. economy may have slipped into a
recession in the last three months of 2007 as consumer spending slowed
more than previously estimated and the housing slump worsened, revised
government figures indicated."
Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. probably lost jobs in July for a seventh
consecutive month and the unemployment rate rose, increasing the risk
the economic slowdown will worsen, economists said before a government
report today. "
Or is this depressing economy all due to Clinton?
and McBush promises more of the same?
Marsha
> Glad to hear someone is pleased with GW.
> July 31 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. economy may have slipped into a
> recession in the last three months of 2007 as consumer spending slowed
> more than previously estimated and the housing slump worsened, revised
> government figures indicated."
>
> Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. probably lost jobs in July for a seventh
> consecutive month and the unemployment rate rose, increasing the risk
> the economic slowdown will worsen, economists said before a government
> report today. "
>
>
> Or is this depressing economy all due to Clinton?
>
> and McBush promises more of the same?
The economy cycles. We can't stay in an upward trend forever, no matter
who's in the oval office. And creating higher taxes for rich people,
who actually earn their money and use it to create jobs, and then giving
it willy nilly to those who won't educate themselves (won't, not can't)
so they can find a job is not the way to go. This is what Obama, or any
Democrat, will try to do if elected. I'm also really tired of the
bandaid approach to the poor, instead of giving them a fishing pole and
a way to get an honest leg up in life. Do you want to hear a sad story?
We have public housing that's being torn down and rebuilt. The local
paper interviewed one of the tenants, a single mom living with her four
kids, two over 21. She bragged that her mother was one of the first
residents. Three generations of people in the same public housing.
What's wrong with this picture?
Marsha/Ohio
clams_casino
> clams_casino wrote:
>
>> Glad to hear someone is pleased with GW.
>
>
>> July 31 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. economy may have slipped into a
>> recession in the last three months of 2007 as consumer spending
>> slowed more than previously estimated and the housing slump worsened,
>> revised government figures indicated."
>>
>> Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. probably lost jobs in July for a
>> seventh consecutive month and the unemployment rate rose, increasing
>> the risk the economic slowdown will worsen, economists said before a
>> government report today. "
>>
>>
>> Or is this depressing economy all due to Clinton?
>>
>> and McBush promises more of the same?
>
>
> The economy cycles. We can't stay in an upward trend forever, no
> matter who's in the oval office.
With McBush, it's likely we will stay in the same pathetic economy that
we've had for the past 6 years - an ever sinking dollar, creeping
inflation, more deaths in Iraq, a sagging stock market, etc
> And creating higher taxes for rich people, who actually earn their
> money and use it to create jobs
That's a joke. It was widely shown that GW's initial tax rebates
(which primarily went to the wealthy) ended up primarily for paying down
debt - NOT business expansion / investment..
> , and then giving it willy nilly to those who won't educate themselves
> (won't, not can't) so they can find a job is not the way to go. This
> is what Obama, or any Democrat, will try to do if elected. I'm also
> really tired of the bandaid approach to the poor, instead of giving
> them a fishing pole and a way to get an honest leg up in life. Do you
> want to hear a sad story? We have public housing that's being torn
> down and rebuilt. The local paper interviewed one of the tenants, a
> single mom living with her four kids, two over 21. She bragged that
> her mother was one of the first residents. Three generations of
> people in the same public housing. What's wrong with this picture?
>
> Marsha/Ohio
>
Fully agree - there is little difference between welfare for the poor
and welfare for the rich. However, for every $M you find going to the
poor, there is a $B going to the rich. GW has been all about providing
welfare for the rich - at the expense of the majority. Personally, I
think it's time for the pendulum to reverse.
So the bottom line ends up that if you feel the president has nothing to
do with the economy, they why are you so strongly in favor of McBush?
If nothing else, you really need to consider the upcoming Supreme
Court appointments. Actually, that's really the most critical aspect of
the next election.
tmc...@searchmachine.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Funny, I'm a college-educated business owner, and my personal economy
is
ALWAYS better when a democrat is in the Oval Office. I cried the day
Clinton
left and Shrub mentioned the word "recession" in his inaugural
address.
Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone? Crippling national debt, anyone? The
sooner we throw out the big-gubmint, tax-spend village idiot in
Washington,
the better off we'll all be.
Marsha
> Marsha wrote:
>> clams_casino wrote:
>> July 31 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. economy may have slipped into a
>>> recession in the last three months of 2007 as consumer spending
>>> slowed more than previously estimated and the housing slump worsened,
>>> revised government figures indicated."
>>>
>>> Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. probably lost jobs in July for a
>>> seventh consecutive month and the unemployment rate rose, increasing
>>> the risk the economic slowdown will worsen, economists said before a
>>> government report today. "
>>> Or is this depressing economy all due to Clinton?
>>>
>>
>> The economy cycles. We can't stay in an upward trend forever, no
>> matter who's in the oval office.
>
>
> With McBush, it's likely we will stay in the same pathetic economy that
> we've had for the past 6 years - an ever sinking dollar, creeping
> inflation, more deaths in Iraq, a sagging stock market, etc
I don't think so.
>> And creating higher taxes for rich people, who actually earn their
>> money and use it to create jobs
>
> That's a joke. It was widely shown that GW's initial tax rebates
> (which primarily went to the wealthy) ended up primarily for paying down
> debt - NOT business expansion / investment..
>
So how do you feel about Nancy Pelosi jumping on the tax rebate bandwagon?
>
>> , and then giving it willy nilly to those who won't educate themselves
>> (won't, not can't) so they can find a job is not the way to go. This
>> is what Obama, or any Democrat, will try to do if elected. I'm also
>> really tired of the bandaid approach to the poor, instead of giving
>> them a fishing pole and a way to get an honest leg up in life. Do you
>> want to hear a sad story? We have public housing that's being torn
>> down and rebuilt. The local paper interviewed one of the tenants, a
>> single mom living with her four kids, two over 21. She bragged that
>> her mother was one of the first residents. Three generations of
>> people in the same public housing. What's wrong with this picture?
>>
>> Marsha/Ohio
>>
> Fully agree - there is little difference between welfare for the poor
> and welfare for the rich. However, for every $M you find going to the
> poor, there is a $B going to the rich. GW has been all about providing
> welfare for the rich - at the expense of the majority. Personally, I
> think it's time for the pendulum to reverse.
