A Liberal Supermajority - Kiss Your 401K Goodbye
TianM...@gmail.com
the Presidential elections. The closer we get to election day the
market indicies more closely reflect the polls. When ObaMao is up the
market indicies collapse...
_______________________________________________________
A Liberal Supermajority - Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since
1965, or 1933.
If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on
November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional
majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to
it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like
the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.
APThough we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the
most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history.
Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't
since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the
restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor
in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked
left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they
will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.
The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year
or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that
the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation,
not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause
the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a
vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very
good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.
- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats
concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into
smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly
Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the
path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.
Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after
Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin
Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan
would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to
the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this
would never be repealed.
The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm.
But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government
options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or
both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has
already said is his ultimate ideal.
- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make,"
Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for
the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the
1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual
hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private
economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but
telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be
investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and
Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target
list.
The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last
longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like
Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for
instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.
- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is
"card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming
only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to
trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the
1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into
union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of
employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed
such a petition.
The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in
an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed
negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union
whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-
union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner
Act of 1935.
- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how
high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains
rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new
investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate
the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and
Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension
insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It
would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax
rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.
- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of
climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand
Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of
carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the
energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and
millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new
global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a
filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less
ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.
- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move
quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic
rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-
day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others
on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to
stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes
in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.
Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness
Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama
FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk
radio and other voices of political opposition.
- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child
Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education
Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits
on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law
limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled
throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be
rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which
probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and
MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet
to intrusive regulation for the first time.
It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would
temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in
1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out
that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to
support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved
sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill
Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's
BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.
In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of
government that have never been repealed, and the current financial
panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays
of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know
they may get far more than they ever imagined.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
mordacp...@hotmail.com
> The current stock market volotility is caused by the uncertainty of
> the Presidential elections.
You're a fucking idiot.
The reason is because Americans don't have any money to spend, the
corruption of Wall Street and the free spending Repugs in the last 8
years.
And as far as your 401k, you're a fucking moron if you believe you do
better under Repugs.
Invest $10,000 during only republican presidencies for 40 years, you
get $11,733. under Democrats? $300,671
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html?
The stock market prefers Democratic presidents to Republicans. Why?
www.slate.com/?id=2071929
Michael Coburn
> The current stock market volotility is caused by the uncertainty of the
> Presidential elections. The closer we get to election day the market
> indicies more closely reflect the polls. When ObaMao is up the market
> indicies collapse...
> _______________________________________________________
>
> A Liberal Supermajority - Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since
> 1965, or 1933.
>
> If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on
> November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional
> majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it.
> Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the
> House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.
Of Trauma!!!!!!!!!!! Shades of Democracy and government of, for, and by
the people!!!! Holy smokes!!! Martha, hide the kids.
> APThough we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the
> most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals
> would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965,
> or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the
> activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the
> U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy,
> Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting,
> especially with the media cheering it all on.
>
> The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year
> or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that
> the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not
> merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the
> House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote.
> Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good
> chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.
>
> - Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats
> concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into
> smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly
> Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the
> path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.
Yesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss. That is, in fact, what the
majority of the people in this country want.
> Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after
> Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin
> Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would
> shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the
> huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would
> never be repealed.
And we the people will get far more service for every dollar.
> The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm.
> But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government
> options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or
> both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already
> said is his ultimate ideal.
And we the people will end up with more money in our bank accounts and
better health services. No more "protection racket" run by the briefcase
brigade.
> - The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker
> Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the
> financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s,
> with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings
> to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The
> financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom,
> biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be
> investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and
> Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target
> list.
>
> The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last
> longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like
> Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance
> a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.
The spending is what matters you moron. It matters what is done with the
tax proceeds. You monkeys want to sell the bullshit that the money is
burned in a furnace or even worse given to a "welfare queen".
> - Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card
> check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4%
> of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the
> secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The
> "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops
> merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means
> organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.
A charge that is not substantiated in any way. Typical Republican booger
man garbage.
> The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an
> automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed
> negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union
> whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-
> union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner
> Act of 1935.
Yer right! It's punitive. The strong arm crap pulled by Republicans to
break unions MAY BE going to go the other way. It may be the big bucks
employers that eat it this time round. CEO pay has gotten totally out of
hand and it is time for a change.
> - Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how
> high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains
> rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new
> investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the
> cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social
> Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance
> program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also
> impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a
> permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.
