Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
25 entertaining, even thought-provoking, quotes many RSBers will enjoy
85 views
Skip to first unread message
Ernie
Nov 10, 2012, 7:57:42 PM11/10/12
to
> 25 Great Quotes
>
> 1. In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a
> shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress.
> - John Adams
>
> 2. If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the
> newspaper you are misinformed.
> - Mark Twain
> 3. Suppose you were an idiot.. And suppose you were a member of Congress.
> But then I repeat myself.
> - Mark Twain
> 4. I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is
> like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
> handle.
> - Winston Churchill
> 5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
> support of Paul.
> - George Bernard Shaw
> 6. A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which
> debt he proposes to pay off with your money.
> - G. Gordon Liddy
> 7. Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on
> what to have for dinner.
> - James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
> 8. Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in
> rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
> - Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University
> 9. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car
> keys to teenage boys.
> - P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
> 10. Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to
> live at the expense of everybody else.
> - Frederic Bastiat, French economist(1801-1850)
> 11. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short
> phrases: If it moves, tax it.. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it
> stops moving, subsidize it.
> - Ronald Reagan (1986)
> 12. I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.
> - Will Rogers
> 13. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it
> costs when it's free!
> - P.J. O'Rourke
> 14. In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as
> possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.
> - Voltaire (1764)
> 15. Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean
> politics won't take an interest in you!
> - Pericles (430 B.C.)
> 16. No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is
> in session.
> - Mark Twain (1866)
> 17. Talk is cheap... except when Congress does it.
> - Anonymous
> 18. The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy
appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.
> - Ronald Reagan
> 19. The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
> blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of
> misery.
> - Winston Churchill
> 20. The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the
> taxidermist leaves the skin.
> - Mark Twain
> 21. The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to
> fill the world with fools. (Already a fixture on RSB as a signature quote.)
> - Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)
> 22. There is no distinctly Native American criminal class... save
> Congress.
> - Mark Twain
> 23. What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.
> - Edward Langley, Artist (1928-1995)
> 24. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
> enough to take everything you have.
> - Thomas Jefferson
> 25. We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.
> - Aesop
Ernie
>
> 1. In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a
> shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress.
> - John Adams
>
> 2. If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the
> newspaper you are misinformed.
> - Mark Twain
> 3. Suppose you were an idiot.. And suppose you were a member of Congress.
> But then I repeat myself.
> - Mark Twain
> 4. I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is
> like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
> handle.
> - Winston Churchill
> 5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
> support of Paul.
> - George Bernard Shaw
> 6. A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which
> debt he proposes to pay off with your money.
> - G. Gordon Liddy
> 7. Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on
> what to have for dinner.
> - James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
> 8. Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in
> rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
> - Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University
> 9. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car
> keys to teenage boys.
> - P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
> 10. Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to
> live at the expense of everybody else.
> - Frederic Bastiat, French economist(1801-1850)
> 11. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short
> phrases: If it moves, tax it.. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it
> stops moving, subsidize it.
> - Ronald Reagan (1986)
> 12. I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.
> - Will Rogers
> 13. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it
> costs when it's free!
> - P.J. O'Rourke
> 14. In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as
> possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.
> - Voltaire (1764)
> 15. Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean
> politics won't take an interest in you!
> - Pericles (430 B.C.)
> 16. No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is
> in session.
> - Mark Twain (1866)
> 17. Talk is cheap... except when Congress does it.
> - Anonymous
> 18. The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy
appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.
> - Ronald Reagan
> 19. The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
> blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of
> misery.
> - Winston Churchill
> 20. The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the
> taxidermist leaves the skin.
> - Mark Twain
> 21. The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to
> fill the world with fools. (Already a fixture on RSB as a signature quote.)
> - Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)
> 22. There is no distinctly Native American criminal class... save
> Congress.
> - Mark Twain
> 23. What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.
> - Edward Langley, Artist (1928-1995)
> 24. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
> enough to take everything you have.
> - Thomas Jefferson
> 25. We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.
> - Aesop
Ernie
Ron Shepard
Nov 11, 2012, 2:34:56 AM11/11/12
to
In article <24ecbe77-d2ba-45a5...@googlegroups.com>,
to Thomas Jefferson, Davy Crockett, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald
Reagan, among others.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ernie <ernesto-s...@usa.net> wrote:
> > 24. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
> > enough to take everything you have.
> > - Thomas Jefferson
This quote is actually from Gerald Ford. It has been misattributed
> > 24. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
> > enough to take everything you have.
> > - Thomas Jefferson
to Thomas Jefferson, Davy Crockett, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald
Reagan, among others.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Jack
Nov 13, 2012, 8:19:38 AM11/13/12
to
On 11/10/2012 7:57 PM, Ernie wrote:
> 5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
>support of Paul.
>>- George Bernard Shaw
Considering Shaw was a Socialist bastard, it is interesting he
> 5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
>support of Paul.
>>- George Bernard Shaw
publicized this quote. It's one of the main reasons only landowners or
federal income tax payers should be allowed to vote, and why other than
blatant voter fraud and racism, Obummer received any votes at all.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
Ernie
Nov 13, 2012, 10:45:29 AM11/13/12
to
When my golfing-addicted friends attempt to tell me why golf is so superior to my pool addiction, I always half-seriously mention Shaw's famous description of golf:
"Golf is a good walk ruined."
Ernie
"Golf is a good walk ruined."
Ernie
Ron Shepard
Nov 13, 2012, 11:05:40 AM11/13/12
to
In article <k7thdf$21h$2...@dont-email.me>,
with his class warfare based campaign. You fell for it, Jack. In
fact, Obama support was deep and spread through all economic levels.
Here are some actual facts:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-wins-8-10-wealthiest-154837437.ht
ml
If only those wealthy people, and people like them, had been allowed
to vote, then Obama would have won with a 30% margin of the popular
vote and a 4 to 1 margin in the electoral vote. One of those
counties is in Massachusetts, where Romney was a one-term governor.
He lost that county 63% to 36%. If Romney can't carry his own
state, or even the wealthiest county in his home state, then how
does his 47% class warfare argument have any validity?
As far as voter fraud and racism, I'd say those things hurt Obama
more than they helped. Some people living in Democratic leaning
precincts had to stand in line six to eight hours to vote. That's
not fair, especially to working class voters who have to punch a
clock for a living.
If only income tax payers were allowed to vote, then how would you
know if Romney was eligible vote? There was an unanswered
accusation that he did not pay any income taxes at all for some
years in the past decade. Since he refused to release his tax
returns, as all other presidential candidates have done in the past
50 years, then should we assume that accusation is true?
$.02 -Ron Shepard -Remembering the good ol' days of RSB :-)
Jack <jbst...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 7:57 PM, Ernie wrote:
>
> > 5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
> >support of Paul.
> >>- George Bernard Shaw
>
> Considering Shaw was a Socialist bastard, it is interesting he
> publicized this quote. It's one of the main reasons only landowners or
> federal income tax payers should be allowed to vote, and why other than
> blatant voter fraud and racism, Obummer received any votes at all.
No, that's just part of the fiction that Romney was trying to sell
> On 11/10/2012 7:57 PM, Ernie wrote:
>
> > 5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
> >support of Paul.
> >>- George Bernard Shaw
>
> Considering Shaw was a Socialist bastard, it is interesting he
> publicized this quote. It's one of the main reasons only landowners or
> federal income tax payers should be allowed to vote, and why other than
> blatant voter fraud and racism, Obummer received any votes at all.
with his class warfare based campaign. You fell for it, Jack. In
fact, Obama support was deep and spread through all economic levels.
Here are some actual facts:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-wins-8-10-wealthiest-154837437.ht
ml
If only those wealthy people, and people like them, had been allowed
to vote, then Obama would have won with a 30% margin of the popular
vote and a 4 to 1 margin in the electoral vote. One of those
counties is in Massachusetts, where Romney was a one-term governor.
He lost that county 63% to 36%. If Romney can't carry his own
state, or even the wealthiest county in his home state, then how
does his 47% class warfare argument have any validity?
As far as voter fraud and racism, I'd say those things hurt Obama
more than they helped. Some people living in Democratic leaning
precincts had to stand in line six to eight hours to vote. That's
not fair, especially to working class voters who have to punch a
clock for a living.
If only income tax payers were allowed to vote, then how would you
know if Romney was eligible vote? There was an unanswered
accusation that he did not pay any income taxes at all for some
years in the past decade. Since he refused to release his tax
returns, as all other presidential candidates have done in the past
50 years, then should we assume that accusation is true?
$.02 -Ron Shepard -Remembering the good ol' days of RSB :-)
Message has been deleted
pltrgyst
Nov 13, 2012, 5:10:21 PM11/13/12
to
And John Feinstein's book took it to new levels of meaning.
-- Larry
Message has been deleted
Ernie
Nov 13, 2012, 10:52:19 PM11/13/12
to
> pltrgyst wrote:
> My new favorite Twain quote:
> "It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled"
----------------------------------------------
In relatively recent times the truth of that Twain quote was vividly brought home when the FBI informed (or tried to inform) "Donnie Brasco's" crewmates that the man they knew for 6 years as Donnie B. was in fact an undercover FBI agent (Joe Pistone) who had successfully "fooled" the entire NY Mafia (albeit far from easily). His crewmates steadfastly believed the photos of "Donnie" being congratulated at Langley FBI HQ were just doctored photos -- until most of them started to be MIA.
Ernie
Mark0
Nov 14, 2012, 9:27:37 AM11/14/12
to
results graphs and see how much "red" across the country wanted rid of
Obama... (even if we had to pick a Romney to facilitate it). Please.
--> Mark0 <--
Get: Secrets to a Perfect Pool Table Recovering Job
http://www.mccauleyweb.com/secrets.htm
$15 for RSB-ers
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ron Shepard
Nov 14, 2012, 11:31:59 AM11/14/12
to
In article <pbmcn9x...@news.ezprovider.com>,
this election.
You complain about Romney, yet he was the definite and early winner
of your primary process. Are you complaining about that process
now? I certainly would if I were involved with it, for the same
reason that I'm complaining about the results of the Citizens United
supreme court ruling in 2010. The Republican primary was even worse
than the general election. The Republican candidates were selected
by what is essentially a Soviet style politburo, a group of
unelected elites who meet among themselves and decide which
candidates should be on the ballots in which elections. We know who
some of these people are (Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers), but
some are completely anonymous to the outside. None of them are
accountable to the people of the US. Except perhaps for Jon
Huntsman, who was one of the first to be eliminated, there was not a
single Republican candidate for the presidency that I think would
have made a good president (Bachmann, Perry, Polentey, Santorum,
Gingrich, Paul, Cain). Romney might have been the best of the
remaining herd, but he had no core principles; he bought the primary
and with the help of the Citizens United ruling he almost bought the
election.
Regarding the precinct and county election maps, don't forget that
when you see a color, red or blue, that does not mean that everyone
voted the same way. It just means a majority voted that way. So
even a red county could have had 49% Democrats, or a blue county
could have had 49% Republicans. Some of them were very close, some
not so, but don't let the spin disorient you, it is just a trick of
presenting data. If instead of having a single 50% threshhold
several color contours were used, the results would not look so
surprising and the vast majority of the country would look "purple."
In this particular election there were indeed some precincts where
Romney got zero votes. There might have been some where Obama did
the same, although I have not seen any reported. But, after all,
Romney was a really really bad candidate, so this surprises me less
than the fact that he won some of the states that he did.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57548626/romney-earned-zero-votes
-in-some-urban-precincts/
$.02 -Ron Shepard
"Mark0" <markmc...@charter.net> wrote:
> How does that Kool Aid taste Ron? Look at the county level election
> results graphs and see how much "red" across the country wanted rid of
> Obama... (even if we had to pick a Romney to facilitate it). Please.