There should be more control and accountability on corporate welfare,
just as there should be more control on welfare for the poor.
>
>
> So the bottom line ends up that if you feel the president has nothing to
> do with the economy, they why are you so strongly in favor of McBush?
I don't think a president has "nothing" to do with the economy, but some
things can be delayed or swayed to turn in the right direction, given
enough time and given a House and Congress who are on board. BTW,
Congress' approval rating is lower than the President's.
>
> If nothing else, you really need to consider the upcoming Supreme
> Court appointments. Actually, that's really the most critical aspect of
> the next election.
A Republican majority can always "Bork" any nominee they don't like,
just like the Dems have done and continue to do. There are so many
nominees for judges still out there that the Dems are holding up, it's
not funny. Games, always games - by both sides.
Marsha/Ohio
clams_casino
> And creating higher taxes for rich people, who actually earn their
> money and use it to create jobs, and then giving it willy nilly to
> those who won't educate themselves (won't, not can't) so they can find
> a job is not the way to go.
>
You are obviously under the misnomer that the wealthy (on the average)
pay more in taxes than the average / poor (on the average). (A
misleading claim widely spread by the lies of Rush, Glen Beck, FoxNews,
etc).
While the wealthy do pay more gross taxes, it's because they have most
of the wealth. The top 1% pay something like 40% of all income taxes,
but they also control 20% of all the wealth in the US. On the other
hand, they also pay a much lower portion of other taxes as a percentage
of their income.
After the other taxes (social security, sales, property, excise taxes
for gas, liquor & cigarettes, etc) are factored, studies have shown that
most all pay approximately 29-32% of their gross income in taxes where
the wealthy are actually on the lower end. (Ever hear Warren Buffet
comment how his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in
taxes than he?)
Bottom line is that the current tax code is pretty much in balance with
respect to being a flat tax - most all pay a similar amount of total
taxes as a percentage of their total income. The key here is TOTAL
taxes as a percentage of TOTAL income. GW pushed the percentage in
favor of the top. It's time to reverse that pendulum and not focus
ONLY on income taxes as Republicans like to do.
Rod Speed
> Marsha wrote
>> And creating higher taxes for rich people, who actually earn their
>> money and use it to create jobs, and then giving it willy nilly to
>> those who won't educate themselves (won't, not can't) so they can
>> find a job is not the way to go.
> You are obviously under the misnomer
You need a dictionary.
> that the wealthy (on the average) pay more in taxes than the average / poor (on the average).
They do.
> (A misleading claim widely spread by the lies of Rush, Glen Beck, FoxNews, etc).
Nope, a fact, actually.
> While the wealthy do pay more gross taxes, it's because they have most of the wealth.
So they pay more tax, stupid.
> The top 1% pay something like 40% of all income taxes,
So they pay more tax, stupid.
> but they also control 20% of all the wealth in the US.
Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
> On the other hand, they also pay a much lower portion of other taxes as a percentage of their income.
Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
> After the other taxes (social security, sales, property, excise taxes for gas, liquor & cigarettes, etc) are factored,
> studies have shown that most all pay approximately 29-32% of their gross income in taxes
LIke hell they do.
> where the wealthy are actually on the lower end.
Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
> (Ever hear Warren Buffet comment how his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he?)
Irrelevant to the FACT that she pays less tax, stupid.
And the poor that are on benefits or social security etc actually
pay only a small part of their total handout in taxes too.
> Bottom line is that the current tax code is pretty much in balance with respect to being a flat tax
Like hell it is.
> - most all pay a similar amount of total taxes as a percentage of their total income.
Another pig ignorant lie,
> The key here is TOTAL taxes as a percentage of TOTAL income.
Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
> GW pushed the percentage in favor of the top.
Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more taxes, stupid.
> It's time to reverse that pendulum and not focus ONLY on income taxes as Republicans like to do.
Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
William Souden
clams_casino
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>>
>>> You are obviously under the misnomer
>>
>>
>> You need a dictionary.
>
Agreed, I used that word completely incorrectly.
Thanks for the reply - Rod. Having you disagree adds complete validity
to the reply.
Rod Speed
>> You need a dictionary.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
William Souden
> clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>
>>>> You are obviously under the misnomer
>
>>> You need a dictionary.
>
>> Agreed, I used that word completely incorrectly.
>
>> Thanks for the reply - Rod. Having you disagree adds complete validity to the reply.
>
> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>
You know you really got to him when you get the flushing bot.
William Souden
sales fool/ race track bum
Pan
<PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>With McBush, it's likely we will stay in the same pathetic economy that
>we've had for the past 6 years - an ever sinking dollar, creeping
>inflation, more deaths in Iraq, a sagging stock market, etc
Where have you been for the last six years.
Bush inherited a recession from Clinton and 9/11 because of Clinton
not taking Osoma when offered.
The stock market grew for five of those six years
Unemployment dropped, due to tax cuts.
>It was widely shown that GW's initial tax rebates
>(which primarily went to the wealthy) ended up primarily for paying down
>debt - NOT business expansion / investment..
Widely known? I haven't heard that, where did you get your
information. Cite please.
> GW has been all about providing
>welfare for the rich - at the expense of the majority.
The tax cuts to the wealthy created jobs, so the poor didn't need
welfare.
But I agree, too much of my money that I worked for is going to other
people.
>
>So the bottom line ends up that if you feel the president has nothing to
>do with the economy,
He has very little with the economy. And that is widely known!!!!!!!!
>
>If nothing else, you really need to consider the upcoming Supreme
>Court appointments. Actually, that's really the most critical aspect of
>the next election.
And that is why I'm for Mc Cain.
Pan
wrote:
>Funny, I'm a college-educated business owner, and my personal economy
>is
>ALWAYS better when a democrat is in the Oval Office. I cried the day
>Clinton
>left and Shrub mentioned the word "recession" in his inaugural
>address.
>Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone? Crippling national debt, anyone? The
>sooner we throw out the big-gubmint, tax-spend village idiot in
>Washington,
>the better off we'll all be.