All true and very much needed.
> - The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of
> climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand
> Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon
> credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy
> business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs
> would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming
> bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators
> from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal
> liberals who answer to the green elites.
This is the only real issue. The use of these funds needs to be
sequestered and budgeted in very high profile. The people need to know
what is being done with this. My own suggestion is to just send it right
back out the other side in the form of a direct stimulus to the taxpayers
just like the stimulus we recently had.
> - Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move
> quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic
> rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-
> day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on
> the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the
> voter rolls.
You need to splain this one. This is actually an attempt to allow people
to vote. That's all it is.
> The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress
> -- Democratic, naturally.
>
> Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness
> Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC.
> A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio
> and other voices of political opposition.
The major thrust here should be limited to facilitating non frivolous law
suits against political entities masquerading as "NEWS" sources. A
"NEWS" source that is part of the MSM should be held accountable for
lying or distorting the facts by civil suits. At present there is no law
against representing ones self as a NEWS outlet and then lying about
various political happenings. This is not a law that could ever be used
against right wing talk radio. Those are NOT NEWS outlets.
> - Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child
> Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education
> Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on
> arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting
> strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout
> most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the
> end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying
> terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net
> neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for
> the first time.
What a wad of tripe.
> It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper
> some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when
> Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On
> the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a
> filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to
> the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was
> in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and
> modified liberal ambitions are long gone.
>
> In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of
> government that have never been repealed, and the current financial
> panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays
> of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know
> they may get far more than they ever imagined.
On balance, all of this seems fine and dandy. We've had enough
rightardedness to last us about 40 years.
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html?
mod=rss_opinion_main
>
> http://TheRealBarackObama.wordpress.com/
barnegatdx
> On Oct 17, 1:00 pm, TianMei...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The current stock market volotility is caused by the uncertainty of
> > the Presidential elections.
>
> You're a fucking idiot.
>
> The reason is because Americans don't have any money to spend, the
> corruption of Wall Street and the free spending Repugs in the last 8
> years.
>
> And as far as your 401k, you're a fucking moron if you believe you do
> better under Repugs.
>
> Invest $10,000 during only republican presidencies for 40 years, you
Short sale rule..
Wassat?
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortsalerule.asp
"The regulation was passed in 1938 to prevent selling shares short
into a declining market; at the time market mechanisms and liquidity
couldn't be guaranteed to prevent panic share declines or outright
manipulation.
This regulation was rescinded in July 2007 by decree of the SEC; as a
result short sales can occur (where eligible) on any price tick in the
market, whether up or down."
Passed in 1938;
rescinded in 2007
astr...@yahoo.com
TianMei...@gmail.com wrote:
> The current stock market volotility is caused by the uncertainty of
> the Presidential elections. The closer we get to election day the
> market indicies more closely reflect the polls. When ObaMao is up the
> market indicies collapse...
die you scumbag worthless fucking piece of shit
Brenda Ann
"Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gdb1v...@news5.newsguy.com...
>> Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness
>> Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC.
>> A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio
>> and other voices of political opposition.
>
> The major thrust here should be limited to facilitating non frivolous law
> suits against political entities masquerading as "NEWS" sources. A
> "NEWS" source that is part of the MSM should be held accountable for
> lying or distorting the facts by civil suits. At present there is no law
> against representing ones self as a NEWS outlet and then lying about
> various political happenings. This is not a law that could ever be used
> against right wing talk radio. Those are NOT NEWS outlets.
What is never mentioned by the Chicken Little's of the right wing talk shows
is that the vast majority of radio talk has always been conservative, even
while the Fairness Doctrine was in force. And all the Doctrine EVER did was
keep radio and television stations from running free political
advertisements for preferred candidates (whether liberal or conservative)
without doing the same for the other party's candidate or issue. Very few
stations were ever shut down for violating the doctrine (Star Broadcasting
being the major one of note). Reinstating the doctrine might also address
some of what the right wing refer to as "the media being in the tank for
Obama."
RussellT
news:fd67dcb5-95ec-42b4...@v15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> The current stock market volotility is caused by the uncertainty of
> the Presidential elections. The closer we get to election day the
> market indicies more closely reflect the polls. When ObaMao is up the
> market indicies collapse...
> _______________________________________________________
>
> A Liberal Supermajority - Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since
> 1965, or 1933.
>
> Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin
> Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan
> would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to
> the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this
> would never be repealed.