Yes, that is the way county election stats always look. Nothing new
> How does that Kool Aid taste Ron? Look at the county level election
> results graphs and see how much "red" across the country wanted rid of
> Obama... (even if we had to pick a Romney to facilitate it). Please.
this election.
You complain about Romney, yet he was the definite and early winner
of your primary process. Are you complaining about that process
now? I certainly would if I were involved with it, for the same
reason that I'm complaining about the results of the Citizens United
supreme court ruling in 2010. The Republican primary was even worse
than the general election. The Republican candidates were selected
by what is essentially a Soviet style politburo, a group of
unelected elites who meet among themselves and decide which
candidates should be on the ballots in which elections. We know who
some of these people are (Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers), but
some are completely anonymous to the outside. None of them are
accountable to the people of the US. Except perhaps for Jon
Huntsman, who was one of the first to be eliminated, there was not a
single Republican candidate for the presidency that I think would
have made a good president (Bachmann, Perry, Polentey, Santorum,
Gingrich, Paul, Cain). Romney might have been the best of the
remaining herd, but he had no core principles; he bought the primary
and with the help of the Citizens United ruling he almost bought the
election.
Regarding the precinct and county election maps, don't forget that
when you see a color, red or blue, that does not mean that everyone
voted the same way. It just means a majority voted that way. So
even a red county could have had 49% Democrats, or a blue county
could have had 49% Republicans. Some of them were very close, some
not so, but don't let the spin disorient you, it is just a trick of
presenting data. If instead of having a single 50% threshhold
several color contours were used, the results would not look so
surprising and the vast majority of the country would look "purple."
In this particular election there were indeed some precincts where
Romney got zero votes. There might have been some where Obama did
the same, although I have not seen any reported. But, after all,
Romney was a really really bad candidate, so this surprises me less
than the fact that he won some of the states that he did.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57548626/romney-earned-zero-votes
-in-some-urban-precincts/
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ernie
Nov 14, 2012, 12:42:04 PM11/14/12
to
Noteworthy for future GOP campaigns is the general agreement among the more candid political observers from both sides of the aisle, that the GOP’s coordinated nationwide attempt to maximally suppress, by various means, minorities’ voting -- ended up biting the GOP in the ass by radically fueling the Democrat drive to ensure optimal minority turnout. This push-back effectively numerically guaranteed the re-election of President Obama.
Also, Romney’s handlers (seen in 20-20 hindsight) appeared to have hugely blundered by not encouraging their man to have Rubio as his running mate, instead of Ryan. Probably a Rubio chess move, though considered at the time, was deemed have seemed too weak, compromising and transparently pretendedly-centrist for the major GOP contributors.
IMHO, 2016 will likely see Jeb Bush running at the top of the GOP ticket, paired with a highly qualified female Latino VP candidate.
Of course, as Dan McGoorty famously observed to Robert Byrne (when speaking of Nixon), “None of these guys can run 5 balls and they still get into the White House.”
Ernie
Also, Romney’s handlers (seen in 20-20 hindsight) appeared to have hugely blundered by not encouraging their man to have Rubio as his running mate, instead of Ryan. Probably a Rubio chess move, though considered at the time, was deemed have seemed too weak, compromising and transparently pretendedly-centrist for the major GOP contributors.
IMHO, 2016 will likely see Jeb Bush running at the top of the GOP ticket, paired with a highly qualified female Latino VP candidate.
Of course, as Dan McGoorty famously observed to Robert Byrne (when speaking of Nixon), “None of these guys can run 5 balls and they still get into the White House.”
Ernie
Message has been deleted
Ron Shepard
Nov 14, 2012, 8:17:03 PM11/14/12
to
In article <1c8128ab-2416-4176...@googlegroups.com>,
Did you see this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8M7yIj9jbE
But five balls might be about the limit.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ernie <ernesto-s...@usa.net> wrote:
> Of course, as Dan McGoorty famously observed to Robert Byrne (when speaking
> of Nixon), ³None of these guys can run 5 balls and they still get into the
> White House.²
> Of course, as Dan McGoorty famously observed to Robert Byrne (when speaking
> of Nixon), ³None of these guys can run 5 balls and they still get into the
Did you see this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8M7yIj9jbE
But five balls might be about the limit.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Message has been deleted
Jack
Nov 15, 2012, 10:24:07 AM11/15/12
to
On 11/13/2012 11:05 AM, Ron Shepard wrote:
> In article <k7thdf$21h$2...@dont-email.me>,
> Jack <jbst...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/2012 7:57 PM, Ernie wrote:
>>
>>> 5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
>>> support of Paul.
>>>> - George Bernard Shaw
>>
>> Considering Shaw was a Socialist bastard, it is interesting he
>> publicized this quote. It's one of the main reasons only landowners or
>> federal income tax payers should be allowed to vote, and why other than
>> blatant voter fraud and racism, Obummer received any votes at all.
>
> No, that's just part of the fiction that Romney was trying to sell
> with his class warfare based campaign. You fell for it, Jack.
Hardly. Shaw correctly pointed out that the 50% of our country that
> In article <k7thdf$21h$2...@dont-email.me>,
> Jack <jbst...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/2012 7:57 PM, Ernie wrote:
>>
>>> 5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
>>> support of Paul.
>>>> - George Bernard Shaw
>>
>> Considering Shaw was a Socialist bastard, it is interesting he
>> publicized this quote. It's one of the main reasons only landowners or
>> federal income tax payers should be allowed to vote, and why other than
>> blatant voter fraud and racism, Obummer received any votes at all.
>
> No, that's just part of the fiction that Romney was trying to sell
> with his class warfare based campaign. You fell for it, Jack.
pays no Federal income tax (and or lives off the government) can be
counted on to support that government. For example, Obama lost the
entire state of PA except for two cities, Philly and Pgh. 59 counties
in Philly voted 100% for Obummer, almost impossible numbers, but also
areas largely on the government dole. Secondly, Obummer receives about
94-97% of the black vote, about as racist as you can get.
> As far as voter fraud and racism, I'd say those things hurt Obama
> more than they helped.
have voted for him if he was a child molester drug addict crook. Thats
about as racist as it gets, and I strongly suspect in the black
precincts even if you didn't bother to vote, your non-vote would have
been cast for Obummer, thus the 100% racist turnout for him in many areas.
Some people living in Democratic leaning
> precincts had to stand in line six to eight hours to vote. That's
> not fair, especially to working class voters who have to punch a
> clock for a living.
non voting registrants and cast there votes for Obummer. This would go
a long way to explaining the unbelievable one sided voting in areas like
Pgh and Philly. It's so bad it's a joke. There is good reason
Democrats fight tooth and nail every single attempt at reducing voter fraud.
--
Jack
Got Change: God Bless America ======> God Damn Amerika!
Ernie
Nov 15, 2012, 10:53:30 AM11/15/12
to
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 6:17:05 PM UTC-7, Ron Shepard wrote:
-----------------------------
-------------------------------------
Great video find! Thanks for that, Ron.
President Obama self-confessedly had about the same amount of poolroom "misspent
youth" as most of us here on RSB (and the marginally elite "literati" on AZB as well).
Ernie
-----------------------------
>
> Ernie wrote:
> > Of course, as Dan McGoorty famously observed to Robert Byrne (when speaking
> > of Nixon), �None of these guys can run 5 balls and they still get into the
> > White House.�
> Ernie wrote:
> > Of course, as Dan McGoorty famously observed to Robert Byrne (when speaking
> > of Nixon), �None of these guys can run 5 balls and they still get into the
-------------------------------------
> Did you see this?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8M7yIj9jbE
> But five balls might be about the limit.
> $.02 -Ron Shepard
================================================
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8M7yIj9jbE
> But five balls might be about the limit.
> $.02 -Ron Shepard
Great video find! Thanks for that, Ron.
President Obama self-confessedly had about the same amount of poolroom "misspent
youth" as most of us here on RSB (and the marginally elite "literati" on AZB as well).
Ernie
pltrgyst
Nov 15, 2012, 1:17:52 PM11/15/12
to
On 11/15/12 10:24 AM, Jack wrote:
> .... Shaw correctly pointed out that the 50% of our country that
>
> .... I strongly suspect in the black
-- Larry
> .... Shaw correctly pointed out that the 50% of our country that
> pays no Federal income tax (and or lives off the government) can be
> counted on to support that government....
>
> .... I strongly suspect in the black
> precincts even if you didn't bother to vote, your non-vote would have
> been cast for Obummer, thus the 100% racist turnout for him in many areas.
>....
> been cast for Obummer, thus the 100% racist turnout for him in many areas.
>
> I've heard that many areas after voting ended the pollsters took all the
> non voting registrants and cast there votes for Obummer.... There is good reason
> I've heard that many areas after voting ended the pollsters took all the
> Democrats fight tooth and nail every single attempt at reducing voter
> fraud.
Paranoia and dementia go hand-in-hand, Jack. You should get checked out.
> fraud.
-- Larry
Message has been deleted
Ron Shepard
Nov 16, 2012, 2:01:03 AM11/16/12
to
In article
<XnsA10C89C1BA0EFdu...@nomail.afraid.org>,
sittingduck <du...@spamherelots.com> wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>
> > You must be dumb as dirt. 94% of blacks supported Obummer. They would
> > have voted for him if he was a child molester drug addict crook. Thats
> > about as racist as it gets, and I strongly suspect in the black
> > precincts even if you didn't bother to vote, your non-vote would have
> > been cast for Obummer, thus the 100% racist turnout for him in many
> > areas.
> >
> > Some people living in Democratic leaning
> >> precincts had to stand in line six to eight hours to vote. That's
> >> not fair, especially to working class voters who have to punch a
> >> clock for a living.
> >
> > I've heard that many areas after voting ended the pollsters took all the
> > non voting registrants and cast there votes for Obummer.
I didn't just ***hear*** unsubstantiated rumors about those long
lines, I saw them on TV, I saw pictures posted on the internet, and
I read about them in dozens of news outlets of various kinds. Did
you see pollsters stuffing ballots, either in person or on TV? If
not, then those two statements aren't really equivalent, are they?
One is a verified fact, the other is an unsubstantiated rumor.
> > This would go
> > a long way to explaining the unbelievable one sided voting in areas like
> > Pgh and Philly. It's so bad it's a joke.
The other possible reason is that Mitt Romney was a really really
bad presidential candidate. Remember, he lost both of his home
states of Michigan and Massachusetts. He lost MI by 10% and in MA
where he was a one-term governor, he lost by 23%. He was a really
really bad candidate. He also lost Wisconsin by 7%, which was Ryan's
home state. So in case you haven't figured it out yet, he was a
really really bad candidate. BTW, Obama won both of his home states
of Hawaii and Illinois, and they also won Delaware, Biden's home
state.
> > There is good reason
> > Democrats fight tooth and nail every single attempt at reducing voter
> > fraud.
>
> Get off the fox news tit, there buddy. They've been lying to you, and
> you've bought it hook, line, and sinker.
>
> Dems fought the attempts to suppress votes, not legitamate attempts to curb
> fraud.
>
> There were several instances of REAL FRAUD committed by republicans.
>
> http://www.salon.com/2012/10/19/gop_voter_registration_scandal_widens/
The other important thing to realize about precincts and districts
that vote heavily for a single party is that this is the goal of
gerrymandering. Republicans control both houses of the legislature
in Pennsylvania and the governor is Republican, so that party
controlled the drawing of the districts after the 2010 census. The
goal of gerrymandering is to spread a minority of the opposing party
across as many districts as possible, and concentrate as many of the
opposing party in as few districts as possible. Perfect
gerrymandering would result in something like 51/49% in as many
districts as possible, and then have 0/100% in the remaining
districts. This gives the controlling party an exaggerated
advantage in the district count. So if there are districts and
precincts that are voting 100% Democratic, that means that the
Republicans did a very good job of gerrymandering.