You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
And there was a recession when Clinton left, two quartets of negative
growth, which we have not had under Bush
And yes, Bush is a big spender,(which pissed me off) , but Oboma will
spend more, and tax more. So if you think that Government can spend
your money more wisely then you can, vote Dem.
Pan
<PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>Bottom line is that the current tax code is pretty much in balance with
>respect to being a flat tax - most all pay a similar amount of total
>taxes as a percentage of their total income. The key here is TOTAL
>taxes as a percentage of TOTAL income. GW pushed the percentage in
>favor of the top. It's time to reverse that pendulum and not focus
>ONLY on income taxes as Republicans like to do.
>
Just where do you get this information.
The poor with the section 8 housing, free health care, welfare
payments,child credits & rebates pay a negative percentage of their
income.
clams_casino
>O
>
>
>Where have you been for the last six years.
>Bush inherited a recession from Clinton
>
Huh? From what I recall, the 2001 recession started when business &
investors flocked to bonds & CDs while reducing business expansion upon
his election - fear of GW leadership.
and 9/11 because of Clinton
>not taking Osoma when offered.
>
>
What did that have to do with the Iraq invasion?
>The stock market grew for five of those six years
>Unemployment dropped, due to tax cuts.
>
>
>
>
Hello - the stock market indices are essentially where they were when GW
was appointed office. Hoe's your Roth? Making any profits?
>>It was widely shown that GW's initial tax rebates
>>(which primarily went to the wealthy) ended up primarily for paying down
>>debt - NOT business expansion / investment..
>>
>>
>
>Widely known? I haven't heard that, where did you get your
>information. Cite please.
>
>
http://www.nber.org/papers/w8672 is one of many.
>
>
>
>>GW has been all about providing
>>welfare for the rich - at the expense of the majority.
>>
>>
>
>The tax cuts to the wealthy created jobs, so the poor didn't need
>welfare.
>
>
>
What jobs? The housing industry was the most significant part of the
job growth over the past six years and that had more to do with the Fed
lowering borrowing rates in a desperate attempt to bail out GW's poor
leadership.
>
>
>>So the bottom line ends up that if you feel the president has nothing to
>>do with the economy,
>>
>>
>He has very little with the economy. And that is widely known!!!!!!!!
>
>
Huh? The president has everything to due with the economy. He sets
the stage - business & investors react accordingly. Granted, it's
mostly perception, but when the outlook looks poor, savvy investors
invest less, individuals spend less, business es don't expand. Under
Clinton, most thought the party would never end - the economy grew
accordingly. Under GW, it's been doom & gloom - poor expectations, etc.
>>If nothing else, you really need to consider the upcoming Supreme
>>Court appointments. Actually, that's really the most critical aspect of
>>the next election.
>>
>>
>And that is why I'm for Mc Cain.
>
>
If more government intervention is your hope (reduced freedoms, women as
chattel, etc), a continuing declining dollar / inflation and more
international isolation is desired, I can see where McBush is your man..
clams_casino
>On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:24:06 -0700 (PDT), tmc...@searchmachine.com
>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Funny, I'm a college-educated business owner, and my personal economy
>>is
>>ALWAYS better when a democrat is in the Oval Office. I cried the day
>>Clinton
>>left and Shrub mentioned the word "recession" in his inaugural
>>address.
>>Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone? Crippling national debt, anyone? The
>>sooner we throw out the big-gubmint, tax-spend village idiot in
>>Washington,
>>the better off we'll all be.
>>
>>
>
>You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>
>
Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly unlikely you are
better off today vs. 10 years ago.
>And there was a recession when Clinton left, two quartets of negative
>growth, which we have not had under Bush
>
>
Do you make up all your facts?
>And yes, Bush is a big spender,(which pissed me off) , but Oboma will
>spend more, and tax more. So if you think that Government can spend
>your money more wisely then you can, vote Dem.
>
>
While I'd like to see reduced government spending (and borrowing), it'll
likely be spent more wisely with Obama than GW has or McBush promises.
Key will be to revive the US dollar & change the attitude / perception
from doom & gloom to hope / prosperity. Improved international
relations can play a significant factor. Pissing off allies has not
been effective.
clams_casino
which is a very small portion of the total, essentially balanced out by
the relatively few wealthy who pay little no no income taxes.
Personally, I get much more welfare than those you are describing
through the significant subsidies I (and many others) enjoy through
generous deductions of mortgage interest, property taxes and a very
generous, essentially tax free medical coverage. I do pay a
significant amount of taxes, but without these generous subsidies, I'd
never have been able to afford my more-than-adequate home which has
appreciated significantly in value over the years (in site of the recent
crash), where the proceeds are .... tax free.
sf
<PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>If more government intervention is your hope (reduced freedoms, women as
>chattel, etc), a continuing declining dollar / inflation and more
>international isolation is desired, I can see where McBush is your man..
I think you'll appreciate this one, if you haven't already seen it.
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/
Peter, I removed the xpost to rec.food.cooking because I haven't
noticed you posting there before this thread. My apologies to
everyone else here, but this is what happens when posters don't use a
valid return address.
--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.
Mae West
clams_casino
>On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:04:50 -0400, clams_casino
><PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>If more government intervention is your hope (reduced freedoms, women as
>>chattel, etc), a continuing declining dollar / inflation and more
>>international isolation is desired, I can see where McBush is your man..
>>
>>
>
>I think you'll appreciate this one, if you haven't already seen it.
>http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/
>
>
>
>
>
Priceless - does sum it up..
Rod Speed
> Pan wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:02:26 -0400, clams_casino
>> <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Bottom line is that the current tax code is pretty much in balance
>>> with respect to being a flat tax - most all pay a similar amount of
>>> total taxes as a percentage of their total income. The key here is
>>> TOTAL taxes as a percentage of TOTAL income. GW pushed the
>>> percentage in favor of the top. It's time to reverse that
>>> pendulum and not focus ONLY on income taxes as Republicans like to
>>> do.
>> Just where do you get this information.
>> The poor with the section 8 housing, free health care, welfare
>> payments,child credits & rebates pay a negative percentage of their
>> income.
> which is a very small portion of the total,
Wrong, as always.
> essentially balanced out by the relatively few wealthy who pay little no no income taxes.