>
I don't agree with Liberals on much. They all want a hand-out, which is
money taken from others, with government as the intermediary. Conservatives
generally believe in personal responsibility and standing on their own two
feet. However, the Canadian health system makes sense from a purely economic
viewpoint. Not having it, has now become a handicap, to the US, in the
global economy. That handicap and burden is greatest on the best of the US
companies, which are exactly the ones needed to produce national prosperity,
and foreign trade. You pay something like twice the Canadian as a percent of
GDP. And the best companies, have gold plans compared to the rest, and they
have numerous retirees with the same benefits, so even more than twice the
cost. The Canadian company does not pay at all, the cost being taken by all
of society via the government. Surely, the economic advantage can be seen.
We must consider also that government provides universal education because
it is a benefit to the economy as a whole. The same for certain
infrastructure, defense, etc. The Liberal Obama is obviously not as smart as
I am on this topic.
RussellT
news:fm9if4dodmfl64akc...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 23:49:17 GMT, "RussellT"
> <Russell...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>>Conservatives
>>generally believe in personal responsibility and standing on their own two
>>feet.
>
>
> stand on their own two feet.
All of them located in Liberal states! Liberals are also bankers!
RussellT
news:ek9if4tofej5cmil0...@4ax.com...
>>money taken from others, with government as the intermediary.
>
>
> than they pay and the blue states subsidize them. Sheesh. Your stupid
> stereo types are all you've got it seems.
>
> Come on - think outside the FOX. Or just THINK.
Your argument has nothing to do with it and is irrelevant. I know my Liberal
friends in NY, MA, CA. All of them want the other guy to be taxed to provide
for them. Not one of them gets their hands dirty in life, and that has
nothing to do with being a tradesman.
Democracy Highlander
> The current stock market volotility is caused by the uncertainty of
> the Presidential elections.
Correct. Bush has been the best friend of the thieves from Wall
Street. He let them steal at will until the business imbeciles stole
even from themselves in their rampage of greed orgy. The
neoconservatives & libertarian thieves raided the savings of
hardworking people, then raided each other and even raided themselves
until they destroyed all the US economy. The conservatives have as
little brain as the snake from kid stories who start to eat his own
tail out of imbecile greed.
And now McCain promise 8 more years of the same.
RHF
Super Majority Controlling the Entire US Government.
The Democrat Super Majority Add Them-Up :
1 = Liberal Democrat US President [Obama D-IL]
2 = Liberal Democrat US House [Pelosi D-CA]
3 = Liberal Democrat US Senate [Reid D-NV]
Result a Total Liberal Democrat {Left-Wing
Slanted} Socialist National Agenda.
HOWEVER :
One (1) Vote can Change the Socialist National Agenda
and Create Balance and Political Compromise within
the US Government to ensuring the Middle-of-the-Road
Politics and Reasonable Change and Progress.
.
THAT ONE VOTE :
The One Good Reason to Vote for John "Smiley" McCain.
Balanced Middle-of-the-Road National Politics between
a Democrat US Congress and a Republican US President.
.
VOTE FOR REASON - POLITICS THE ART OF COMPROMISE :
Why Vote for John "Smiley" McCain : A Counter-Balance
to One Party Control of the Entire US Government
-wrt- Total Democrat Control of the House [Pelosi D-CA]
and Total Democrat Control of the Senate [Reid D-NV]
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/f5f64568c9bc03cd
.
Both Parties of the US Congress Built the
Mortgage Disaster and the Economic Crisis of 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/089f81a08fc844b4
.
Barack Hussein Obama's "Income Tax" = Spread It Around
-aka- Socialist Wealth Redistribution System
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/6f545c53bb0cec74
.
George McGovern [D] on the "Employee Free Choice Act"
Stop Union Boss Intimidation in the American Workplace
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/766fb0b77759809c
.
.
On Oct 17, 1:00 pm, TianMei...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html?mod=rss_opini...
>
> http://TheRealBarackObama.wordpress.com/
dogbertm...@gmail.com
> The current stock market volotility is caused by the uncertainty of
> the Presidential elections. The closer we get to election day the
> market indicies more closely reflect the polls. When ObaMao is up the
> market indicies collapse...
You are a dumbass.
No, seriously, you are.
The economy is on the brink of a Bush depression because there is a
sea of bad debt hidden behind dizzyingly complex new financial
"instruments" that are so complex that nobody really knew how to value
them.
Now we know their true value is very much less than conventionally
assumed.
SO the market is crashing.
Simple as that.