This is generally what happened across the country this election.
There were more Democratic votes for US representatives than there
were Republican votes, yet the Republicans kept control of congress.
So when you hear some Republican claim that the voters preferred
Republicans to Democrats in this election in congress, that's not
really true. More voters actually preferred Democrats, but because
of gerrymandering, the minority Republicans kept control.
As far as voter fraud, we will have to wait to see. These precincts
with 0 Romney votes are not secret, they have been pretty well
publicized over the past couple of weeks. If there is anyone in
those districts who voted for Romney that comes forward, then we
will know that something wrong happened in counting those votes. It
has been almost two weeks now, and so far this hasn't happened. But
we will have to wait to see.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
<XnsA10C89C1BA0EFdu...@nomail.afraid.org>,
sittingduck <du...@spamherelots.com> wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>
> > You must be dumb as dirt. 94% of blacks supported Obummer. They would
> > have voted for him if he was a child molester drug addict crook. Thats
> > about as racist as it gets, and I strongly suspect in the black
> > precincts even if you didn't bother to vote, your non-vote would have
> > been cast for Obummer, thus the 100% racist turnout for him in many
> > areas.
> >
> > Some people living in Democratic leaning
> >> precincts had to stand in line six to eight hours to vote. That's
> >> not fair, especially to working class voters who have to punch a
> >> clock for a living.
> >
> > I've heard that many areas after voting ended the pollsters took all the
> > non voting registrants and cast there votes for Obummer.
lines, I saw them on TV, I saw pictures posted on the internet, and
I read about them in dozens of news outlets of various kinds. Did
you see pollsters stuffing ballots, either in person or on TV? If
not, then those two statements aren't really equivalent, are they?
One is a verified fact, the other is an unsubstantiated rumor.
> > This would go
> > a long way to explaining the unbelievable one sided voting in areas like
> > Pgh and Philly. It's so bad it's a joke.
bad presidential candidate. Remember, he lost both of his home
states of Michigan and Massachusetts. He lost MI by 10% and in MA
where he was a one-term governor, he lost by 23%. He was a really
really bad candidate. He also lost Wisconsin by 7%, which was Ryan's
home state. So in case you haven't figured it out yet, he was a
really really bad candidate. BTW, Obama won both of his home states
of Hawaii and Illinois, and they also won Delaware, Biden's home
state.
> > There is good reason
> > Democrats fight tooth and nail every single attempt at reducing voter
> > fraud.
>
> you've bought it hook, line, and sinker.
>
> Dems fought the attempts to suppress votes, not legitamate attempts to curb
> fraud.
>
> There were several instances of REAL FRAUD committed by republicans.
>
> http://www.salon.com/2012/10/19/gop_voter_registration_scandal_widens/
The other important thing to realize about precincts and districts
that vote heavily for a single party is that this is the goal of
gerrymandering. Republicans control both houses of the legislature
in Pennsylvania and the governor is Republican, so that party
controlled the drawing of the districts after the 2010 census. The
goal of gerrymandering is to spread a minority of the opposing party
across as many districts as possible, and concentrate as many of the
opposing party in as few districts as possible. Perfect
gerrymandering would result in something like 51/49% in as many
districts as possible, and then have 0/100% in the remaining
districts. This gives the controlling party an exaggerated
advantage in the district count. So if there are districts and
precincts that are voting 100% Democratic, that means that the
Republicans did a very good job of gerrymandering.
This is generally what happened across the country this election.
There were more Democratic votes for US representatives than there
were Republican votes, yet the Republicans kept control of congress.
So when you hear some Republican claim that the voters preferred
Republicans to Democrats in this election in congress, that's not
really true. More voters actually preferred Democrats, but because
of gerrymandering, the minority Republicans kept control.
As far as voter fraud, we will have to wait to see. These precincts
with 0 Romney votes are not secret, they have been pretty well
publicized over the past couple of weeks. If there is anyone in
those districts who voted for Romney that comes forward, then we
will know that something wrong happened in counting those votes. It
has been almost two weeks now, and so far this hasn't happened. But
we will have to wait to see.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Black
Nov 26, 2012, 5:12:22 PM11/26/12
to
In article <ron-shepard-CE8B...@news60.forteinc.com>, ron-
she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
racism. I don't know what went on here but post mortem analyses of previous elections have
shown that problems found in democrat precincts were traced to poorly run operations by the
people in charge, who turned out to be democrats or poorly designed ballots which turned out
to be designed by democrats.
> If only income tax payers were allowed to vote, then how would you
> know if Romney was eligible vote? There was an unanswered
> accusation that he did not pay any income taxes at all for some
> years in the past decade. Since he refused to release his tax
> returns, as all other presidential candidates have done in the past
> 50 years, then should we assume that accusation is true?
Harry Reid made the claim that Romney paid no income tax for the past 10 years. I would
think only a moron could take the claim seriously, but all left wing blogs and programs
rambled on about it incessantly. Romney then released two years of returns proving Reid to
be a liar. What the returns showed is that Romney paid millions of dollars a year in taxes -
I'm sure far more than all of us remaining RSB'ers combined. His effective rate was around
15% which is a higher effective rate than around 95% of Americans.
> $.02 -Ron Shepard -Remembering the good ol' days of RSB :-)
Ah memories... I remember when we used to discuss pool too!
John Black
she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
> As far as voter fraud and racism, I'd say those things hurt Obama
> more than they helped. Some people living in Democratic leaning
> precincts had to stand in line six to eight hours to vote. That's
> not fair, especially to working class voters who have to punch a
> clock for a living.
This is unacceptable of course but I would not be quick to attribute it to voter fraud or
> more than they helped. Some people living in Democratic leaning
> precincts had to stand in line six to eight hours to vote. That's
> not fair, especially to working class voters who have to punch a
> clock for a living.
racism. I don't know what went on here but post mortem analyses of previous elections have
shown that problems found in democrat precincts were traced to poorly run operations by the
people in charge, who turned out to be democrats or poorly designed ballots which turned out
to be designed by democrats.
> If only income tax payers were allowed to vote, then how would you
> know if Romney was eligible vote? There was an unanswered
> accusation that he did not pay any income taxes at all for some
> years in the past decade. Since he refused to release his tax
> returns, as all other presidential candidates have done in the past
> 50 years, then should we assume that accusation is true?
think only a moron could take the claim seriously, but all left wing blogs and programs
rambled on about it incessantly. Romney then released two years of returns proving Reid to
be a liar. What the returns showed is that Romney paid millions of dollars a year in taxes -
I'm sure far more than all of us remaining RSB'ers combined. His effective rate was around
15% which is a higher effective rate than around 95% of Americans.
> $.02 -Ron Shepard -Remembering the good ol' days of RSB :-)
John Black
John Black
Nov 26, 2012, 5:13:25 PM11/26/12
to
In article <1c8128ab-2416-4176...@googlegroups.com>, ernesto-
santa...@usa.net says...
> suppress, by various means, minorities? voting -- ended up biting the GOP in the ass by
bought into the spin that says that wanting voter id to guard against voter fraud was some
kind of attempt to suppress minority votes. I find it very insulting to minorities to
suggest that they are somehow less capable than anyone else of obtaining a id.
Did you also buy into the idea that opposing a government guarantee to free contraception
represents a "war on women"? The dems did a great job of dividing everyone against ourselves
with these phony issues designed to distract from the horrible stewardship of the economy and
debt crisis.
> Also, Romney?s handlers (seen in 20-20 hindsight) appeared to have hugely blundered by not
better choice than Romney for the top spot. Rubio is not ready to be president. He may be
some day but he is not now. Choosing him would just be a choice based on skin color (to try
to pander to a group) over qualifications and while those kinds of decisions are par for the
course (even celebrated) on the democrat side, they are frowned upon on the Republican side.
John Black
santa...@usa.net says...
>
> Noteworthy for future GOP campaigns is the general agreement among the more candid political observers
> from both sides of the aisle, that the GOP?s coordinated nationwide attempt to maximally
> Noteworthy for future GOP campaigns is the general agreement among the more candid political observers
> suppress, by various means, minorities? voting -- ended up biting the GOP in the ass by
> radically fueling the Democrat drive to ensure optimal minority turnout. This push-back
> effectively numerically guaranteed the re-election of President Obama.
There was no attempt to suppress minority votes, maximally or otherwise. Sounds like you
> effectively numerically guaranteed the re-election of President Obama.
bought into the spin that says that wanting voter id to guard against voter fraud was some
kind of attempt to suppress minority votes. I find it very insulting to minorities to
suggest that they are somehow less capable than anyone else of obtaining a id.
Did you also buy into the idea that opposing a government guarantee to free contraception
represents a "war on women"? The dems did a great job of dividing everyone against ourselves
with these phony issues designed to distract from the horrible stewardship of the economy and
debt crisis.
> Also, Romney?s handlers (seen in 20-20 hindsight) appeared to have hugely blundered by not
> encouraging their man to have Rubio as his running mate, instead of Ryan.
I disagree. Ryan was the perfect choice. IMO given our budgetary and debt crisis, he was a
better choice than Romney for the top spot. Rubio is not ready to be president. He may be
some day but he is not now. Choosing him would just be a choice based on skin color (to try
to pander to a group) over qualifications and while those kinds of decisions are par for the
course (even celebrated) on the democrat side, they are frowned upon on the Republican side.
John Black
John Black
Nov 26, 2012, 5:15:15 PM11/26/12
to
In article <ron-shepard-61C6...@news60.forteinc.com>, ron-
she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
"red states" and "blue states". Is a state that votes 51% to 49% or thereabouts a "red
state" or a "blue state"? No, most places in the country are essentially divided.
> In this particular election there were indeed some precincts where
> Romney got zero votes. There might have been some where Obama did
> the same, although I have not seen any reported. But, after all,
> Romney was a really really bad candidate, so this surprises me less
> than the fact that he won some of the states that he did.
Romney may have been a bad candidate by in my opinion, Obama was a truly awful candidate.
Here was the case I sent out prior to the election:
===
In 2009, Barack Obama said, "If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to
be a one-term proposition." Unemployment is higher now than when Obama took office and if
the millions of people who have dropped out of the workforce since 2009 were accounted for,
the unemployment rate would be around 11%. Half of all new college graduates are unemployed
or underemployed. Median household income is down 8%. The price of gas has doubled. 14
million more people are on food stamps. 46.2 million people are now living in poverty - a
record. Obama promised to cut the deficit in half - instead he's doubled it, running up a
staggering $5 trillion in debt with very little to show for it. His plan is to run trillion
plus dollar deficits indefinitely into the future as if that were possible. We'd be more
than $20 trillion in debt by the end of a 2nd Obama term - I don't know how we could dig out
from that. By contrast, Romney eliminated the deficit he inherited as governor of MA,
balancing the budget while lowering the unemployment rate at the same time. But if Romney is
elected, won't he will send women "back to the stone age"? Of course not; the "war on
women" narrative was simply an attempt to distract us from all of the above.
===
Now that Obama has won, a lot of Obama voters are going to suffer in the horrible economy
they voted for. Unfortunately the rest of us have to experience it too. And the USA will
plunge forward toward almost inevitable bankruptcy.
John Black
she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
> Regarding the precinct and county election maps, don't forget that
> when you see a color, red or blue, that does not mean that everyone
> voted the same way. It just means a majority voted that way. So
> even a red county could have had 49% Democrats, or a blue county
> could have had 49% Republicans. Some of them were very close, some
> not so, but don't let the spin disorient you, it is just a trick of
> presenting data. If instead of having a single 50% threshhold
> several color contours were used, the results would not look so
> surprising and the vast majority of the country would look "purple."
