Who will run with Sarah Palin in 2012?
Immortalist
against Obama in 12
Ann Coulter?
Rush Limburger?
McCain?
???
Jimbo
She quite her Govenor's post to run for president 3 years in the
future? LOL! Not likely.
Immortalist
Maybe she knows it is in her best interest to get out now because
anything more will work against her run against Obama.
Jimbo
LOL! I think you're grasping at straws. The most likely scenario
is that someone has some very severe dirt on her, and she's getting
out before the scandal comes down.
Ron
.
Re: Who will run with Sarah Palin in 2012?
SpongeBob?
RO
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Michelle Bachmann
Shrikeback
What makes you think she would even win the
nomination? When has a losing VP candidate
ever come back from obscurity? Perhaps McCain's
pick for her was an implicit admission that the Pug's
would probably lose in 2008. Why pick someone
who isn't already obscure if you look at it pessimistically?
Colin Powell seems to be expressing some doubts
about the ultramoronic Obama/Pelosi spend-ourselves-
into-the-stone-age, read-my-lips-no-new-taxes-on-those-
poor-suckers-who-make-less-than-250K, 5 year fiscal
plan, so maybe the Pug in 2012 will be Powell.
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/03/powell-airs-doubts-on-
obama-agenda/>
Woot.
squirltop
Aside from being one of the ultimate traitors of the country Powell is
what I would consider a genuine conservative,
not that right-wing hannity limbaugh like trash.
Jimbo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Agreed, I'd consider voting for Powell, if he were interested in
running.
f.barnes
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:57:13 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>
> Yeah, sure...
>
> Or, maybe she really is every bit as bat shit crazy and profoundly stupid as
> she appears. Or, maybe...
>
> Listening to Sarah Palin's bizarre, long, rambling, incoherent, self
> contradictory boob babble just now it's clear that we're very likely going
> to see the "other shoe" drop. Sounding as if she'd just snorted an 8-ball
> after 3 days on a booze binge, Palin babbled on and on, with nary a sentence
> in sight, about, well, nothing. It was a truly bizarre performance. The one
> thing that was clear was that she was very, very anxious.
What news comference did you watch? That's not the news conference I
watched. But I have noticed that you very stupid, low-IQ types, can
not understand Palin. And that's a shame since such morons are
allowed to vote.
>
> It's one thing not to run for reelection. It's quite another to simply QUIT
> the office to which you were elected. does she not remember taking an OATH
> to the people of Alaska? WTF could she possibly be thinking, though thinking
> seems the wrong term when speaking of Palin.
>
> There is simply no logical reason for her to quit. It's jut plain STUPID. It
> is the end of any national political aspirations she may harbor. Either she
> is a truly stupid, stupid person making a truly stupid, stupid
> strategical-type decision or there's another shoe here about to drop.
>
> While I would never discount the possibility of Palin being a complete and
> total moron, I suspect it's more likely something else is going on here. For
> one thing, why in the world would she decide to make this announcement
> today, the Friday before a long 4th of July weekend? And if this decision
> has been in the offing for "a while," as she claimed, why is it that no one,
> not the Lt. Gov, not her closest allies, nobody, had the slightest clue
> about her quitting?
>
> So, I'm happy to announce the Sara "Quitter" Palin newsgroup pool. Why do
> you think Sarah quit? Was it...
>
> 1. Some new scandal about to break
> 2. Her 14 yo is pregnant
> 3. Trig isn't really a Down's baby
> 4. She's just plain stupid
> 5. She's just plain crazy
> 6. She's stupid AND crazy
> 7. She's bored with politics
>
> Or, write in your choice. The winners get bragging rights in alt.politics
> for the next year. Good luck!
>
> My choice is #7, with a lot of #6. I think she is every bit that stupid,
> that shallow, that irresponsible and that selfish as to abandon her post,
> ignore her oath of office and violate the faith and trust of her
> constituents.
>
> In any event, it's a damn shame we won't have Sarah Plain to kick around any
> more. She has been the most consistently entertaining politician of the
> modern era, assuming one considers scahdenfreude as entertainment. Buh-bye,
> Sarah.