Wrong, as always.
> Personally, I get much more welfare than those you are describing
> through the significant subsidies I (and many others) enjoy through
> generous deductions of mortgage interest, property taxes and a very
> generous, essentially tax free medical coverage. I do pay a
> significant amount of taxes, but without these generous subsidies, I'd
> never have been able to afford my more-than-adequate home which has
> appreciated significantly in value over the years (in site of the
> recent crash), where the proceeds are .... tax free.
Irrelevant to that stupid claim you made about most all paying the same flat tax.
Thats a bare faced pig ignorant lie.
max
Pan <oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:23:46 -0400, clams_casino
> <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >With McBush, it's likely we will stay in the same pathetic economy that
> >we've had for the past 6 years - an ever sinking dollar, creeping
> >inflation, more deaths in Iraq, a sagging stock market, etc
>
> Where have you been for the last six years.
> Bush inherited a recession from Clinton and 9/11 because of Clinton
> not taking Osoma when offered.
*You* *People* didn't believe for one microsecond that Osama was a
threat and you lost forever the moral right to criticize when you first
uttered the words "wag the dog".
.max
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
tmc...@searchmachine.com
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:24:06 -0700 (PDT), tmcl...@searchmachine.com
NO. My taxes were lower under Clinton. Two "quartets"? Did you mean
"quarters"? Moron. And no, there were NO quarters of negative growth
under
Clinton, at least not for those of us who actually produce a product.
I made
more money undre Clinton, so obviously my clients did
as well. There was NO RECESSION when Clinton left, and there
was
no hint AT ALL that one might be coming until doofus shrub-boy
mentioned it
in his inaugural. The gubmint had a SURPLUS!
Any yes, I KNOW the Democrats can spend INFINITELY more
wisely than the Repugnants so I will vote DEM, since the Libertarians
(which I actually am) can never win. Libertarians require people to be
self-reliant, so they will NEVER win. Most people don't want to
actually
take responsibility for their own lives. The Repugnants have ruined
this
country, as they always do. Only stupid people vote for them, and,
unfortunately, most people are stunning stupid, as you are, obviously.
You
seem to think the Repugs can spend my money more wisely than I can.
MORON!!!
Plonk.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
news:gC1lk.7821$Bt6....@newsfe04.iad...
> Pan wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:02:26 -0400, clams_casino
>><PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Bottom line is that the current tax code is pretty much in balance with
>>>respect to being a flat tax - most all pay a similar amount of total
>>>taxes as a percentage of their total income. The key here is TOTAL taxes
>>>as a percentage of TOTAL income. GW pushed the percentage in favor of
>>>the top. It's time to reverse that pendulum and not focus ONLY on
>>>income taxes as Republicans like to do.
>>>
>>>
>>Just where do you get this information.
>>The poor with the section 8 housing, free health care, welfare
>>payments,child credits & rebates pay a negative percentage of their
>>income.
>>
>
> which is a very small portion of the total, essentially balanced out by
> the relatively few wealthy who pay little no no income taxes.
among them the always worthless ted kennedy.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
news:9498ad8e-6649-4688...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 2, 1:35 pm, Pan <o...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:24:06 -0700 (PDT), tmcl...@searchmachine.com
> wrote:
>
> >Funny, I'm a college-educated business owner, and my personal economy
> >is
> >ALWAYS better when a democrat is in the Oval Office. I cried the day
> >Clinton
> >left and Shrub mentioned the word "recession" in his inaugural
> >address.
> >Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone? Crippling national debt, anyone? The
> >sooner we throw out the big-gubmint, tax-spend village idiot in
> >Washington,
> >the better off we'll all be.
>
> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
> And there was a recession when Clinton left, two quartets of negative
> growth, which we have not had under Bush
> And yes, Bush is a big spender,(which pissed me off) , but Oboma will
> spend more, and tax more. So if you think that Government can spend
> your money more wisely then you can, vote Dem.
NO. My taxes were lower under Clinton. Two "quartets"? Did you mean
"quarters"? Moron. And no, there were NO quarters of negative growth
well, the "t" is right next to the "r", and ya know what it means when
you start picking on spelling on usenet.
under
Clinton, at least not for those of us who actually produce a product.
I made
more money undre Clinton, so obviously my clients did
as well. There was NO RECESSION when Clinton left, and there
was
no hint AT ALL that one might be coming until doofus shrub-boy
mentioned it
in his inaugural. The gubmint had a SURPLUS!
not a real one. a real one would involve actually having the money
on hand, not just a promise of money to come when the analog tv spectrum
was sold. because that's how he got to declare a surplus. figures lie
and liars figure.
CurlyQue
The power brokers have us right where they want us....polarized masses
weakened and distracted by fighting amongst ourselves while they merrily
screw the shit out of all of us
United we stand, divided we fall.
Curly
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
news:C9idnTuwpINUCQjV...@centurytel.net...
and how can we all get united when we're divided up with hyphens?
Pan
<PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>
>Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly unlikely you are
>better off today vs. 10 years ago.
I'm hardly in the top 1% and yes I am better off.
My stocks made money up until this year. And the market will recover.
> Improved international
>relations can play a significant factor. Pissing off allies has not
>been effective.
They will become friendly again as soon as they need money, or
protection.
Pan
wrote:
>NO. My taxes were lower under Clinton.
How did you do that? Bushes tax cuts reduced all tax levels.
> Two "quartets"? Did you mean
>"quarters"? Moron. And no, there were NO quarters of negative growth
Ah the sign of intelligence, go right for the personal attack.
>The gubmint had a SURPLUS!
You mean the he had eliminated all of the national debt, and had money
left over? That he did not raise money from a one time sale.
>
>Any yes, I KNOW the Democrats can spend INFINITELY more
>wisely than the Repugnants
But can they spend your money more wisely then you can.
>libertanrians take responsibility for their own lives.
But you think that Dems will interfere less in your life then the GOP?
Pan
<PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>Just where do you get this information.
>>The poor with the section 8 housing, free health care, welfare
>>payments,child credits & rebates pay a negative percentage of their
>>income.
>>
>>
>
>which is a very small portion of the total, essentially balanced out by
>the relatively few wealthy who pay little no no income taxes.