Besides, Democrats are more responsible with the economy. Certainly
in recent years, with Clinton being 100,000,000 times better than
Bush. That's been true all along though.
You're an ignorant dumbass.
And you're stupid arguments are not working, either :)
Obama in a landslide. LOL.
dogbertm...@gmail.com
It's sad that filthy liars like this guy above keep spreading these
idiot smears, when it's clear to EVERYBODY with half a brain they
aren't working, even a little.
Obama : Presidential temperment, economic wisdom
McCain: Erratic, panicky, right-wing economics. Bringing America to
ruin like Hoover.
dogbertm...@gmail.com
>
> >I don't agree with Liberals on much. They all want a hand-out, which is
> >money taken from others, with government as the intermediary.
>
> than they pay and the blue states subsidize them. Sheesh. Your stupid
> stereo types are all you've got it seems.
>
> Come on - think outside the FOX. Or just THINK
Look at the reality. ALL the most economically important parts of the
country are BLUE, BLUE, BLUE.
Even Austin is a very blue zone in the heart of deep-red Texas.
Look at where technology comes from: Silicon Valley, Los Angeles
basin, Seattle, Portland, Austin, Boston.
The future is made in the BLUE states.
What's made in red states? Tabasco sauce. Oil (which is also made by
ignorant kook rightwing Islamic crazies in the Middle East too, so not
much bragging rights for pulling up something that nature put in the
ground instead of CREATING something new with the human mind.)
If Blue America separated from Red America, there would be one very
economically successful Blue country, and one very sad, depressed,
almost third-world Red America. Fact.
dogbertm...@gmail.com
> <retrogro...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Exactly wrong.
Bankers and their industry are *supposed to be* the most conservative
around.
But since Conservative = discredited 19th century ideology, it's
mostly just a cover for greed.
Greed is bad.
dogbertm...@gmail.com
> .
> Barack Hussein Obama's "Income Tax" = Spread It Around
> .
> George McGovern [D] on the "Employee Free Choice Act"
Liberal = good.
Conservative = failed, 19th century philosophy
About time to take out the right-wing trash.
dogbertm...@gmail.com
<Sad lie and smear tactics>
Yeah, imagine that disasterous Bill Clinton administration.
All those years of peace and prosperity, and decreasing poverty. What
a nightmare we have to look forward to under Democrats. :P
You, sir, are a fool.
Clave
news:626453b5-9f7d-4cfc...@31g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
Buffett's putting his non-Berkshire assets into American equities right now.
There's bargains out there.
That's optimism I can believe in. And act on.
Jim
dogbertm...@gmail.com
> If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on
> November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional
> majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to
> it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like
> the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.
> .
How elitist! You right-wingers are *terrrified* of the national will.
After a couple decades in the wilderness, I'm sure the Republic Party
will figure out a way to return to power.
They sure as hell don't deserve to abuse this country any longer until
they do.
Dave
>>
>> In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of
>> government that have never been repealed.
Social Security was 1935. I mostly agree about AFDC. LBJ was a jerk.
Billy Burpelson
> LBJ was a jerk.
Don't forget "major league crook".
RussellT
news:23b04c05-692e-4d0e...@z18g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
And the new ideology is...?
RussellT
news:5e575fff-476a-476d...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Only the few, really create, invent, develop, start businesses, employ
people, etc. Those are the few in the Blue states. The Liberals go there to
get job, and they are the majority in those places. tell us what you have
done, if anything!
RussellT
news:23b04c05-692e-4d0e...@z18g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Further, I note that you did not reply at all to my post, on the topic of
health care. In fact, everyone stayed clear of it. Can't handle real
ideology?
Billy Burpelson
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 14:59:41 GMT, "RussellT"
> <Russell...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Further, I note that you did not reply at all to my post, on the topic of
>> health care. In fact, everyone stayed clear of it. Can't handle real
>> ideology?
retro...@comcast.net wrote:
> I heard an account recently that American industry is (FINALLY)
> arguing that if we had national health care and industry was freed of
> supplying worker health care, they could be far more competitive
> internationally.
An interesting thought and definitely a -part- of the equation...but
even with national health care, 50 cents an hour for Chinese labor is
still pretty hard for us to compete with.
RussellT
news:vfoKk.2817$Ei5...@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...