>
> And one more of the few Republidolt hopes for 2012 self destructs...
>
> ---
> Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
> ------
> Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
> © 1999 by the American Psychological Association
> December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
>
> Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
> Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
>
> Justin Kruger and David Dunning
> Department of Psychology
> Cornell University
>
> ABSTRACT:
> ...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
> on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
> performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
> 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.- Hide quoted text -
z
>
> - Show quoted text -
don't even have to go that far. palin's style of governing isn't any
fun when people are actually paying attention to what you do and
reporting when you screw stuff up or act like a petty tyrant.
z
not joe the plumber, god and he talked it over and decided not to.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102631
Dano
>
> What news comference did you watch? That's not the news conference I
> watched. But I have noticed that you very stupid, low-IQ types, can
> not understand Palin. And that's a shame since such morons are
> allowed to vote.
>
Hmmm..."allowed to vote". Catchy phrase. A window into your political
soul. This whole "democracy" idea is intensely disturbing to natural
fascists such as yourself eh?
AZDuffman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Powell is hardly conservative. He endorsed Obama based on race and
says people want bigger government. No thanks.
Jimbo
He endorsed Obama because he knew that the McCain/Palin ticked was the
same as voting for four more years of Bush Jr.
Jimbo
>
> - Show quoted text -
He endorse Obama because he knew that endorsing the McCain/Palin
ticket was the same as endorsing four more years of Bush/Cheney.
AZDuffman
> > Powell is hardly conservative. He endorsed Obama based on race
>
> He endorsed Obama because he knew that the McCain/Palin ticked was the
> same as voting for four more years of Bush Jr.- Hide quoted text -
Low unemploynment, lower taxes, protecting America. 4 more years
would have been a very good thing. Unlike the trampling of the
Constitution like we have now,
One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America
hal
lower taxes on the rich, and totally trashing our economy. Are you
really so blind that you cannot see the horrible damage Bush did to
this country? We are headed into the worst depression we will ever
see thanks to Bush and his cronies.
Michael Coburn
I would vote for Powell if he ran as an independent.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Michael Coburn
Powell is a conservative. He endorsed Obama based on the alternative. I
doubt very seriously that he said that people want bigger government.
But what can we expect from a lying fascist Republican?
Rod Speed
You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
You're just a stupid bum who couldnt even manage to work
out how to end up in retirement with a decent level of assets.
AZDuffman
> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 10:56:22 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
>
> >On Jul 4, 12:12 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Powell is hardly conservative. He endorsed Obama based on race
>
> >> He endorsed Obama because he knew that the McCain/Palin ticked was the
> >> same as voting for four more years of Bush Jr.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >Low unemploynment, lower taxes, protecting America. 4 more years
> >would have been a very good thing. Unlike the trampling of the
> >Constitution like we have now,
>
> lower taxes on the rich, and totally trashing our economy. Are you
> really so blind that you cannot see the horrible damage Bush did to
> this country? We are headed into the worst depression we will ever
> see thanks to Bush and his cronies.
Lower taxes for EVERY taxpayer. Really, the "tax cuts for the rich"
thinbg is getting old. The economy grew in most of 2008 and now Obama
has lost the nation 2 million jobs and counting. "Obama Depression"
is what we are entering.
Rod Speed
> AZDuffman <srduf...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Powell is hardly conservative. He endorsed Obama based on race
And was so stupid that he couldnt even manage to work out that
there were no WMDs in Iraq and that occupying it would never work.
>>> He endorsed Obama because he knew that the McCain/Palin
>>> ticked was the same as voting for four more years of Bush Jr.
>> Low unemploynment, lower taxes, protecting America.
>> 4 more years would have been a very good thing. Unlike
>> the trampling of the Constitution like we have now,
> lower taxes on the rich, and totally trashing our economy.
Its nothing even remotely resembling totally trashed when the unemployment
rate bottomed at 4.x% with an immense illegal and legal immigration rate.
> Are you really so blind that you cannot see the horrible damage Bush did to this country?
Corse he is.