And this has what to do with what we were talking about?
>
>
>Personally, I get much more welfare than those you are describing
>through the significant subsidies I (and many others) enjoy through
>generous deductions of mortgage interest, property taxes and a very
>generous, essentially tax free medical coverage. I do pay a
>significant amount of taxes, but without these generous subsidies, I'd
>never have been able to afford my more-than-adequate home which has
>appreciated significantly in value over the years (in site of the recent
>crash), where the proceeds are .... tax free.
Let me try to explain again, do you pay taxes?
The people getting welfare, get more money from the govt. then they
pay in taxes. there fore they have a negative tax burden.
And the proceeds from the appreciation on your home is tax free ?
Wait until you sell. The appreciation is not tax free, it is tax
deferred.
>
Pan
<PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>Huh? From what I recall, the 2001 recession started when business &
>investors flocked to bonds & CDs while reducing business expansion upon
>his election - fear of GW leadership.
You go to bonds and CDs after you see indications of a depression.
Not because of election.
>
>and 9/11 because of Clinton
>
>>not taking Osoma when offered.
>
>What did that have to do with the Iraq invasion?
Who was talking about the Iraq war? That started more then a year into
Bush's term.
>>The stock market grew for five of those six years
>>Unemployment dropped, due to tax cuts.
>
>Hello - the stock market indices are essentially where they were when GW
>was appointed office. Hoe's your Roth? Making any profits?
Yes I took money out before the housing crash, and am now waiting for
the market to rebound.
>
>>>It was widely shown that GW's initial tax rebates
>>>(which primarily went to the wealthy) ended up primarily for paying down
>>>debt - NOT business expansion / investment..
>>Widely known? I haven't heard that, where did you get your
>>information. Cite please.
>
>http://www.nber.org/papers/w8672 is one of many.
You better read that again, that is about the new 10% bracket. mainly
poor people. And they got a rebate.
>>
>>
>>>GW has been all about providing
>>>welfare for the rich - at the expense of the majority.
All tax levels received a tax cut under Bush's tax cuts. Yes the
wealthy got bigger cut, (not percentage wise) because they paid more
tax's.
Pan
wrote:
>*You* *People* didn't believe for one microsecond that Osama was a
>threat and you lost forever the moral right to criticize when you first
>uttered the words "wag the dog".
>
>.max
Well Max I don't know who "you people" are but, wag the dog, had
nothing to do with Osama.
cybercat
"Pan" <oh...@hotmail.com> wrote
> All tax levels received a tax cut under Bush's tax cuts. Yes the
> wealthy got bigger cut, (not percentage wise) because they paid more
> tax's.
Aww, isn't that sweet. Pan attended the G. W. Bush School of punctuation.
Marsha
> Aww, isn't that sweet. Pan attended the G. W. Bush School of punctuation.
>
That's the best you can come up with? Your credibility just dropped to -50.
Marsha/Ohio
cybercat
"Marsha" <m...@xeb.net> wrote in message news:g75rbp$6ab$1...@news.datemas.de...
And coming from you, that really shatters me.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
clams_casino
>
>And the proceeds from the appreciation on your home is tax free ?
>Wait until you sell. The appreciation is not tax free, it is tax
>deferred.
>
>
Once again, we really have no clue, do you?
Still making up "facts".......... No wonder you're for McBush.
bye -
clams_casino
>On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:23:46 -0400, clams_casino
><PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>>With McBush, it's likely we will stay in the same pathetic economy that
>>we've had for the past 6 years - an ever sinking dollar, creeping
>>inflation, more deaths in Iraq, a sagging stock market, etc
>>
>>
>
>Where have you been for the last six years.
>
>
CurlyQue
I don't get it. What do you mean?
Curly
T
oh...@hotmail.com says...
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:13:45 -0400, clams_casino
> <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
> >
> >Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly unlikely you are
> >better off today vs. 10 years ago.
>
> I'm hardly in the top 1% and yes I am better off.
> My stocks made money up until this year. And the market will recover.
Wow, you're pretty optimistic.
The economy as a whole is screwed. If you hadn't noticed the
unemployment rate is being reported as 5.7% or so which in reality
translates to 2 to 3 times that number since that particular statistic
only records NEW filings.
Then of course there are the energy prices. Unless you've been hiding
under a rock, you can't have missed that your electric rates probably
went up by about 20% and gasoline and oil have gone stratospheric.
Energy costs impact food costs.
Communities are crumbling because of the mortgage crisis.
And people still believe we're just heading into a recession. I have
news for you, we're heading into a depression but nobody wants to say it
because of the panic it would cause. We've now seen 8 bank failures in
the last two weeks which is interesting in itself. I predict that BofA
will be the first big bank to fail.
tmc...@searchmachine.com
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:24:06 -0700 (PDT), tmcl...@searchmachine.com
> wrote:
>
> >Funny, I'm a college-educated business owner, and my personal economy
> >is
> >ALWAYS better when a democrat is in the Oval Office. I cried the day
> >Clinton
> >left and Shrub mentioned the word "recession" in his inaugural
> >address.
> >Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone? Crippling national debt, anyone? The
> >sooner we throw out the big-gubmint, tax-spend village idiot in
> >Washington,
> >the better off we'll all be.
>
Umm, no. I did better under Clinton because while my income was
higher, my
taxes were lower. I have no idea why, but as my income drops, my taxes
go
up. For example, in 2007 I made about $4k less than in 2006, but paid
$1k
more in taxes, with the same deductions. My income is less than half
it was
under Clinton, and yet I pay about the same $ amount in taxes. Under
Clinton
I paid 18% of my income in taxes and now it's closer to 30%. And I
don't
make even close to middle 5 figures anymore. If the economy doesn't
improve
so that my customers have some money to spend, I will have to close my
doors. The Regugnant Party has to go, and the sooner, the better.
max
Pan <oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Let me ask the SECDEF to explain
from <http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/>
-------
The attack was launched on the same day Lewinsky, a former White House
intern, wrapped up her testimony before a grand jury investigating
whether Clinton lied under oath about their relationship or encouraged
anyone else to do so.
"During that time when the attack was launched in Afghanistan and Sudan,
there was a movie out called 'Wag the Dog,' " Cohen testified Tuesday.