This is a good point and why I never like the big generalizations made by people regarding
> when you see a color, red or blue, that does not mean that everyone
> voted the same way. It just means a majority voted that way. So
> even a red county could have had 49% Democrats, or a blue county
> could have had 49% Republicans. Some of them were very close, some
> not so, but don't let the spin disorient you, it is just a trick of
> presenting data. If instead of having a single 50% threshhold
> several color contours were used, the results would not look so
> surprising and the vast majority of the country would look "purple."
"red states" and "blue states". Is a state that votes 51% to 49% or thereabouts a "red
state" or a "blue state"? No, most places in the country are essentially divided.
> In this particular election there were indeed some precincts where
> Romney got zero votes. There might have been some where Obama did
> the same, although I have not seen any reported. But, after all,
> Romney was a really really bad candidate, so this surprises me less
> than the fact that he won some of the states that he did.
Here was the case I sent out prior to the election:
===
In 2009, Barack Obama said, "If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to
be a one-term proposition." Unemployment is higher now than when Obama took office and if
the millions of people who have dropped out of the workforce since 2009 were accounted for,
the unemployment rate would be around 11%. Half of all new college graduates are unemployed
or underemployed. Median household income is down 8%. The price of gas has doubled. 14
million more people are on food stamps. 46.2 million people are now living in poverty - a
record. Obama promised to cut the deficit in half - instead he's doubled it, running up a
staggering $5 trillion in debt with very little to show for it. His plan is to run trillion
plus dollar deficits indefinitely into the future as if that were possible. We'd be more
than $20 trillion in debt by the end of a 2nd Obama term - I don't know how we could dig out
from that. By contrast, Romney eliminated the deficit he inherited as governor of MA,
balancing the budget while lowering the unemployment rate at the same time. But if Romney is
elected, won't he will send women "back to the stone age"? Of course not; the "war on
women" narrative was simply an attempt to distract us from all of the above.
===
Now that Obama has won, a lot of Obama voters are going to suffer in the horrible economy
they voted for. Unfortunately the rest of us have to experience it too. And the USA will
plunge forward toward almost inevitable bankruptcy.
John Black
dave y.
Nov 26, 2012, 7:14:25 PM11/26/12
to
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:13:25 -0600, John Black <jbl...@nospam.com>
wrote:
>In article <1c8128ab-2416-4176...@googlegroups.com>, ernesto-
>santa...@usa.net says...
>>
>> Noteworthy for future GOP campaigns is the general agreement among the more candid political observers
>> from both sides of the aisle, that the GOP?s coordinated nationwide attempt to maximally
>> suppress, by various means, minorities? voting -- ended up biting the GOP in the ass by
>> radically fueling the Democrat drive to ensure optimal minority turnout. This push-back
>> effectively numerically guaranteed the re-election of President Obama.
>
>There was no attempt to suppress minority votes, maximally or otherwise. Sounds like you
>bought into the spin that says that wanting voter id to guard against voter fraud was some
>kind of attempt to suppress minority votes. I find it very insulting to minorities to
>suggest that they are somehow less capable than anyone else of obtaining a id.
...
Ok, how about the GOP was trying to suppress 'Democrati'c votes. Does
that make you feel better? Voter suppression was obviously the
objective, and just because they used legal methods doesn't make it
smell better. Remember the Pennsylvania case where in court filings
they had to admit they were not aware of a single case of voter id
fraud, cause it ain't nice to lie to a judge.
What's interesting here is that you actually don't see this reality,
but instead see some other reality crafted by the conservative
talk/news media. Don't ya get it that 'they' (Limbaugh, O'Reilly,
etc) are doing this as a form of entertainment to make big bucks, and
secretly inside they probably don't believe all of the nonsense they
spout on the radio.
dave y.
wrote:
>In article <1c8128ab-2416-4176...@googlegroups.com>, ernesto-
>santa...@usa.net says...
>>
>> Noteworthy for future GOP campaigns is the general agreement among the more candid political observers
>> from both sides of the aisle, that the GOP?s coordinated nationwide attempt to maximally
>> suppress, by various means, minorities? voting -- ended up biting the GOP in the ass by
>> radically fueling the Democrat drive to ensure optimal minority turnout. This push-back
>> effectively numerically guaranteed the re-election of President Obama.
>
>There was no attempt to suppress minority votes, maximally or otherwise. Sounds like you
>bought into the spin that says that wanting voter id to guard against voter fraud was some
>kind of attempt to suppress minority votes. I find it very insulting to minorities to
>suggest that they are somehow less capable than anyone else of obtaining a id.
Ok, how about the GOP was trying to suppress 'Democrati'c votes. Does
that make you feel better? Voter suppression was obviously the
objective, and just because they used legal methods doesn't make it
smell better. Remember the Pennsylvania case where in court filings
they had to admit they were not aware of a single case of voter id
fraud, cause it ain't nice to lie to a judge.
What's interesting here is that you actually don't see this reality,
but instead see some other reality crafted by the conservative
talk/news media. Don't ya get it that 'they' (Limbaugh, O'Reilly,
etc) are doing this as a form of entertainment to make big bucks, and
secretly inside they probably don't believe all of the nonsense they
spout on the radio.
dave y.
Message has been deleted
Ron Shepard
Nov 27, 2012, 1:41:46 AM11/27/12
to
In article <MPG.2b1da5421...@news.eternal-september.org>,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/jim-greer-florida-voting-law
s_n_2192802.html
This is one of the Republican insiders spilling the beans on what
they did in Florida.
>
> > If only income tax payers were allowed to vote, then how would you
> > know if Romney was eligible vote? There was an unanswered
> > accusation that he did not pay any income taxes at all for some
> > years in the past decade. Since he refused to release his tax
> > returns, as all other presidential candidates have done in the past
> > 50 years, then should we assume that accusation is true?
>
> Harry Reid made the claim that Romney paid no income tax for the past 10
> years. I would
> think only a moron could take the claim seriously, but all left wing blogs
> and programs
> rambled on about it incessantly.
I remember the claim, but not any incessant rambling about it. I
wish that more had been focused on this issue because it would send
a message to all future presidential candidates that they simply
cannot do this and expect to get any votes.
> Romney then released two years of returns
> proving Reid to
> be a liar.
You have the timing backwards. Romney had already released his 2010
returns and an estimate of his 2011 returns when Reid made his
claim. If it were a false claim, then all that Romney would have
had to do was release his returns and Reid's political career would
have been finished. Reid put his neck in the noose, and all Romney
had to do was to slap the horse. But he could not do it because he
had something to hide. I don't know what it was, and none of
probably ever will, but he was hiding something and Reid knew it.
> What the returns showed is that Romney paid millions of dollars a
> year in taxes -
> I'm sure far more than all of us remaining RSB'ers combined. His effective
> rate was around
> 15% which is a higher effective rate than around 95% of Americans.
But he did not take all of the deductions that he was allowed. If
he had done so, his rate would have been around 9%. He can still
file an amended return for 2011 to take advantage of those
deductions and to achieve that rate.
The other thing about his returns was that he donated millions of
dollars to the LDS church, and those donations are tax deductible.
Effectively, those were political donations, and it simply is not
fair for people to launder money this way. People should not be
allowed to deduct political donations in this backhanded way. It is
legal to do so, but this shows how screwed up our political system
is now.
He also deducted $75,000 because he has dancing horses. That's a
hobby, and because of that deduction the rest of us are paying his
share of taxes on that income. Romney doesn't pay me anything to
play pool, so I should not pay him anything for his dancing horse
hobby.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Black <jbl...@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article <ron-shepard-CE8B...@news60.forteinc.com>, ron-
> she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
> > As far as voter fraud and racism, I'd say those things hurt Obama
> > more than they helped. Some people living in Democratic leaning
> > precincts had to stand in line six to eight hours to vote. That's
> > not fair, especially to working class voters who have to punch a
> > clock for a living.
>
> This is unacceptable of course but I would not be quick to attribute it to
> voter fraud or
> racism. I don't know what went on here but post mortem analyses of previous
> elections have
> shown that problems found in democrat precincts were traced to poorly run
> operations by the
> people in charge, who turned out to be democrats or poorly designed ballots
> which turned out
> to be designed by democrats.
Here is just one of the recent articles on this.
> In article <ron-shepard-CE8B...@news60.forteinc.com>, ron-
> she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
> > As far as voter fraud and racism, I'd say those things hurt Obama
> > more than they helped. Some people living in Democratic leaning
> > precincts had to stand in line six to eight hours to vote. That's
> > not fair, especially to working class voters who have to punch a
> > clock for a living.
>
> This is unacceptable of course but I would not be quick to attribute it to
> voter fraud or
> racism. I don't know what went on here but post mortem analyses of previous
> elections have
> shown that problems found in democrat precincts were traced to poorly run
> operations by the
> people in charge, who turned out to be democrats or poorly designed ballots
> which turned out
> to be designed by democrats.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/jim-greer-florida-voting-law
s_n_2192802.html
This is one of the Republican insiders spilling the beans on what
they did in Florida.
>
> > If only income tax payers were allowed to vote, then how would you
> > know if Romney was eligible vote? There was an unanswered
> > accusation that he did not pay any income taxes at all for some
> > years in the past decade. Since he refused to release his tax
> > returns, as all other presidential candidates have done in the past
> > 50 years, then should we assume that accusation is true?
>
> Harry Reid made the claim that Romney paid no income tax for the past 10
> years. I would
> think only a moron could take the claim seriously, but all left wing blogs
> and programs
> rambled on about it incessantly.
wish that more had been focused on this issue because it would send
a message to all future presidential candidates that they simply
cannot do this and expect to get any votes.
> Romney then released two years of returns
> proving Reid to
> be a liar.
returns and an estimate of his 2011 returns when Reid made his
claim. If it were a false claim, then all that Romney would have
had to do was release his returns and Reid's political career would
have been finished. Reid put his neck in the noose, and all Romney
had to do was to slap the horse. But he could not do it because he
had something to hide. I don't know what it was, and none of
probably ever will, but he was hiding something and Reid knew it.
> What the returns showed is that Romney paid millions of dollars a
> year in taxes -
> I'm sure far more than all of us remaining RSB'ers combined. His effective
> rate was around
> 15% which is a higher effective rate than around 95% of Americans.
he had done so, his rate would have been around 9%. He can still
file an amended return for 2011 to take advantage of those
deductions and to achieve that rate.
The other thing about his returns was that he donated millions of
dollars to the LDS church, and those donations are tax deductible.
Effectively, those were political donations, and it simply is not
fair for people to launder money this way. People should not be
allowed to deduct political donations in this backhanded way. It is
legal to do so, but this shows how screwed up our political system
is now.
He also deducted $75,000 because he has dancing horses. That's a
hobby, and because of that deduction the rest of us are paying his
share of taxes on that income. Romney doesn't pay me anything to
play pool, so I should not pay him anything for his dancing horse
hobby.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ron Shepard
Nov 27, 2012, 2:07:28 AM11/27/12
to
In article <MPG.2b1da5817...@news.eternal-september.org>,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/jim-greer-florida-voting-law
s_n_2192802.html
in which one of the insiders explains the process.
> Sounds like you
> bought into the spin that says that wanting voter id to guard against voter
> fraud was some
> kind of attempt to suppress minority votes. I find it very insulting to
> minorities to
> suggest that they are somehow less capable than anyone else of obtaining a
> id.
It is not just voter IDs, it is voting hours and purposely putting
fewer voting booths in Democratic districts. Fewer booths means
longer lines, and in a working class neighborhood, that means some
people cannot vote because they need to punch a clock.