> We are headed into the worst depression we will ever see
Nope, wont be anything like as bad as the great depression, essentially
because we have decent welfare and band deposit guarantees now and
even the fools that produced it did something about it quickly this time.
> thanks to Bush and his cronies.
Nothing to do with cronies. Everything to do with being just a stupid monkey.
>> One
>> Big
>> Ass
>> Mistake
>> America
You're always free to fuck off to Cuba.
Les Cargill
That's a load. We had a peak in 2000, and an erstatz upcycle
based solely on kiting real estate values since. Until people can
find real things that add real value to invest in, we'll
see flatter growth, perhaps from now on. But from where I sit,
people have lost the will or the formula for reality.
It'll be years before we see the actual effects of Obama's
policies.
--
Les Cargill
AZDuffman
Quote is in the third paragraph. Google around if you wnat more
sources.
Powell=Picks candidates based on race.
http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/6623
hal
you've been listening to too many lies. They tried to call the last
depression FDR's but everyone with a clue knows it was Hoover.
just like everyone knows this one is Bush's
Rod Speed
> On Jul 4, 2:32 pm, hal wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 10:56:22 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
>>
>> <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 4, 12:12 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Powell is hardly conservative. He endorsed Obama based on race
>>
>>>> He endorsed Obama because he knew that the McCain/Palin ticked was
>>>> the same as voting for four more years of Bush Jr.- Hide quoted
>>>> text -
>>
>>> Low unemploynment, lower taxes, protecting America. 4 more years
>>> would have been a very good thing. Unlike the trampling of the
>>> Constitution like we have now,
>>
>> lower taxes on the rich, and totally trashing our economy. Are you
>> really so blind that you cannot see the horrible damage Bush did to
>> this country? We are headed into the worst depression we will ever
>> see thanks to Bush and his cronies.
>
>
> Lower taxes for EVERY taxpayer. Really, the "tax cuts for the rich"
> thinbg is getting old. The economy grew in most of 2008
And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed who
completely imploded the entire world financial system, AGAIN.
> and now Obama has lost the nation 2 million jobs and counting.
> "Obama Depression" is what we are entering.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of what a pathological liar you have always been.
Michael Coburn
The virus eats hominy :)
John Stafford
Nobody will run with Palin ever again. She's a pariah.
Rod Speed
Jimbo
> On Jul 4, 12:12 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Powell is hardly conservative. He endorsed Obama based on race
>
> > He endorsed Obama because he knew that the McCain/Palin ticked was the
> > same as voting for four more years of Bush Jr.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Low unemploynment, lower taxes, protecting America. 4 more years
> would have been a very good thing.
The economy was headed down hill long before Obama took office. The
recession started in December of 2007, the housing market was already
crumbling by June of 2007. The housing market is still the main
driver behind this recession.
Unlike the trampling of the
> Constitution like we have now,
>
You mean like the unwarranted wiretaps, the unwarranted data mining,
and all of the rest of the unconstitutional actions. Oh wait, that
was under Bush.
Jimbo
>
My only reservation about Powell would be his participation int he Mai
Lai cover-up.
Jimbo
> hal wrote
>
> > We are headed into the worst depression we will ever see
>
> Nope, wont be anything like as bad as the great depression, essentially
> because we have decent welfare and band deposit guarantees now and
> even the fools that produced it did something about it quickly this time.
>
Agreed. I don't believe that the current recession will go into the
type of deep depression this country experienced subsequent to the
1929 crash. Such a depression today would be an even bigger
catastrophe. People today don't know how to fend for themselves as
our parents and grandparents had done.
AZDuffman
> The economy was headed down hill long before Obama took office. The
> recession started in December of 2007, the housing market was already
> crumbling by June of 2007. The housing market is still the main
> driver behind this recession.
Well, the economy was headed downhill well before Bush took office in
2001, yet I don't remember the media and the left (same thing, really)
ready to blame Clinton.
> Unlike the trampling of the
>
> > Constitution like we have now,
>
> You mean like the unwarranted wiretaps, the unwarranted data mining,
> and all of the rest of the unconstitutional actions. Oh wait, that
> was under Bush.