With or without China or tariffs, it makes sense purely from an economic
viewpoint within the US also. It is always good when economic efficiencies
are improved. Locally, GM has a much bigger load to carry than the US based
operation of Toyota, simply by being involved in health care for so many
retirees, at an age when health costs are highest. Globally, Boeing must
compete against Airbus. There are so many more examples. And then there is
simply the better quality of the average life, because some are well covered
in old age, having worked for large companies, and others, at 80 years old,
are simply not wanted by insurance companies. The US health care is perhaps
twice the percent of GDP that it is in Canada, and the burden is highest on
the best companies. What surprises me is the low level of innovative
economic ideas coming from both candidates. They both offer zero! It's
between bad or very bad. From what I see now, I vote for Sarkozy as US
President.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081017.wbretton1017/BNStory/International/home
Sarkozy refers to a new system. "..we need to found a new capitalism, based
on values that put finance at the service of companies and citizens, and not
the reverse." Sarkozy and Brown are talking about the redesign of the
world-finance system. Reading the above reference, you can see how far
behind the US thinking is.
RHF
> On Oct 17, 3:59 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 23:49:17 GMT, "RussellT"
>
> > <RussellDTur...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > >I don't agree with Liberals on much. They all want a hand-out, which is
> > >money taken from others, with government as the intermediary.
>
> > Chuckle. that's why the red states all take in more federal dollars
> > than they pay and the blue states subsidize them. Sheesh. Your stupid
> > stereo types are all you've got it seems.
>
> > Come on - think outside the FOX. Or just THINK
- Look at the reality.
- ALL the most economically important parts of the
- country are BLUE, BLUE, BLUE.
-
- Even Austin is a very blue zone in the
- heart of deep-red Texas.
-
- Look at where technology comes from:
- Silicon Valley, Los Angeles basin,
- Seattle, Portland, Austin, Boston.
- The future is made in the BLUE states.
-
- What's made in red states? Tabasco sauce.
- Oil (which is also made by ignorant kook
- rightwing Islamic crazies in the Middle East too,
- so not much bragging rights for pulling up
- something that nature put in the ground
- instead of CREATING something new with
- the human mind.)
-
- If Blue America separated from Red America,
- there would be one very economically successful
- Blue country, and one very sad, depressed,
- almost third-world Red America. Fact.
DBMcD,
So People {American Citizens} in the Red States :
* Don't Count
* Aren't Real Americans
* Don't Have Equal Rights as Citizens
* Are Something Less Than Human
Sort-of-Like Red State America Ain't America
Classic Liberal Democrat Elitist Thinking :
Red State Americans Ain't Real Americans
Maybe you need to Check-Out
the Red-&-Blue Counties Map ~ RHF
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
* The Vast Majority of America is Red
* About Half of All Americans are Red
.
RHF
>
> >Further, I note that you did not reply at all to my post, on the topic of
> >health care. In fact, everyone stayed clear of it. Can't handle real
> >ideology?
>
> arguing that if we had national health care and industry was freed of
> supplying worker health care, they could be far more competitive
> internationally.
>
> care.
>
> When that comes you will have to watch all the right wing kooks rip
> their mental gears as their conservative masters urge them to support
> it.
>
> Once it gets repackaged as a cheap labor idea the GOP will push it
> hard.
An American National Health Care System
is a Great Idea provided . . .
National Health Care is a Bad Idea 'if' it is
based on Payroll or Income Taxes because both
drive-up the Cost of Labor for any American
Make Product of Service being sold in the USA
and Exported Around the World.
America is no longer a Manufacturing-Producing
Society but a Consuming-Service Society.
Imported Goods coming into America would not
have the Cost of Our National Health Care System
as Part of their Prices : While American Goods
would have the Full Cost of Our National Health
Care System build into their Prices based on
American's Payroll and/or Income Taxes.
National Sales Tax on All Good and Services
would be a better way to Level the Fair Cost
of a National Health Care System on both
Imported and Domestic Goods and Services.
Giving American Made Goods and Services an
Equal Price footing as Imports.
Plus Exported American Goods and Services would
not have the Cost of a National Health Care
System built into them : So they would be Cheaper
and More Competitively Priced in the World Market.
A Tiered Flat Tax System using a National Sales
Tax makes sense for American in the 21st Century.
1 - 90% of Americans making and Income less-than
$250 would be Exempt from Payroll and/or Income
Taxes
2 - Americans with Payroll Wages and/or Income
from All Sources over $250K would Pay a Flat
Tax on those Moneys Equal-To the National
Sales Tax Rate.
3 - Americans with Payroll Wages and/or Income
from All Sources over $5M would Pay a Flat
Tax on those Moneys Double (2X) the National
Sales Tax Rate.