In the movie, an administration launched a fake war as a political ploy.
"There were critics of the Clinton administration that attacked the
president, saying this was an effort on his part to divert attention
from his personal difficulties."
-------
Now go ahead and tell us you didn't use the phrase "wag the dog" in
specific reference to clinton's military ops. We both know you did.
clams_casino
>On Aug 2, 1:35 pm, Pan <o...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:24:06 -0700 (PDT), tmcl...@searchmachine.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Funny, I'm a college-educated business owner, and my personal economy
>>>is
>>>ALWAYS better when a democrat is in the Oval Office. I cried the day
>>>Clinton
>>>left and Shrub mentioned the word "recession" in his inaugural
>>>address.
>>>Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone? Crippling national debt, anyone? The
>>>sooner we throw out the big-gubmint, tax-spend village idiot in
>>>Washington,
>>>the better off we'll all be.
>>>
>>>
>>You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>>
>>
>
>Umm, no. I did better under Clinton because while my income was
>higher, my
>taxes were lower.
>
I'm paying much less tax under Bush - of course my income has dropped
significantly...................
Rod Speed
> oh...@hotmail.com wrote
>> clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>>>> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>>> Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly
>>> unlikely you are better off today vs. 10 years ago.
>> I'm hardly in the top 1% and yes I am better off.
>> My stocks made money up until this year. And the market will recover.
> Wow, you're pretty optimistic.
Nope, completely realistic. The market recovered even after great depression.
> The economy as a whole is screwed.
Pig ignorant lie.
> If you hadn't noticed the unemployment rate is being reported as 5.7% or so
Plenty of countrys would kill for that rate.
> which in reality translates to 2 to 3 times that number
> since that particular statistic only records NEW filings.
Pig ignorant lie.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
> Then of course there are the energy prices.
We've had higher real energy prices in the 70s and survived them fine.
> Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you can't have missed
> that your electric rates probably went up by about 20%
Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.
> and gasoline and oil have gone stratospheric.
You wouldnt know what a real straophere was if one bit you on your lard arse.
> Energy costs impact food costs.
They did in the 70s too and we survived that fine.
> Communities are crumbling because of the mortgage crisis.
Another lie. And we had the same claim about the S&L fiasco too and survived that fine.
> And people still believe we're just heading into a recession.
> I have news for you, we're heading into a depression
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
And we survived the last one fine, and can survive another one fine too.
It wouldnt even be as hard to survive as the last one was.
> but nobody wants to say it because of the panic it would cause.
> We've now seen 8 bank failures in the last two weeks which is interesting in itself.
And those with deposits in them have had their deposits federally guaranteed.
> I predict that BofA will be the first big bank to fail.
It wont be allowed to fail, you watch.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
african-american; mexican-american; polish-amercan; italian-american, etc.
all about turning us in to tribes so we can fight it out.
Marsha
> tmc...@searchmachine.com wrote:
>> Umm, no. I did better under Clinton because while my income was
>> higher, my taxes were lower.
>
>
>
> I'm paying much less tax under Bush - of course my income has dropped
> significantly...................
Aren't you retired? My taxes are much lower and my income is higher.
Marsha/Ohio
tmc...@searchmachine.com
> clams_casino wrote:
I'm most certainly not retired. My taxes are much higher under Bush
and my
income much lower, like most people.
Marsha
That was addressed to Clams. Sorry if there was any confusion.
Marsha/Ohio
clams_casino
Yes, but my stock returns have been pathetic over the past six years -
taxes are lower, but primarily because there has been no positive
(overall) return.
Fortunately, I made enough in the 80's - 90's to take a very early
retirement. Unfortunately, we are having to make some substantial
adjustments so we don't run out of funds.
Pan
Sorry I didn't get this response, You will have to explain.
Pan
wrote:
>> >*You* *People* didn't believe for one microsecond that Osama was a
>> >threat and you lost forever the moral right to criticize when you first
>> >uttered the words "wag the dog".
>> >
>> >.max
>>
>> Well Max I don't know who "you people" are but, wag the dog, had
>> nothing to do with Osama.
>
>Let me ask the SECDEF to explain
>
>from <http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/>
>
>-------
>The attack was launched on the same day Lewinsky, a former White House
>intern, wrapped up her testimony before a grand jury investigating
>whether Clinton lied under oath about their relationship or encouraged
>anyone else to do so.
>
>"During that time when the attack was launched in Afghanistan and Sudan,
>there was a movie out called 'Wag the Dog,' " Cohen testified Tuesday.
>In the movie, an administration launched a fake war as a political ploy.
>"There were critics of the Clinton administration that attacked the
>president, saying this was an effort on his part to divert attention
>from his personal difficulties."
>-------
>
>Now go ahead and tell us you didn't use the phrase "wag the dog" in
>specific reference to clinton's military ops. We both know you did.
>
>max
You know, I understand the reference "wag the dog". And the reason
that the reference was made was that there was no intelligence that
Osama was even near the chemical weapons factory, that turned out to
be a dry milk factory.
Pan
wrote:
>Wow, you're pretty optimistic.
Yes I am. I have been thru rough times before and it always improves.
Think Carter years.
>
>The economy as a whole is screwed. If you hadn't noticed the
>unemployment rate is being reported as 5.7% or so which in reality
>translates to 2 to 3 times that number since that particular statistic
>only records NEW filings.
Full employment definition from the Dems is 6%. Illegal's make up
about 5% of the work force, and the bad economy is forcing them to
leave.
>
>Then of course there are the energy prices. Unless you've been hiding
>under a rock, you can't have missed that your electric rates probably
>went up by about 20% and gasoline and oil have gone stratospheric.
Yes your right, but as you can see, the restriction on off shore
drilling, will be lifted, and more oil will flow.
>Energy costs impact food costs.
Wheat supply's are at record high levels, corn prices are high because
of govt. mandated etoh.
>
>Communities are crumbling because of the mortgage crisis.>
Less the 1% of home are in default.
>And people still believe we're just heading into a recession. I have
>news for you, we're heading into a depression but nobody wants to say it
>because of the panic it would cause. We've now seen 8 bank failures in
>the last two weeks which is interesting in itself. I predict that BofA
>will be the first big bank to fail.