No, I mean confiscation of companies, stealing of Senate elections,
attempted nationalization of almost 20% if the economy, desire to have
an effective confisicatory top tax rate above 50%, stuff like that
that really affects life. I really don't care if a few terrorists get
listened in on or the FBI does their job "data mining" which is really
called INVESTIGATING.
Patriot Games
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>She just resigned as governor of Alaska probably preparing to run
>against Obama in 12
>Ann Coulter?
>Rush Limburger?
>McCain?
>???
Mitt...
Jimbo
> On Jul 4, 10:10 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The economy was headed down hill long before Obama took office. The
> > recession started in December of 2007, the housing market was already
> > crumbling by June of 2007. The housing market is still the main
> > driver behind this recession.
> Well, the economy was headed downhill well before Bush took office in
> 2001,
There was a minor dip at the end of the Clinton Administration, but
no
single pillar of the economy was in any serious jeopardy. There is
a
vast difference between a minor dip, and long term recession as
marked
the last year of the Bush Administration.
yet I don't remember the media and the left (same thing, really)
> ready to blame Clinton.
Perhaps because there was nothing to blame Clinton for, at least not
where the economy is concerned.
> > Unlike the trampling of the
> > > Constitution like we have now,
> > You mean like the unwarranted wiretaps, the unwarranted data mining,
> > and all of the rest of the unconstitutional actions. Oh wait, that
> > was under Bush.
> No, I mean confiscation of companies, stealing of Senate elections,
> attempted nationalization of almost 20% if the economy, desire to have
> an effective confisicatory top tax rate above 50%, stuff like that
> that really affects life.
There has been no confistication. Companies that have been helped
have done so voluntarily, the government has not forced anyone to
take
money, nor do so for a share of the company's stock. Unless you're
absolutely bonkers, that does not design confistication. As far as
the tax rate, tough. The wealthy have been getting away with paying a
far lower percentage of their income due to tax exclusions and
loopholes for decades. It's time they paid their fair share.
> I really don't care if a few terrorists get > listened in on
Again, this has been through the press and admitted to by the Bush
Administration several times. They were not just listening in on
terrorists, or foreign calls. They were listening in on law abiding
US Citizens as well, and that REQUIRES a warrant per the US
Constitution. Federal courts ruled Bush's wiretapping programs
unconstitutional.
> stealing of Senate elections
Hasn't happened.
> data mining" which is really called INVESTIGATING.
Blanket datamining without probable cause or warrant is called
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
It seems to me that you are the one promoting unconsitutional actions,
not the current administration.
Jimbo
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:51:22 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>
> >She just resigned as governor of Alaska probably preparing to run
> >against Obama in 12
> >Ann Coulter?
> >Rush Limburger?
> >McCain?
> >???
>
> Mitt...
Mitt is a Mormon. Mormon's are too misogynistic to run with a woman.
Unless, of course, she were to agree to darn his socks, cook his
meals, and bear his children.
Michael Coburn
> On Jul 5, 9:25 am, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 4, 10:10 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The economy was headed down hill long before Obama took office. The
>> > recession started in December of 2007, the housing market was already
>> > crumbling by June of 2007. The housing market is still the main
>> > driver behind this recession.
>>
>> Well, the economy was headed downhill well before Bush took office in
>> 2001,
>
>
> There was a minor dip at the end of the Clinton Administration, but no
> single pillar of the economy was in any serious jeopardy. There is a
> vast difference between a minor dip, and long term recession as marked
> the last year of the Bush Administration.
>
>
> yet I don't remember the media and the left (same thing, really)
>> ready to blame Clinton.
>
> Perhaps because there was nothing to blame Clinton for, at least not
> where the economy is concerned.
>
The Republicans are masters of magnification when it comes to pointing
fingers and making excuses. The "bubble" in the NASDAQ was a nit on the
tit on the ear of the flea on the rump of the horses ass when compared to
the Republican created world wide financial meltdown. But to hear the
prancing pigs tell it you'd think that in 2001, 1929 had come again.
When we look at all 3 major stock market indexes we see that the other
markets never actually "bubbled".