EXAMPLE :
1 - The Vast Majority of Americans (90%) Pay
Their Taxes As-They-Spend with a 15% National
Sales Tax Rate.
2 - Higher Income Americans over $250K would
also Pay a Flat 15% Tax on All Moneys above
$250K. Continuing to Pay Their Fair Share
of Extra Disposable Moneys.
3 - Very High Income Americans over $5M would
also Pay a Flat 30% Tax on All Moneys above
$5M. Continuing to Pay Their Greater Beneficial
Share of Excessive Disposable Moneys.
-note- 2008 Dollars Indexed (COL) for Inflation.
-note- The 15% National Sales Tax Rate would
not include State and Local Sales Taxes.
Questions :
Is Health Care a Right ? -or- Is Health Care
a matter of Personal Responsibility ?
If Health Care a Right : Then Why aren't All
Healthy Care Workers Automatically Members of
a National Health Care Service Corps ?
If Health Care a Right : Then Health Care is
a Public Regulated Mandated Service Enterprise.
[Not for Profit with Fixed Salaries and Fees]
ain't socialism great ;-} ~ RHF
.
RussellT
news:f53dc440-8dd6-407e...@42g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 18, 8:24 am, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>An American National Health Care System
>is a Great Idea provided . . .
>
>National Health Care is a Bad Idea 'if' it is
>based on Payroll or Income Taxes because both
>drive-up the Cost of Labor for any American
>Make Product of Service being sold in the USA
>and Exported Around the World.
Don't you think Microsoft and Boeing and all the others already must include
health care costs in their product prices? And those costs are much higher
than if they relocated their business to anywhere else in the industrialized
world. And it is the industrialized world that is the price competition. You
haven't got a chance of competing against China on low price, with or
without health costs, so that eliminates almost the whole basis of the
argument you presented. In any case, US health costs are way above the real
competition (i.e. G7), and that has to be included somewhere in final
prices. This is the economics. On the social side, there are many without
adequate coverage. As for personal responsibility, it's like the public
school system, for which the economic justification became overwhelming. Too
many Americans unable to get out of the box. Get out of the box and kill the
monkey.
RHF
> "RHF" <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
Imagine All those cheap Chinese Goods at WalMart
having a 15% National Sales Tax added to them
to Pay for a US National Health Care System along
with a the few American Good that you can find
there. Sort of Levels the Playing {Paying} Field
for the American Consumer and Wage Earner.
Jorge Duhbya Arbusto, POTUS (Retired)
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 12:37:24 -0400, Billy Burpelson
> <bi...@burpelsonafb.net> wrote:
>
>> An interesting thought and definitely a -part- of the equation...but
>> even with national health care, 50 cents an hour for Chinese labor is
>> still pretty hard for us to compete with.
>
>
And a tax plan that doesn't reward corporations for moving operations
offshore.
Jorge Duhbya Arbusto, POTUS (Retired)
But then the average Joe Sixpack won't be able to afford his wife beater
shirts.....or his sixpacks......let alone multiple visits to the tattoo
parlor......
Dave
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 12:37:24 -0400, Billy Burpelson
> <bi...@burpelsonafb.net> wrote:
>
>> even with national health care, 50 cents an hour for Chinese labor is
>> still pretty hard for us to compete with.
>
>
I second tariffs.
Clave
news:8FmKk.2311$%%2.230@edtnps82...
<...>
> Only the few, really create, invent, develop, start businesses, employ
> people, etc. Those are the few in the Blue states. The Liberals go there
> to get job...
HJARF!
Wow.
Clave
news:uj4kf4tbv7ikq5e2r...@4ax.com...
>>even with national health care, 50 cents an hour for Chinese labor is
>>still pretty hard for us to compete with.
>
>
They completely funded the government for a *long* time.
Jim
RHF
- - Tariffs. ;->
- I second tariffs.
Dave,
Better would be a uniformly applied National
Sales Tax; where Imported {No US Tax Burden}
Products are Taxed Equally with Domestic
{Full US Tax Burdened} Goods.
Coupled with Eliminating Income {Money} Taxes
on People with Total Incomes less-than $250K.
Tariffs just create Trade Wars : Reduce Markets
and Drive Prices Up.
D'Oh! - My 401K Done Shrunk Down to a 267G ~ RHF
.
barnegatdx
> On Oct 17, 4:47 pm, mordacpreven...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 1:00 pm, TianMei...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > The current stock market volotility is caused by the uncertainty of
> > > the Presidential elections.