In Ohio, the Republicans even tried to have longer voting hours in
Republican leaning counties than in Democratic leaning counties.
There were lawsuits that prevented them from doing that, but that
shows that kind of crap is going on in elections these days.
>
> Did you also buy into the idea that opposing a government guarantee to free
> contraception
> represents a "war on women"?
Do you mean Sandra Fluke? That was not a government program, that
was a private insurance program at a private university. And it
isn't free because the students pay insurance premiums for coverage.
> The dems did a great job of dividing everyone
> against ourselves
> with these phony issues designed to distract from the horrible stewardship of
> the economy and
> debt crisis.
Yet the Republicans across the country proposed hundreds of bills
related to restricting contraception, family planning, and abortion
rights. And many of them were passed into law. One of them even had
government-mandated vaginal probes. Phony issue, huh?
Since the election, there have been dozens of female Republicans
complaining about how the Republican party treats these issues and
how they regard women in general. It is too bad that they didn't
speak out before when it might have done some good. But they put
party before country and kept quiet until now.
>
> > Also, Romney?s handlers (seen in 20-20 hindsight) appeared to have hugely
> > blundered by not
> > encouraging their man to have Rubio as his running mate, instead of Ryan.
>
> I disagree. Ryan was the perfect choice. IMO given our budgetary and debt
> crisis, he was a
> better choice than Romney for the top spot. Rubio is not ready to be
> president. He may be
> some day but he is not now. Choosing him would just be a choice based on
> skin color (to try
> to pander to a group) over qualifications and while those kinds of decisions
> are par for the
> course (even celebrated) on the democrat side, they are frowned upon on the
> Republican side.
You must not have watched the Republican primary. They tried to
parade every minority they had in front of the camera.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Black <jbl...@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article <1c8128ab-2416-4176...@googlegroups.com>, ernesto-
> santa...@usa.net says...
> >
> > Noteworthy for future GOP campaigns is the general agreement among the more
> > candid political observers
> > from both sides of the aisle, that the GOP?s coordinated nationwide attempt
> > to maximally
> > suppress, by various means, minorities? voting -- ended up biting the GOP
> > in the ass by
> > radically fueling the Democrat drive to ensure optimal minority turnout.
> > This push-back
> > effectively numerically guaranteed the re-election of President Obama.
>
> There was no attempt to suppress minority votes, maximally or otherwise.
Well, except there was. I already posted this link
> In article <1c8128ab-2416-4176...@googlegroups.com>, ernesto-
> santa...@usa.net says...
> >
> > Noteworthy for future GOP campaigns is the general agreement among the more
> > candid political observers
> > from both sides of the aisle, that the GOP?s coordinated nationwide attempt
> > to maximally
> > suppress, by various means, minorities? voting -- ended up biting the GOP
> > in the ass by
> > radically fueling the Democrat drive to ensure optimal minority turnout.
> > This push-back
> > effectively numerically guaranteed the re-election of President Obama.
>
> There was no attempt to suppress minority votes, maximally or otherwise.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/jim-greer-florida-voting-law
s_n_2192802.html
in which one of the insiders explains the process.
> Sounds like you
> bought into the spin that says that wanting voter id to guard against voter
> fraud was some
> kind of attempt to suppress minority votes. I find it very insulting to
> minorities to
> suggest that they are somehow less capable than anyone else of obtaining a
> id.
fewer voting booths in Democratic districts. Fewer booths means
longer lines, and in a working class neighborhood, that means some
people cannot vote because they need to punch a clock.
In Ohio, the Republicans even tried to have longer voting hours in
Republican leaning counties than in Democratic leaning counties.
There were lawsuits that prevented them from doing that, but that
shows that kind of crap is going on in elections these days.
>
> Did you also buy into the idea that opposing a government guarantee to free
> contraception
> represents a "war on women"?
was a private insurance program at a private university. And it
isn't free because the students pay insurance premiums for coverage.
> The dems did a great job of dividing everyone
> against ourselves
> with these phony issues designed to distract from the horrible stewardship of
> the economy and
> debt crisis.
related to restricting contraception, family planning, and abortion
rights. And many of them were passed into law. One of them even had
government-mandated vaginal probes. Phony issue, huh?
Since the election, there have been dozens of female Republicans
complaining about how the Republican party treats these issues and
how they regard women in general. It is too bad that they didn't
speak out before when it might have done some good. But they put
party before country and kept quiet until now.
>
> > Also, Romney?s handlers (seen in 20-20 hindsight) appeared to have hugely
> > blundered by not
> > encouraging their man to have Rubio as his running mate, instead of Ryan.
>
> I disagree. Ryan was the perfect choice. IMO given our budgetary and debt
> crisis, he was a
> better choice than Romney for the top spot. Rubio is not ready to be
> president. He may be
> some day but he is not now. Choosing him would just be a choice based on
> skin color (to try
> to pander to a group) over qualifications and while those kinds of decisions
> are par for the
> course (even celebrated) on the democrat side, they are frowned upon on the
> Republican side.
parade every minority they had in front of the camera.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ron Shepard
Nov 27, 2012, 2:38:55 AM11/27/12
to
In article <MPG.2b1da5f09...@news.eternal-september.org>,
was 9% and rising. Now it is 8.8% and dropping. It has been
dropping pretty steadily for the past year. The stock market has
doubled in value in the past four years, and corporate profits are
at an all-time high (not a four year high, an all time high).
> and if
> the millions of people who have dropped out of the workforce since 2009 were
> accounted for,
> the unemployment rate would be around 11%. Half of all new college graduates
> are unemployed
> or underemployed.
More people have been hired in the past three years than in all
eight years of the Bush administration. Yeah, we would all like for
things to be better than they are, but things are going in the right
direction now.
> The price of gas has
> doubled.
In the summer of 2008 gas was $4.11/gal (national average). Right
now, gas is $3.43/gal. In fact, gas has not been as high as $4.11
in the past four years.
These numbers are easy to find on the internet. Prices have been
both lower and higher than they are right now, but the general trend
has been relatively flat for the past three years. Yes, there was a
big dip in December 2008 after the stock market crash, but that was
when everyone in the world was afraid of another great depression.
> Obama promised to cut the deficit in half - instead he's doubled it,
> running up a
> staggering $5 trillion in debt with very little to show for it.
The deficit was $1.4 trillion in fy2009, the last year of Bush. That
included TARP, but it did ***not*** include funding for the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan (which Bush did not include in the budgets).
The next years were $1.3, $1.3, and $1.1 trillion. Those are big
deficits, but they are not double what they were in fy2009 and they
are decreasing. And an important point is that the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan are now included in the budgets. The budget deficit next
year may be less than $1 trillion.
> Now that Obama has won, a lot of Obama voters are going to suffer in the
> horrible economy
> they voted for. Unfortunately the rest of us have to experience it too. And
> the USA will
> plunge forward toward almost inevitable bankruptcy.
We'll see. I'm more optimistic than you about the situation.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Black <jbl...@nospam.com> wrote:
> In 2009, Barack Obama said, "If I don't have this done in three years, then
> there's going to
> be a one-term proposition." Unemployment is higher now than when Obama took
> office
No, it is actually lower now by 0.1%. However, four years ago it
> In 2009, Barack Obama said, "If I don't have this done in three years, then
> there's going to
> be a one-term proposition." Unemployment is higher now than when Obama took
> office
was 9% and rising. Now it is 8.8% and dropping. It has been
dropping pretty steadily for the past year. The stock market has
doubled in value in the past four years, and corporate profits are
at an all-time high (not a four year high, an all time high).
> and if
> the millions of people who have dropped out of the workforce since 2009 were
> accounted for,
> the unemployment rate would be around 11%. Half of all new college graduates
> are unemployed
> or underemployed.
eight years of the Bush administration. Yeah, we would all like for
things to be better than they are, but things are going in the right
direction now.
> The price of gas has
> doubled.
now, gas is $3.43/gal. In fact, gas has not been as high as $4.11
in the past four years.
These numbers are easy to find on the internet. Prices have been
both lower and higher than they are right now, but the general trend
has been relatively flat for the past three years. Yes, there was a
big dip in December 2008 after the stock market crash, but that was
when everyone in the world was afraid of another great depression.
> Obama promised to cut the deficit in half - instead he's doubled it,
> running up a
> staggering $5 trillion in debt with very little to show for it.
included TARP, but it did ***not*** include funding for the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan (which Bush did not include in the budgets).
The next years were $1.3, $1.3, and $1.1 trillion. Those are big
deficits, but they are not double what they were in fy2009 and they
are decreasing. And an important point is that the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan are now included in the budgets. The budget deficit next
year may be less than $1 trillion.
> Now that Obama has won, a lot of Obama voters are going to suffer in the
> horrible economy
> they voted for. Unfortunately the rest of us have to experience it too. And
> the USA will
> plunge forward toward almost inevitable bankruptcy.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Mark0
Nov 27, 2012, 11:02:30 AM11/27/12
to
On Nov 27 2012 2:38 AM, Ron Shepard wrote:
> In article <MPG.2b1da5f09...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> John Black <jbl...@nospam.com> wrote:
> snip
> In article <MPG.2b1da5f09...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> John Black <jbl...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> We'll see. I'm more optimistic than you about the situation.
>
> $.02 -Ron Shepard
So since you're a smart guy please answer me this... how do you spend
your way OUT of debt?
--> Mark0 <-- asking a serious question
Ron Shepard
Nov 27, 2012, 11:22:22 AM11/27/12
to
In article <mp4fo9x...@news.ezprovider.com>,
against American ingenuity, against American resourcefulness.
That's why they lost the election, and that's why they will lose
this political battle.
>
> So since you're a smart guy please answer me this... how do you spend
> your way OUT of debt?
s/spend/invest/
That's how we've always done it, and it is how it must be done now.
>
> --> Mark0 <-- asking a serious question
These aren't really serious questions, they are just shallow
rhetorical arguments. Everyone already knows the answers. These
superficial bumper sticker arguments are all we're hearing out of
Washington these days, nothing serious. It really is a sad
situation.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
"Mark0" <markmc...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Nov 27 2012 2:38 AM, Ron Shepard wrote:
>
> > In article <MPG.2b1da5f09...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > John Black <jbl...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> >
> > We'll see. I'm more optimistic than you about the situation.
> >
> > $.02 -Ron Shepard
>
> Well of course you are -- you have a vested interest in the outcome.
As do all Americans. Conservatives are betting against America,
> On Nov 27 2012 2:38 AM, Ron Shepard wrote:
>
> > In article <MPG.2b1da5f09...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > John Black <jbl...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> >
> > We'll see. I'm more optimistic than you about the situation.
> >
> > $.02 -Ron Shepard
>
> Well of course you are -- you have a vested interest in the outcome.
against American ingenuity, against American resourcefulness.
That's why they lost the election, and that's why they will lose
this political battle.
>
> So since you're a smart guy please answer me this... how do you spend
> your way OUT of debt?
That's how we've always done it, and it is how it must be done now.
>
> --> Mark0 <-- asking a serious question
rhetorical arguments. Everyone already knows the answers. These
superficial bumper sticker arguments are all we're hearing out of
Washington these days, nothing serious. It really is a sad
situation.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ernie
Nov 27, 2012, 11:30:34 AM11/27/12
to
Great article/blog, with concrete facts about felonious organized GOP supression of votes:
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/19/gop_voter_registration_scandal_widens/
Ernie
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/19/gop_voter_registration_scandal_widens/
Ernie
John Black
Nov 27, 2012, 3:43:12 PM11/27/12
to
In article <ron-shepard-8437...@news60.forteinc.com>, ron-
she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
gets credit for people dropping out of the workforce (giving up looking for jobs). And if
the workforce was the same size now that it was in 2009, unemployment would be around 11%.