No sign of recession much less a depression. The growth rate is at a
low rate of 2% , but it is growth.
Pan
wrote:
>> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>
>Umm, no. I did better under Clinton because while my income was
>higher, my
>taxes were lower. I have no idea why, but as my income drops, my taxes
>go
>up. For example, in 2007 I made about $4k less than in 2006, but paid
>$1k
>more in taxes, with the same deductions. My income is less than half
>it was
>under Clinton, and yet I pay about the same $ amount in taxes. Under
>Clinton
>I paid 18% of my income in taxes and now it's closer to 30%. And I
>don't
>make even close to middle 5 figures anymore. If the economy doesn't
>improve
>so that my customers have some money to spend, I will have to close my
>doors. The Regugnant Party has to go, and the sooner, the better.
So with a tax rate lowered 10%, by Bush, you paid more tax, with the
same circumstances?
Something's wrong.
cybercat
"Marsha" <m...@xeb.net> wrote in message news:g787jg$egl$3...@news.datemas.de...
Marsha. This is USENET. Every post is just out there, fair game. You
simple-minded Befuddlican piece of shit.
Do you cook?
clams_casino
>
>
>
>>Communities are crumbling because of the mortgage crisis.>
>>
>>
>Less the 1% of home are in default.
>
>
Making up your own statistics again. Denial or ignorance?
nearly 1% of homes are currently in foreclosure - over 6% of mortgages
are in default.
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008806060399 -
"U.S. home foreclosures and late mortgage payments set records over the
first three months of the year"
>
>
>>And people still believe we're just heading into a recession. I have
>>news for you, we're heading into a depression but nobody wants to say it
>>because of the panic it would cause. We've now seen 8 bank failures in
>>the last two weeks which is interesting in itself. I predict that BofA
>>will be the first big bank to fail.
>>
>>
>
>No sign of recession much less a depression. The growth rate is at a
>low rate of 2% , but it is growth.
>
>
making up data again?
Current ESTIMATED GDP is 2% where such figures are typically revised
after 3-6 months. Estimated 1st quarter was 0.9%.
The actual GPD was eventually revised down in each of the previous three
years.
4th quarter 2007 was recently revised down (once again) to a negative 0.2%.
Sure is easy to be a McBush supporter when you make up "facts".
clams_casino
http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20070212_taxfreehom.htm
Since 1997, up to $500k gain is tax free when selling each primary
residence (can be repeated on consecutive homes).
Guess that was another tax increase by Clinton?
cybercat
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6fpb0uF...@mid.individual.net...
Do you think you ignorant Republican motherfuckers could please piss off?
clams_casino
>In article <avjc94du1k79gn7fj...@4ax.com>,
>oh...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>>On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:13:45 -0400, clams_casino
>><PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly unlikely you are
>>>better off today vs. 10 years ago.
>>>
>>>
>>I'm hardly in the top 1% and yes I am better off.
>>My stocks made money up until this year. And the market will recover.
>>
>>
>
>Wow, you're pretty optimistic.
>
>The economy as a whole is screwed. If you hadn't noticed the
>unemployment rate is being reported as 5.7% or so which in reality
>translates to 2 to 3 times that number since that particular statistic
>only records NEW filings.
>
>
>
According to a recent Forbes article, " The misery index - the sum of
the inflation and unemployment rates - is at a 15-year high, with no
relief in sight."
According to CNNMoney, "planned job cuts announced by employers in July
jumped 26% to 103,312 from 81,755 announced in June. That's up 141% from
a year ago, when employers announced planned job cuts totaling 42,897."
According to the US Dept Labor - July 2008, " Over the past 12 months,
the number of unemployed persons has increased by 1.6 million" -
July was the seventh straight month of job losses.
blake murphy
> T <nospa...@cox.nospam.net> wrote
>> oh...@hotmail.com wrote
>>> clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>
>>>>> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>
>>>> Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly
>>>> unlikely you are better off today vs. 10 years ago.
>
>>> I'm hardly in the top 1% and yes I am better off.
>>> My stocks made money up until this year. And the market will recover.
>
>> Wow, you're pretty optimistic.
>
> Nope, completely realistic. The market recovered even after great depression.
>
yep, all we gotta do is wait ten years and start a world war. oh, wait,
bush has already started on the latter.
prosperity is just around the corner!
your pal,
blake
Pan
wrote:
>Do you think you ignorant Republican motherfuckers could please piss off?
>
Well I could piss off of any thing you want.
As to being a motherfucker, yes I am, and what's your mothers name?
As you can see any one can be crude & ignorant, now did that make you
feel better?
And I will stay here as long as I want.
Pan
<blakepm...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> The market recovered even after great depression.
>>
>
>yep, all we gotta do is wait ten years and start a world war. oh, wait,
>bush has already started on the latter.
>
>prosperity is just around the corner!
>
>your pal,
>blake
Is that your entire repertoire, Bush hate?
And Roosevelt's actions are now considered to have lengthen the
recovery.
cybercat
"Pan" <oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o68h94d2id4qo715m...@4ax.com...
It was just a request. I even said "please."
Rod Speed
You wouldnt know what a real Republican motherfucker was if one bit you on your lard arse, child.
Rod Speed
Fuck off. No please, thats an order.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> T <nospa...@cox.nospam.net> wrote
>>> oh...@hotmail.com wrote
>>>> clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>>>>>> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>>>>> Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly
>>>>> unlikely you are better off today vs. 10 years ago.
>>>> I'm hardly in the top 1% and yes I am better off.
>>>> My stocks made money up until this year. And the market will recover.
>>> Wow, you're pretty optimistic.
>> Nope, completely realistic. The market recovered even after great depression.
> yep, all we gotta do is wait ten years and start a world war.
The US didnt start a world war, and the market recovered
in a lot less than 10 years too, you stupid pig ignorant child.
> oh, wait, bush has already started on the latter.
Pity the market hadnt tanked when he did, child.
> prosperity is just around the corner!
You wouldnt know what real prosperity was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.
Rod Speed
> T wrote
>> oh...@hotmail.com wrote
>>> clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>>>>> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>>>> Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly unlikely you are better off today vs. 10 years ago.