>
> > You're a fucking idiot.
>
> > The reason is because Americans don't have any money to spend, the
> > corruption of Wall Street and the free spending Repugs in the last 8
> > years.
>
> > And as far as your 401k, you're a fucking moron if you believe you do
> > better under Repugs.
>
> > Invest $10,000 during only republican presidencies for 40 years, you
> > get $11,733. under Democrats? $300,671http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHAR...
>
> > The stock market prefers Democratic presidents to Republicans. Why?www.slate.com/?id=2071929
>
Short sale rule..
>
Wassat?
>
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortsalerule.asp
>
"The regulation was passed in 1938 to prevent selling shares short
into a declining market; at the time market mechanisms and liquidity
couldn't be guaranteed to prevent panic share declines or outright
manipulation.
>
This regulation was rescinded in July 2007 by decree of the SEC; as a
result short sales can occur (where eligible) on any price tick in
the
market, whether up or down."
>
Passed in 1938;
>
rescinded in 2007
TianM...@gmail.com
> The current stock market volotility is caused by the uncertainty of
> market indicies more closely reflect the polls. When ObaMao is up the
> market indicies collapse...
> _______________________________________________________
>
> A Liberal Supermajority - Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since
> 1965, or 1933.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html?mod=rss_opini...
>
> http://TheRealBarackObama.wordpress.com/
OBAMAO: "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to
make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance
for success, too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's
good for everybody."
McCAIN: "In other words, Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the IRS
into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth
at the direction of politicians in Washington."
"At least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent
are upfront about their objectives. They use real numbers and honest
language. And we should demand equal candor from Sen. Obama. Raising
taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut; it's
just another government giveaway."
Remember, The President has the power of pardon, after all. Still, the
public will wonder why we knew everything about Sarah Palin and about
Joe the Plumber and nothing about our President.
Remember this - every Socialist system in history has always failed -
ALWAYS. They fail in the most vitriolic fashion.
Millions upon millions murdered! Their ashes smolder in the ash heap
of Socialist history. Read it before they burn it to.
Virtually every nation that has declared its hatred for us (incl. bin
Laden) is hoping for Obama to win in November. Their preference for
him is significant because their intent is to destroy us. Obviously,
they feel that destroying us would be easier with Democrats in power.
It’s interesting to speculate exactly what President Obama would have
to do in order to reward their expectation.
None of us yet knows what exactly this “new direction” might actually
entail. We haven’t been told. It’s being kept under wraps and marked
as “change”. It could mean almost anything; but already it stinks.
Already it has brought us “wink-and-a-nod” political campaigns (soon
to result in “wink-and-a-nod” elections).
The stock market HATES UNCERTAINTY.
As a child I owned a canary. It sat on my shoulder while singing its
heart out. Sometimes I would take it to the open window and we would
both look out. Luckily, we were able to give it away to friends before
moving to America – so I would never have to watch it die.
Remember, buy low. If you beleive in Socialism put your money where
your mouth is. If you know better - may G_d bless.
forbi...@msn.com
> OBAMAO: "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to
> make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance
> for success, too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's
> good for everybody."
McCain had this wrong. The tax code has been used to concentrate
wealth. By making the tax code more fair the pain isn't only felt by
the middle class and this spreads the wealth around. Why is taxing
the middle class not redistributing the wealth but taxing the rich is
redistribution of the wealth? We are talking about tax policy here
not
spending policy.
barnegatdx
> On Oct 17, 6:43 pm, barnegatdx <barnega...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 4:47 pm, mordacpreven...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 17, 1:00 pm, TianMei...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > The current stock market volotility is caused by the uncertainty of
> > > > the Presidential elections.
>
> > > You're a fucking idiot.
>
> > > The reason is because Americans don't have any money to spend, the
> > > corruption of Wall Street and the free spending Repugs in the last 8
> > > years.
>
> > > And as far as your 401k, you're a fucking moron if you believe you do
> > > better under Repugs.
>
> > > Invest $10,000 during only republican presidencies for 40 years, you
> > > get $11,733. under Democrats? $300,671http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHAR...
>
> > > The stock market prefers Democratic presidents to Republicans. Why?www.slate.com/?id=2071929
>
short sale rule..
>
Wassat?
>
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortsalerule.asp
"The regulation was passed in 1938 to prevent selling shares short
into a declining market; at the time market mechanisms and liquidity
couldn't be guaranteed to prevent panic share declines or outright
manipulation.