Obama bragged about "creating" 5 million jobs. A questionable number but what he left out is
that 8 million people have left the labor force since he took over. So his message was
really "Vote for me, I've destroyed 3 Million jobs since I took office!!!". As for it
dropping pretty steadily, this is the most anemic recovery in history and as the costs of
Obamacare becomes a reality, its going to get even worse. The damper Obamacare and other
Obama regulations have put on hiring cannot be overstated. The stories are already
*steadily* coming out of layoffs and tricks using part time workers to try to survive
Obamacare.
> More people have been hired in the past three years than in all
> eight years of the Bush administration.
This stat is too absurd to even check. We've lost 3 million jobs since Obama took over.
> Yeah, we would all like for
> things to be better than they are, but things are going in the right
> direction now.
Perhaps you have a cushy job that allows you the luxury to believe that but Americans are
really hurting right now and there has been very little relief for them in 4 years. Many
places like California and other areas that have been run by democrats are in double digit
unemployment. Texas is one bright spot with 6.6% unemployment, but Obama is modelling his
policies after California rather than Texas. In fact, fully half of the national private
sector job growth in the last 2 years occurred in Texas alone.
> > Obama promised to cut the deficit in half - instead he's doubled it,
> > running up a
> > staggering $5 trillion in debt with very little to show for it.
>
> The deficit was $1.4 trillion in fy2009, the last year of Bush. That
> included TARP, but it did ***not*** include funding for the wars in
> Iraq and Afghanistan (which Bush did not include in the budgets).
Bush's average deficit was about $350 billion. Too high but not catestrophic. We cannot run
trillion plus dollar deficits indefinitely. We can't even do it for very long. Borrowing
40% of everything we spend is madness and is completly unsustainable. Obama tries to make it
all about these tax increases for "the rich" which if he got everything he wants would fund
the governement for 8 days. I.e. they do not address the real problem which is reckless
expansion of government to an unsupportable size.
> > Now that Obama has won, a lot of Obama voters are going to suffer in the
> > horrible economy
> > they voted for. Unfortunately the rest of us have to experience it too. And
> > the USA will
> > plunge forward toward almost inevitable bankruptcy.
>
> We'll see. I'm more optimistic than you about the situation.
I hope you are right but to me its like hoping that 2 plus 2 does not equal 4.
John Black
she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
>
> In article <MPG.2b1da5f09...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> John Black <jbl...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > In 2009, Barack Obama said, "If I don't have this done in three years, then
> > there's going to
> > be a one-term proposition." Unemployment is higher now than when Obama took
> > office
>
> No, it is actually lower now by 0.1%. However, four years ago it
> was 9% and rising. Now it is 8.8% and dropping. It has been
> dropping pretty steadily for the past year.
It was 7.8% when Obama took over. It only looks like its 8.8% now because Obama actually
> In article <MPG.2b1da5f09...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> John Black <jbl...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > In 2009, Barack Obama said, "If I don't have this done in three years, then
> > there's going to
> > be a one-term proposition." Unemployment is higher now than when Obama took
> > office
>
> No, it is actually lower now by 0.1%. However, four years ago it
> was 9% and rising. Now it is 8.8% and dropping. It has been
> dropping pretty steadily for the past year.
gets credit for people dropping out of the workforce (giving up looking for jobs). And if
the workforce was the same size now that it was in 2009, unemployment would be around 11%.
Obama bragged about "creating" 5 million jobs. A questionable number but what he left out is
that 8 million people have left the labor force since he took over. So his message was
really "Vote for me, I've destroyed 3 Million jobs since I took office!!!". As for it
dropping pretty steadily, this is the most anemic recovery in history and as the costs of
Obamacare becomes a reality, its going to get even worse. The damper Obamacare and other
Obama regulations have put on hiring cannot be overstated. The stories are already
*steadily* coming out of layoffs and tricks using part time workers to try to survive
Obamacare.
> More people have been hired in the past three years than in all
> eight years of the Bush administration.
> Yeah, we would all like for
> things to be better than they are, but things are going in the right
> direction now.
really hurting right now and there has been very little relief for them in 4 years. Many
places like California and other areas that have been run by democrats are in double digit
unemployment. Texas is one bright spot with 6.6% unemployment, but Obama is modelling his
policies after California rather than Texas. In fact, fully half of the national private
sector job growth in the last 2 years occurred in Texas alone.
> > Obama promised to cut the deficit in half - instead he's doubled it,
> > running up a
> > staggering $5 trillion in debt with very little to show for it.
>
> The deficit was $1.4 trillion in fy2009, the last year of Bush. That
> included TARP, but it did ***not*** include funding for the wars in
> Iraq and Afghanistan (which Bush did not include in the budgets).
trillion plus dollar deficits indefinitely. We can't even do it for very long. Borrowing
40% of everything we spend is madness and is completly unsustainable. Obama tries to make it
all about these tax increases for "the rich" which if he got everything he wants would fund
the governement for 8 days. I.e. they do not address the real problem which is reckless
expansion of government to an unsupportable size.
> > Now that Obama has won, a lot of Obama voters are going to suffer in the
> > horrible economy
> > they voted for. Unfortunately the rest of us have to experience it too. And
> > the USA will
> > plunge forward toward almost inevitable bankruptcy.
>
> We'll see. I'm more optimistic than you about the situation.
John Black
John Black
Nov 27, 2012, 3:43:12 PM11/27/12
to
In article <7254dda2-f975-41d4...@googlegroups.com>, ernesto-
santa...@usa.net says...
arrested. Black panthers were allowed to stand outside of polling places with billie clubs
in both this election and the last. There was a wall size mural of Obama with the word Hope
on it **at a polling place**. It was proven several times how easy it is to commit fraud
without the id requirement including a guy registering AS Eric Holder in Holder's district.
But dems always block ID requirements because they know on balance they benefit from voter
fraud including when convicted felons are allowed to vote. Its now almost assured that Al
Franken would not be a senator if you take away all of the felon vote he was allowed to get.
John Black
santa...@usa.net says...
>
> Great article/blog, with concrete facts about felonious organized GOP supression of votes:
>
> http://www.salon.com/2012/10/19/gop_voter_registration_scandal_widens/
A few bad actors does not represent organized GOP supression. This guy at least was
> Great article/blog, with concrete facts about felonious organized GOP supression of votes:
>
> http://www.salon.com/2012/10/19/gop_voter_registration_scandal_widens/
arrested. Black panthers were allowed to stand outside of polling places with billie clubs
in both this election and the last. There was a wall size mural of Obama with the word Hope
on it **at a polling place**. It was proven several times how easy it is to commit fraud
without the id requirement including a guy registering AS Eric Holder in Holder's district.
But dems always block ID requirements because they know on balance they benefit from voter
fraud including when convicted felons are allowed to vote. Its now almost assured that Al
Franken would not be a senator if you take away all of the felon vote he was allowed to get.
John Black
John Black
Nov 27, 2012, 3:43:23 PM11/27/12
to
In article <ron-shepard-0FC4...@news60.forteinc.com>, ron-
she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
the actual thing but rather eliminated or reduced taxpayer funding.
> One of them even had
> government-mandated vaginal probes. Phony issue, huh?
I am totally opposed to these laws but they really had nothing to do with Romney. And they
don't change the fact that Romney would have made a far better president than Obama
especially where the economy is concerned.
John Black
she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
> Yet the Republicans across the country proposed hundreds of bills
> related to restricting contraception, family planning, and abortion
> rights. And many of them were passed into law.
I don't know the specifics of hundreds of proposed bills but I think many did not restrict
> related to restricting contraception, family planning, and abortion
> rights. And many of them were passed into law.
the actual thing but rather eliminated or reduced taxpayer funding.
> One of them even had
> government-mandated vaginal probes. Phony issue, huh?
don't change the fact that Romney would have made a far better president than Obama
especially where the economy is concerned.
John Black
John Black
Nov 27, 2012, 3:45:24 PM11/27/12
to
In article <ron-shepard-2925...@news60.forteinc.com>, ron-
she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
>
> In article <MPG.2b1da5421...@news.eternal-september.org>,
at all. How we ever managed to have an election, I'll never know. Early voting didn't exist
for almost all of Florida's history and now any change to the arbitrary number of days that
they have early voting represents "voter suppression". And that suppression applies mostly
to democrats even though everyone is under the same rules. The whole thing is absurd on its
face.
> You have the timing backwards. Romney had already released his 2010
> returns and an estimate of his 2011 returns when Reid made his
> claim. If it were a false claim, then all that Romney would have
> had to do was release his returns and Reid's political career would
> have been finished. Reid put his neck in the noose, and all Romney
> had to do was to slap the horse. But he could not do it because he
> had something to hide. I don't know what it was, and none of
> probably ever will, but he was hiding something and Reid knew it.
Reid said Romney didn't pay income taxes for the past ten years. The past ten years include
2011 and 2010 in which Romney paid millions of dollars in taxes. Regardless, do you actually
beleive that he paid millions a year in 10 and 11 but didn't pay anything at all in 09, 08,
07, etc.?? And that somehow the IRS would not have noticed that and be all over him? Its
complete idiocy! I am stunned that this crap works.
> > What the returns showed is that Romney paid millions of dollars a
> > year in taxes -
> > I'm sure far more than all of us remaining RSB'ers combined. His effective
> > rate was around
> > 15% which is a higher effective rate than around 95% of Americans.
>
> But he did not take all of the deductions that he was allowed. If
> he had done so, his rate would have been around 9%. He can still
> file an amended return for 2011 to take advantage of those
> deductions and to achieve that rate.
>
> The other thing about his returns was that he donated millions of
> dollars to the LDS church, and those donations are tax deductible.
> Effectively, those were political donations, and it simply is not
> fair for people to launder money this way. People should not be
> allowed to deduct political donations in this backhanded way. It is
> legal to do so, but this shows how screwed up our political system
> is now.
>
> He also deducted $75,000 because he has dancing horses. That's a
> hobby, and because of that deduction the rest of us are paying his
> share of taxes on that income. Romney doesn't pay me anything to
> play pool, so I should not pay him anything for his dancing horse
> hobby.
LOL, good job illustrating exactly why Romney did not release his earlier tax returns. They
would oh so fairly be scrutinized. Donations to his church is money laundering? All the
deductions are legal deductions or else the IRS would have disallowed them. You don't think
certain deductions are "fair". I don't think its fair that my effective tax rate is what it
is and yet almost 50% of Americans pay no income tax at all. Our problems are with the tax
code, not the tax filers or their accountants.
John Black
she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
>
> In article <MPG.2b1da5421...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
> Here is just one of the recent articles on this.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/jim-greer-florida-voting-law
> s_n_2192802.html
Florida was my home for over 15 years and during that entire time we didn't have early voting
> Here is just one of the recent articles on this.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/jim-greer-florida-voting-law
> s_n_2192802.html
at all. How we ever managed to have an election, I'll never know. Early voting didn't exist
for almost all of Florida's history and now any change to the arbitrary number of days that
they have early voting represents "voter suppression". And that suppression applies mostly
to democrats even though everyone is under the same rules. The whole thing is absurd on its
face.
> You have the timing backwards. Romney had already released his 2010
> returns and an estimate of his 2011 returns when Reid made his
> claim. If it were a false claim, then all that Romney would have
> had to do was release his returns and Reid's political career would
> have been finished. Reid put his neck in the noose, and all Romney
> had to do was to slap the horse. But he could not do it because he
> had something to hide. I don't know what it was, and none of
> probably ever will, but he was hiding something and Reid knew it.