>>> I'm hardly in the top 1% and yes I am better off.
>>> My stocks made money up until this year. And the market will recover.
>> Wow, you're pretty optimistic.
>> The economy as a whole is screwed. If you hadn't noticed the unemployment rate is being reported as 5.7% or so which
>> in reality translates to 2 to 3 times that number since that particular statistic only records NEW filings.
Pig ignorant lie.
> According to a recent Forbes article, " The misery index - the sum of the inflation and unemployment rates - is at a
> 15-year high, with no relief in sight."
Do the decent thing and hang yourself or sumfin.
> According to CNNMoney, "planned job cuts announced by employers in July jumped 26% to 103,312 from 81,755 announced in
> June. That's up 141% from a year ago, when employers announced planned job cuts totaling 42,897."
A fart in the bath in total employment.
> According to the US Dept Labor - July 2008, " Over the past 12 months,
> the number of unemployed persons has increased by 1.6 million" -
And the unemployment rate isnt even 6%
> July was the seventh straight month of job losses.
And the unemployment rate isnt even 6%
cybercat
My favorite part is "Pig Ignorant Lie." You so eloquent.
cybercat
There's the "H" word again! Remember, Blake, if you don't like W you HATE
AMERICA.
What's a little unnecessary economic depression? A few million lives ruined,
some suicides, come on Man, it's the American Way!
Gregory Morrow
cybercat wrote:
Wow, you reply to "Rod Speed"? He's prolly the single most - killfiled
poster on Usenet...
More proof that you are indeed a clueless noob...or mebbe just a "boob".
--
Best
Greg
" I find Greg Morrow lowbrow, witless, and obnoxious. For him to claim that
we are some
kind of comedy team turns my stomach."
- "cybercat" to me on rec.food.cooking
Gregory Morrow
cybercat wrote:
> "Pan" <oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:nh8h945nrii57sm2u...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:24:41 GMT, blake murphy
> > <blakepm...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> The market recovered even after great depression.
> >>>
> >>
> >>yep, all we gotta do is wait ten years and start a world war. oh, wait,
> >>bush has already started on the latter.
> >>
> >>prosperity is just around the corner!
> >>
> >>your pal,
> >>blake
> >
> > Is that your entire repertoire, Bush hate?
> >
> > And Roosevelt's actions are now considered to have lengthen the
> > recovery.
>
> There's the "H" word again! Remember, Blake, if you don't like W you HATE
> AMERICA.
Yup...you LIEberals HATE America and everything it stands for,
cyberpussie...
> What's a little unnecessary economic depression? A few million lives
ruined,
> some suicides, come on Man, it's the American Way!
The more miserable things are, the *happier* you are..."bad news" gives you
something to "cheer" about...natcherly that's the leftist way.
I bet you and blake laff yer asses off when one of our troops gets killed in
Iraq or Afghanistan...
Did you and blake snicker about "evil" and "imperialist" America when 9/11
happened, reasoning that we "deserved" it? I bet so...
Or instead of referring to you as "cybercat and blake" maybe we could refer
to your comedy act as "Fred and Ethel 'Rosenberg' ", hmmm...???
And FYI there is no "depression"...in fact there's not even a
*recession*...most folks are doing just fine...doesn't that just PISS you
off, cyberschadenfreude...???
William Souden
welfare bot can say is "Irrelevant" or "bullshit":
In the US if you are unemployed during a reporting period but simply
scan ads without applying for a job you are not considered to be
unemployed during that period.
The major part of unemployment comes from people registering at state
employment offices,something one needs to do when they are getting
unemployment benefits. Since most jobs at those offices are the bottom
of the barrel many stop registering when benefits run out.
For the last few years the weekly number of new jobless claims has
regularly exceeded the monthly number of jobs created.
But why would an Australian welfare leech know anything about U.S. jobs?
William Souden
sales fool/race track bum.
T
cyber...@yahoo.com says...
I love the United States of America and hate what the Shrub is doing to
it. I also don't want to see McCain as president.
I've seen McCain take un-vetted questions and he strikes me as an
Alzheimers sufferer. His short term memory is definitely showing a
deficit.
Do we really want someone like that with their finger on the button?
Rod Speed
You in spades, child.
cybercat
Rod Speed
You're lying, as always.
> In the US if you are unemployed during a reporting period but simply scan ads without applying for a job you are not
> considered to be unemployed during that period.
You're lying, as always.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
> The major part of unemployment comes from people registering at
> state employment offices,something one needs to do when they are
> getting unemployment benefits. Since most jobs at those offices are
> the bottom of the barrel many stop registering when benefits run out.
You're lying, as always.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
> For the last few years the weekly number of new jobless claims has regularly exceeded the monthly number of jobs
> created.
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. Thats only happened quite recently.
cybercat
Now then, I realize you're bitter because you're looking at EIGHT years of
Democratic administrations, but if we could take EIGHT years of the First
Chimp, you can take eight years of our guy.
And even if you can't, you have to.
*cackle*
William Souden
From the very link you posted,welfare boy:
Passive methods of jobsearch do not result in jobseekers actually
contacting potential employers, and therefore are not acceptable for
classifying persons as unemployed. These would include such things as
attending a job training program or course or merely reading the want ads.
>
>> The major part of unemployment comes from people registering at
>> state employment offices,something one needs to do when they are
>> getting unemployment benefits. Since most jobs at those offices are
>> the bottom of the barrel many stop registering when benefits run out.
>
> You're lying, as always.
> http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>
>> For the last few years the weekly number of new jobless claims has regularly exceeded the monthly number of jobs
>> created.
>
> Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. Thats only happened quite recently.
>
>
http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/24/news/economy/jobless_claims/index.htm
February 24, 2005: 9:05 AM EST
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Weekly jobless claims rose last week, the
government said Thursday in reporting a figure that was higher than
forecasts.
New claims for state unemployment benefits rose to 312,000 in the week
ended Feb. 19 from a revised 303,000 the prior week.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that 262,000 new payroll jobs
were created in February 2005. Since May 2003, the economy has created
over 3 million jobs. We have seen steady jobs gains for each of the
last twenty-one months - and more Americans are working than ever before.