>
This regulation was rescinded in July 2007 by decree of the SEC; as
a
result short sales can occur (where eligible) on any price tick in
the
market, whether up or down."
>
Passed in 1938;
>
rescinded in 2007
- this accounts for some stocks going down eighty percent in one day.
RussellT
wrote in message news:PVqKk.1054$8_3...@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
I would like to agree with you, if it is possible. However, the question in
the real world of today is: Does a country own it's corporations, or is a
corporation owned by it's shareholders? Is it guided by the goal of country
prosperity or company prosperity? The government always wants taxes and
thinks everything is a tax slave and hostage. Government always acts as if
they are the ultimate owner of all people and corporations within it's
territory. Remember, however, that when the US was rising, some European
companies moved from Europe to the US. Maybe some US corporations will one
day move to China.
RussellT
news:olvjf4p1tu1rgemui...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 23:27:55 -0700 (PDT), dogbertm...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>>If Blue America separated from Red America, there would be one very
>>economically successful Blue country, and one very sad, depressed,
>>almost third-world Red America. Fact.
>
>
Speculation. The existing prosperous Blue states are that way, because
leadership has been opposite. Fact: Extreme left wing and un-challenged
governments do not deliver prosperity, as seen in the world.
RussellT
news:lj0nf414t5rrldaim...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 17:48:00 GMT, "RussellT"
> <Russell...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>><retro...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:olvjf4p1tu1rgemui...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 23:27:55 -0700 (PDT), dogbertm...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>If Blue America separated from Red America, there would be one very
>>>>economically successful Blue country, and one very sad, depressed,
>>>>almost third-world Red America. Fact.
>>>
>>>
>>> The 'Nited States of Mississippi.
>>
>>Speculation. The existing prosperous Blue states are that way, because
>>leadership has been opposite.
>
>
>
>> Fact: Extreme left wing and un-challenged
>>governments do not deliver prosperity, as seen in the world.
>
> you and your straw man nonsense that is.
One of us is very confused.
forbi...@msn.com
> One of us is very confused.
Yes, the one that wrote the above.
forbi...@msn.com
> "Jorge Duhbya Arbusto, POTUS (Retired)" <cleanin'_the_stab...@fakeranch.tx>
> wrote in messagenews:PVqKk.1054$8_3...@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> > retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 12:37:24 -0400, Billy Burpelson
> >> <bi...@burpelsonafb.net> wrote:
>
> >>> An interesting thought and definitely a -part- of the equation...but
> >>> even with national health care, 50 cents an hour for Chinese labor is
> >>> still pretty hard for us to compete with.
>
> >> Tariffs. ;->
>
> > And a tax plan that doesn't reward corporations for moving operations
> > offshore.
>
> I would like to agree with you, if it is possible. However, the question in
> the real world of today is: Does a country own it's corporations, or is a
> corporation owned by it's shareholders?
Corporations have no existence outside the legal framework of a
government.
> Is it guided by the goal of country
> prosperity or company prosperity?
The goals of the Corporation and the Nation may sometimes be
at odds. When this is the case the Corporation needs to learn its
place as do those who actually make the decisions for the Corporation.
The Nation owes the Corporations nothing. The deal between the
Nation and Capital is that the Nation will abide by Capital's
requirements as long as the results are mutually beneficial.
> The government always wants taxes and
> thinks everything is a tax slave and hostage.
The government suckles capital for the benefits
of the society. Since financial capital is nothing
more than promises and it's hard for physical
capital to move between nations without government's
approval, those who believe capital is not getting
a fare deal should leave and leave their physical
capital behind.
> Government always acts as if
> they are the ultimate owner of all people and corporations within it's
> territory.
Because the coproration has no existence without the government
and the nation's people.
> Remember, however, that when the US was rising, some European
> companies moved from Europe to the US. Maybe some US corporations will one
> day move to China.
They've been doing that. Do you think there is no government
in China?
Jorge Duhbya Arbusto, POTUS (Retired)
They've been moving their operations to China while maintaining their
headquarters and charters in the US.
forbi...@msn.com
> Tariffs just create Trade Wars : Reduce Markets
> and Drive Prices Up.
You know, I don't mind paying high prices so long as
the tarriffs aren't spent in the importing country but
in the exporting country. An import tarriff that is collected
to offset the costs of local regulations not enforced in
foreign nations and used to reduce the impacts of those
regulations in the foreign nation would move that nation
towards the ends we desire in our country based upon
the regulation.