2011 and 2010 in which Romney paid millions of dollars in taxes. Regardless, do you actually
beleive that he paid millions a year in 10 and 11 but didn't pay anything at all in 09, 08,
07, etc.?? And that somehow the IRS would not have noticed that and be all over him? Its
complete idiocy! I am stunned that this crap works.
> > What the returns showed is that Romney paid millions of dollars a
> > year in taxes -
> > I'm sure far more than all of us remaining RSB'ers combined. His effective
> > rate was around
> > 15% which is a higher effective rate than around 95% of Americans.
>
> But he did not take all of the deductions that he was allowed. If
> he had done so, his rate would have been around 9%. He can still
> file an amended return for 2011 to take advantage of those
> deductions and to achieve that rate.
>
> The other thing about his returns was that he donated millions of
> dollars to the LDS church, and those donations are tax deductible.
> Effectively, those were political donations, and it simply is not
> fair for people to launder money this way. People should not be
> allowed to deduct political donations in this backhanded way. It is
> legal to do so, but this shows how screwed up our political system
> is now.
>
> He also deducted $75,000 because he has dancing horses. That's a
> hobby, and because of that deduction the rest of us are paying his
> share of taxes on that income. Romney doesn't pay me anything to
> play pool, so I should not pay him anything for his dancing horse
> hobby.
would oh so fairly be scrutinized. Donations to his church is money laundering? All the
deductions are legal deductions or else the IRS would have disallowed them. You don't think
certain deductions are "fair". I don't think its fair that my effective tax rate is what it
is and yet almost 50% of Americans pay no income tax at all. Our problems are with the tax
code, not the tax filers or their accountants.
John Black
Message has been deleted
Ron Shepard
Nov 28, 2012, 3:16:08 AM11/28/12
to
In article <MPG.2b1ee1d62...@news.eternal-september.org>,
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/employment/us/
There are about 600K more people employed now than in January 2009.
As you can see, employment peaked in December 2007, and we are not
back up to that value. But Obama was not president until a year
later, January 2009, and at that time we were losing 750K jobs per
month.
You can also see that employment has been rising fairly steadily
since September 2009, which was the low point of the employment.
> > > Obama promised to cut the deficit in half - instead he's doubled it,
> > > running up a
> > > staggering $5 trillion in debt with very little to show for it.
> >
> > The deficit was $1.4 trillion in fy2009, the last year of Bush. That
> > included TARP, but it did ***not*** include funding for the wars in
> > Iraq and Afghanistan (which Bush did not include in the budgets).
>
> Bush's average deficit was about $350 billion. Too high but not
> catestrophic.
As I pointed out before, that does not include Iraq and Afganistan
war funding. That funding increased the public debt, but it did not
count as part of the budget deficit because it was not part of the
budget. The current numbers do include war funding.
> We cannot run
> trillion plus dollar deficits indefinitely. We can't even do it for very
> long.
I agree with all of this, but the fact is that Obama did not double
the deficit, he has reduced it.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Black <jbl...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > More people have been hired in the past three years than in all
> > eight years of the Bush administration.
>
> This stat is too absurd to even check. We've lost 3 million jobs since Obama
> took over.
Here is the employment data.
> > More people have been hired in the past three years than in all
> > eight years of the Bush administration.
>
> This stat is too absurd to even check. We've lost 3 million jobs since Obama
> took over.
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/employment/us/
There are about 600K more people employed now than in January 2009.
As you can see, employment peaked in December 2007, and we are not
back up to that value. But Obama was not president until a year
later, January 2009, and at that time we were losing 750K jobs per
month.
You can also see that employment has been rising fairly steadily
since September 2009, which was the low point of the employment.
> > > Obama promised to cut the deficit in half - instead he's doubled it,
> > > running up a
> > > staggering $5 trillion in debt with very little to show for it.
> >
> > The deficit was $1.4 trillion in fy2009, the last year of Bush. That
> > included TARP, but it did ***not*** include funding for the wars in
> > Iraq and Afghanistan (which Bush did not include in the budgets).
>
> Bush's average deficit was about $350 billion. Too high but not
> catestrophic.
war funding. That funding increased the public debt, but it did not
count as part of the budget deficit because it was not part of the
budget. The current numbers do include war funding.
> We cannot run
> trillion plus dollar deficits indefinitely. We can't even do it for very
> long.
the deficit, he has reduced it.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ron Shepard
Nov 28, 2012, 3:20:04 AM11/28/12
to
In article <MPG.2b1ee1dbf...@news.eternal-september.org>,
the absentee ballots were counted. As you know, Franken was an
entertainer before he was elected, and he spent a lot of time in
military bases during that time.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Black <jbl...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Its now almost assured that Al
> Franken would not be a senator if you take away all of the felon vote he was
> allowed to get.
Actually it was the military ballots that gave him his advantage as
> Its now almost assured that Al
> Franken would not be a senator if you take away all of the felon vote he was
> allowed to get.
the absentee ballots were counted. As you know, Franken was an
entertainer before he was elected, and he spent a lot of time in
military bases during that time.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ron Shepard
Nov 28, 2012, 3:25:06 AM11/28/12
to
In article <MPG.2b1ee1e3b...@news.eternal-september.org>,
country dodged a metaphorical bullet in the last election, and not
only did the best candidate win, but Romney would have been a
disaster in many ways. This is my opinion, which I do not try to
claim as a fact.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Black <jbl...@nospam.com> wrote:
> And they
> don't change the fact that Romney would have made a far better president than
> Obama
> especially where the economy is concerned.
That is not a fact, it is just your opinion. I personally think the
> And they
> don't change the fact that Romney would have made a far better president than
> Obama
> especially where the economy is concerned.
country dodged a metaphorical bullet in the last election, and not
only did the best candidate win, but Romney would have been a
disaster in many ways. This is my opinion, which I do not try to
claim as a fact.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ron Shepard
Nov 28, 2012, 3:43:25 AM11/28/12
to
In article <MPG.2b1ee25a6...@news.eternal-september.org>,
things have somehow changed there haven't they? If you follow the
above link you can see how and why they have changed.
>
> > You have the timing backwards. Romney had already released his 2010
> > returns and an estimate of his 2011 returns when Reid made his
> > claim. If it were a false claim, then all that Romney would have
> > had to do was release his returns and Reid's political career would
> > have been finished. Reid put his neck in the noose, and all Romney
> > had to do was to slap the horse. But he could not do it because he
> > had something to hide. I don't know what it was, and none of
> > probably ever will, but he was hiding something and Reid knew it.
>
> Reid said Romney didn't pay income taxes for the past ten years.
No, you added the word "past" to his claim.
The past
> ten years include
> 2011 and 2010 in which Romney paid millions of dollars in taxes. Regardless,
> do you actually
> beleive that he paid millions a year in 10 and 11 but didn't pay anything at
> all in 09, 08,
> 07, etc.?? And that somehow the IRS would not have noticed that and be all
> over him? Its
> complete idiocy! I am stunned that this crap works.
Obama release his tax returns. All other presidential candidates
for the past 50 years have released their tax returns. All Romney
had to do was to release his tax returns and this issue would not
only have been settled, but Reid's political career would have been
over.
> LOL, good job illustrating exactly why Romney did not release his earlier tax
> returns. They
> would oh so fairly be scrutinized.
When his father ran for president in 1967 he released 12 years of
tax returns saying, "One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for
show, and what mattered in personal finance was how a man conducted
himself over the long haul."
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Black <jbl...@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article <ron-shepard-2925...@news60.forteinc.com>, ron-
> she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
> >
> > In article <MPG.2b1da5421...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >
> > Here is just one of the recent articles on this.
> >
> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/jim-greer-florida-voting-law
> > s_n_2192802.html
>
> Florida was my home for over 15 years and during that entire time we didn't
> have early voting
> at all. How we ever managed to have an election, I'll never know. Early
> voting didn't exist
> for almost all of Florida's history and now any change to the arbitrary
> number of days that
> they have early voting represents "voter suppression". And that suppression
> applies mostly
> to democrats even though everyone is under the same rules. The whole thing
> is absurd on its
> face.
Did you have to stand in line for eight hours to vote? If not, then
> In article <ron-shepard-2925...@news60.forteinc.com>, ron-
> she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
> >
> > In article <MPG.2b1da5421...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >
> > Here is just one of the recent articles on this.
> >
> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/jim-greer-florida-voting-law
> > s_n_2192802.html
>
> Florida was my home for over 15 years and during that entire time we didn't
> have early voting
> at all. How we ever managed to have an election, I'll never know. Early
> voting didn't exist
> for almost all of Florida's history and now any change to the arbitrary
> number of days that
> they have early voting represents "voter suppression". And that suppression
> applies mostly
> to democrats even though everyone is under the same rules. The whole thing
> is absurd on its
> face.
things have somehow changed there haven't they? If you follow the
above link you can see how and why they have changed.
>
> > You have the timing backwards. Romney had already released his 2010
> > returns and an estimate of his 2011 returns when Reid made his
> > claim. If it were a false claim, then all that Romney would have
> > had to do was release his returns and Reid's political career would
> > have been finished. Reid put his neck in the noose, and all Romney
> > had to do was to slap the horse. But he could not do it because he
> > had something to hide. I don't know what it was, and none of
> > probably ever will, but he was hiding something and Reid knew it.
>
> Reid said Romney didn't pay income taxes for the past ten years.
The past
> ten years include
> 2011 and 2010 in which Romney paid millions of dollars in taxes. Regardless,
> do you actually
> beleive that he paid millions a year in 10 and 11 but didn't pay anything at
> all in 09, 08,
> 07, etc.?? And that somehow the IRS would not have noticed that and be all
> over him? Its
> complete idiocy! I am stunned that this crap works.
for the past 50 years have released their tax returns. All Romney
had to do was to release his tax returns and this issue would not
only have been settled, but Reid's political career would have been
over.
> LOL, good job illustrating exactly why Romney did not release his earlier tax
> returns. They
> would oh so fairly be scrutinized.
tax returns saying, "One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for
show, and what mattered in personal finance was how a man conducted
himself over the long haul."
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Mark0
Nov 28, 2012, 12:50:36 PM11/28/12
to
On Nov 27 2012 11:22 AM, Ron Shepard wrote:
> In article <mp4fo9x...@news.ezprovider.com>,
> "Mark0" <markmc...@charter.net> wrote:
snip
> In article <mp4fo9x...@news.ezprovider.com>,
> "Mark0" <markmc...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> s/spend/invest/
Not clear what you mean with these slashes...
>
> That's how we've always done it, and it is how it must be done now.
>
> >
> > --> Mark0 <-- asking a serious question
>
the government should be the entity doing the investing. The investing I
see the govt doing is keeping people home instead of putting them to work.
And those people will have a vested interest in continuing a government
that will support them instead of them supporting themselves... How can
this be good for America and how can this be good for people individually?
Getting money for making illegitimate babies has done more harm to the
"family unit" than anything I can think of offhand.
--> Mark0 <-- really wasn't trying to SSS (for a change maybe, but truly was
wondering how you can spend your way out of debt...
John Black
Nov 28, 2012, 5:23:31 PM11/28/12
to
In article <cgvho9x...@news.ezprovider.com>, markmc...@charter.net says...
John Black
> wondering how you can spend your way out of debt...
Its even worse than that. Its people who think they can borrow their way out of debt.
John Black
John Black
Nov 28, 2012, 5:23:42 PM11/28/12
to
In article <ron-shepard-CEA6...@news60.forteinc.com>, ron-
she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
1099 felons were allowed to vote in that election which Franken won by 312 votes. It is
known that when felons are allowed to vote, they favor democrats. I'll try not to wonder why
that is.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-
ballots/article/2504163#.ULaNWtd1sdA
John Black
she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
known that when felons are allowed to vote, they favor democrats. I'll try not to wonder why
that is.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-
ballots/article/2504163#.ULaNWtd1sdA
John Black
John Black
Nov 28, 2012, 5:24:03 PM11/28/12
to
In article <ron-shepard-56CE...@news60.forteinc.com>, ron-
she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
>
> In article <MPG.2b1ee25a6...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Reid could just say that was not the 10 years he was talking about. I still think its not
even a plausible claim even though its apparent Romeny had some other reason for not wanting
to release his returns.
Here is how maddning this issue is. Almost 50% of the people in this country do not pay any
income taxes at all. Many of them are the very Obama voters jumping up and down srceaming
that a guy who pays millions of dollars a year is not paying **his** fair share. They, who
pay nothing are paying **their** fair share but the people who pay most of the taxes are not
paying their fair share. This is what amounts to logic in the democrat party.
John Black
she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
>
> In article <MPG.2b1ee25a6...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
> > Reid said Romney didn't pay income taxes for the past ten years.
>
> No, you added the word "past" to his claim.
Oh I see. Reid didn't say which 10 years. So if Romney did release a bunch more returns,
> > Reid said Romney didn't pay income taxes for the past ten years.
>
> No, you added the word "past" to his claim.
Reid could just say that was not the 10 years he was talking about. I still think its not
even a plausible claim even though its apparent Romeny had some other reason for not wanting
to release his returns.
Here is how maddning this issue is. Almost 50% of the people in this country do not pay any
income taxes at all. Many of them are the very Obama voters jumping up and down srceaming
that a guy who pays millions of dollars a year is not paying **his** fair share. They, who
pay nothing are paying **their** fair share but the people who pay most of the taxes are not
paying their fair share. This is what amounts to logic in the democrat party.
John Black
John Black
Nov 28, 2012, 5:24:14 PM11/28/12
to
In article <ron-shepard-C003...@news60.forteinc.com>, ron-
she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
600K more jobs now than in Jan 2009 means we are way worse off than we should be if we were
even just treading water.
> > > > Obama promised to cut the deficit in half - instead he's doubled it,
> > > > running up a
> > > > staggering $5 trillion in debt with very little to show for it.
> > >
> > > The deficit was $1.4 trillion in fy2009, the last year of Bush. That
> > > included TARP, but it did ***not*** include funding for the wars in
> > > Iraq and Afghanistan (which Bush did not include in the budgets).
> >
> > Bush's average deficit was about $350 billion. Too high but not
> > catestrophic.
>
> As I pointed out before, that does not include Iraq and Afganistan
> war funding. That funding increased the public debt, but it did not
> count as part of the budget deficit because it was not part of the
> budget. The current numbers do include war funding.
This article compares different presidents and their deficits as a percentage of GDP. Bush
average was 2.7%. Obama: 8.9% He's exploded the deficit and made this level of spending the
baseline norm which is reckless beyond words.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-
presidents-truly-rank/
Look at the author comment at the end too:
"Mr. Skipper is dead wrong in his contention that my deficit-to-GDP and spending-to-GDP
ratios omit costs of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is true that some of those costs
were included in supplementals ? a time-honored tradition ? but ALL government expenses are
subsumed under the heading ?outlays,? and these are the figures I used, from Table B-79 of
the Economic Report of the President from 2012. In other words, in figuring deficits, I used
the dollars the government actually spent and received."
> > We cannot run
> > trillion plus dollar deficits indefinitely. We can't even do it for very
> > long.
>
> I agree with all of this, but the fact is that Obama did not double
> the deficit, he has reduced it.
Absurd. The 09 TARP bailout was a one time deal. Only a lunatic would expand government to
make that level of unsustainable spending the new baseline budget going forward. I don't
think Hillary or Bill Clinton for example would have been even in the ballpark of that kind
of fiscal irresponsibility.
John Black
she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
>
> In article <MPG.2b1ee1d62...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> John Black <jbl...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > > More people have been hired in the past three years than in all
> > > eight years of the Bush administration.
> >
> > This stat is too absurd to even check. We've lost 3 million jobs since Obama
> > took over.
>
> Here is the employment data.
>
> http://www.deptofnumbers.com/employment/us/
>
> There are about 600K more people employed now than in January 2009.
> As you can see, employment peaked in December 2007, and we are not
> back up to that value. But Obama was not president until a year
> later, January 2009, and at that time we were losing 750K jobs per
> month.
>
> You can also see that employment has been rising fairly steadily
> since September 2009, which was the low point of the employment.
Since over 100,000 new jobs a month are needed just to keep up with population growth, having
> In article <MPG.2b1ee1d62...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> John Black <jbl...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > > More people have been hired in the past three years than in all
> > > eight years of the Bush administration.
> >
> > This stat is too absurd to even check. We've lost 3 million jobs since Obama
> > took over.
>
> Here is the employment data.
>
> http://www.deptofnumbers.com/employment/us/
>
> There are about 600K more people employed now than in January 2009.
> As you can see, employment peaked in December 2007, and we are not
> back up to that value. But Obama was not president until a year
> later, January 2009, and at that time we were losing 750K jobs per
> month.
>
> You can also see that employment has been rising fairly steadily
> since September 2009, which was the low point of the employment.
600K more jobs now than in Jan 2009 means we are way worse off than we should be if we were
even just treading water.
> > > > Obama promised to cut the deficit in half - instead he's doubled it,
> > > > running up a
> > > > staggering $5 trillion in debt with very little to show for it.
> > >
> > > The deficit was $1.4 trillion in fy2009, the last year of Bush. That
> > > included TARP, but it did ***not*** include funding for the wars in
> > > Iraq and Afghanistan (which Bush did not include in the budgets).
> >
> > Bush's average deficit was about $350 billion. Too high but not
> > catestrophic.
>
> As I pointed out before, that does not include Iraq and Afganistan
> war funding. That funding increased the public debt, but it did not
> count as part of the budget deficit because it was not part of the
> budget. The current numbers do include war funding.
average was 2.7%. Obama: 8.9% He's exploded the deficit and made this level of spending the
baseline norm which is reckless beyond words.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-
presidents-truly-rank/
Look at the author comment at the end too:
"Mr. Skipper is dead wrong in his contention that my deficit-to-GDP and spending-to-GDP
ratios omit costs of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is true that some of those costs
were included in supplementals ? a time-honored tradition ? but ALL government expenses are
subsumed under the heading ?outlays,? and these are the figures I used, from Table B-79 of
the Economic Report of the President from 2012. In other words, in figuring deficits, I used
the dollars the government actually spent and received."
> > We cannot run
> > trillion plus dollar deficits indefinitely. We can't even do it for very
> > long.
>
> I agree with all of this, but the fact is that Obama did not double
> the deficit, he has reduced it.
make that level of unsustainable spending the new baseline budget going forward. I don't
think Hillary or Bill Clinton for example would have been even in the ballpark of that kind
of fiscal irresponsibility.
John Black
Ron Shepard
Nov 29, 2012, 2:34:56 AM11/29/12
to
In article <MPG.2b204b08c...@news.eternal-september.org>,
since Obama took over." We have added jobs, not lost them.
And we were not "just treading water" during 2008 and the first few
months of 2009. In January 2009 when Obama took the oath we were
losing about 750K jobs per month. It took several months before the
stimulus spending of 2009 reversed that.
> > > We cannot run
> > > trillion plus dollar deficits indefinitely. We can't even do it for very
> > > long.
> >
> > I agree with all of this, but the fact is that Obama did not double
> > the deficit, he has reduced it.
>
> Absurd. The 09 TARP bailout was a one time deal.
You have the date wrong. TARP was signed into law October 3, 2008.
Not only was GW Bush president at that time, this was a month before
the election and over three months before Obama took office.
I'm not a fan of the TARP bailout. I do think the government needed
to act, but it spent the money in exactly the wrong place. Instead
of injecting it at the top of the pyramid, where it stayed and
didn't do much good, it should have been injected at the bottom.
Then as the money worked its way up through the economy, everyone
would have benefited.
In February 2009 (yes, this was after Obama took over), the senate
had to vote to prohibit Wall Street firms from using TARP funds to
pay bonuses to their upper management. These were the people who
caused the collapse in the first place. Also that month, $50 billion
of TARP was redirected towards foreclosure mitigation. That was a
useful way to spend money (i.e. at the bottom), but it was only $50
billion out of the $900 billion total.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Black <jbl...@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article <ron-shepard-C003...@news60.forteinc.com>, ron-
> she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
> >
> > In article <MPG.2b1ee1d62...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > John Black <jbl...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > More people have been hired in the past three years than in all
> > > > eight years of the Bush administration.
> > >
> > > This stat is too absurd to even check. We've lost 3 million jobs since
> > > Obama
> > > took over.
> >
> > Here is the employment data.
> >
> > http://www.deptofnumbers.com/employment/us/
> >
> > There are about 600K more people employed now than in January 2009.
> > As you can see, employment peaked in December 2007, and we are not
> > back up to that value. But Obama was not president until a year
> > later, January 2009, and at that time we were losing 750K jobs per
> > month.
> >
> > You can also see that employment has been rising fairly steadily
> > since September 2009, which was the low point of the employment.
>
> Since over 100,000 new jobs a month are needed just to keep up with
> population growth, having
> 600K more jobs now than in Jan 2009 means we are way worse off than we should
> be if we were
> even just treading water.
Yes, but this still does not mean that "We've lost 3 million jobs
> In article <ron-shepard-C003...@news60.forteinc.com>, ron-
> she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
> >
> > In article <MPG.2b1ee1d62...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > John Black <jbl...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > More people have been hired in the past three years than in all
> > > > eight years of the Bush administration.
> > >
> > > This stat is too absurd to even check. We've lost 3 million jobs since
> > > Obama
> > > took over.
> >
> > Here is the employment data.
> >
> > http://www.deptofnumbers.com/employment/us/
> >
> > There are about 600K more people employed now than in January 2009.
> > As you can see, employment peaked in December 2007, and we are not
> > back up to that value. But Obama was not president until a year
> > later, January 2009, and at that time we were losing 750K jobs per
> > month.
> >
> > You can also see that employment has been rising fairly steadily
> > since September 2009, which was the low point of the employment.
>
> Since over 100,000 new jobs a month are needed just to keep up with
> population growth, having
> 600K more jobs now than in Jan 2009 means we are way worse off than we should
> be if we were
> even just treading water.
since Obama took over." We have added jobs, not lost them.
And we were not "just treading water" during 2008 and the first few
months of 2009. In January 2009 when Obama took the oath we were
losing about 750K jobs per month. It took several months before the
stimulus spending of 2009 reversed that.
> > > We cannot run
> > > trillion plus dollar deficits indefinitely. We can't even do it for very
> > > long.
> >
> > I agree with all of this, but the fact is that Obama did not double
> > the deficit, he has reduced it.
>
> Absurd. The 09 TARP bailout was a one time deal.
Not only was GW Bush president at that time, this was a month before
the election and over three months before Obama took office.
I'm not a fan of the TARP bailout. I do think the government needed
to act, but it spent the money in exactly the wrong place. Instead
of injecting it at the top of the pyramid, where it stayed and
didn't do much good, it should have been injected at the bottom.
Then as the money worked its way up through the economy, everyone
would have benefited.
In February 2009 (yes, this was after Obama took over), the senate
had to vote to prohibit Wall Street firms from using TARP funds to
pay bonuses to their upper management. These were the people who
caused the collapse in the first place. Also that month, $50 billion
of TARP was redirected towards foreclosure mitigation. That was a
useful way to spend money (i.e. at the bottom), but it was only $50
billion out of the $900 billion total.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
0 new messages