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/
Comparison_of_three_stock_indices_after_1975.svg
The economy was by and large unaffected by the NASDAQ bubble; a very
brief recession as banks got stuck with some manageable worthless paper
of their own making. The world yawned.
>
>
>> > Unlike the trampling of the
>>
>> > > Constitution like we have now,
>>
>> > You mean like the unwarranted wiretaps, the unwarranted data mining,
>> > and all of the rest of the unconstitutional actions. Oh wait, that
>> > was under Bush.
>>
>> No, I mean confiscation of companies, stealing of Senate elections,
>> attempted nationalization of almost 20% if the economy, desire to have
>> an effective confisicatory top tax rate above 50%, stuff like that that
>> really affects life.
>
> There has been no confistication. Companies that have been helped have
> done so voluntarily, the government has not forced anyone to take money,
> nor do so for a share of the company's stock. Unless you're absolutely
> bonkers, that does not design confistication. As far as the tax rate,
> tough.
> I really don't care if a few terrorists get
>> listened in on
>
> Again, this has been through the press and admitted to by the Bush
> Administration several times. They were not just listening in on
> terrorists, or foreign calls. They were listening in on law abiding US
> Citizens as well, and that REQUIRES a warrant per the US Constitution.
> Federal courts ruled Bush's wiretapping programs unconstitutional.
--
Michael Coburn
It isn't a question of don't know how. The population of this or any of
the other nations cannot be supported without the built up division and
specialization of labor (and the resulting productivity) that currently
exists.
Jimbo
Agreed.-
Jimbo
Agreed. Comparing the current recession to the economy at the end of
the Clinton administration is just ludicrous.
Michael Coburn
Palin is a lightening rod for the left. It is like having Bush captured
in the White House for 2 years being exposed as the rightarded lying pig
that he was and attracting all the rightarded idiots to his defense. We
hate to see Plain fade into obscurity. She provides such a marvelous
poster child for rightarded stupidity. And the rightarded flock to her
and become marvelous illustrations of what this country has rejected and
will continue to reject. But alas we may be better off without the
distraction. Lots of important work to do now.
AZDuffman
> There was a minor dip at the end of the Clinton Administration, but
> no
> single pillar of the economy was in any serious jeopardy. There is
> a
> vast difference between a minor dip, and long term recession as
> marked
> the last year of the Bush Administration.
The "internet bubble" ring a bell. The left complained it was the
worst job climate "since Hoover." NASDAQ fell by like half and has
not recovered yet.
> yet I don't remember the media and the left (same thing, really)
>
> > ready to blame Clinton.
>
> Perhaps because there was nothing to blame Clinton for, at least not
> where the economy is concerned.
Sure there was, taxes were too high-so much so that they were
producing surplusses. And the Microsoft anti-trust suit surely didn't
give confidence to a pro-business attitude. Add in he was ineffective
after he got himself impeached. Had he been honorabloe and resigned
we might have had a White House focusing on running the country
instead of defending perjury.
> There has been no confistication. Companies that have been helped
> have done so voluntarily, the government has not forced anyone to
> take
> money, nor do so for a share of the company's stock. Unless you're
> absolutely bonkers, that does not design confistication. As far as
> the tax rate, tough. The wealthy have been getting away with paying a
> far lower percentage of their income due to tax exclusions and
> loopholes for decades. It's time they paid their fair share.
You need to read the tax code. The top half is paying for the bottom
half. Corporations in the USA are taxed at the second highest rate in
the world. (When you look at that I don't blamde them for domiciling
in Bermua!) And the Obama administration gave big chuncks of Chrysler
and Government Motors to the union and screwed the bondholders who had
a higher claim to the assets.
Only a true marxisgt thinks it is OK to take 50% of someone's income.
> > stealing of Senate elections
>
> Hasn't happened.
Happened in Minnesota. Ballots just "appeared" for the democrat.
Funny how democrats like to sue while they "find" more votes.
> > data mining" which is really called INVESTIGATING.
>
> Blanket datamining without probable cause or warrant is called
> UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Not really. If it is information legally obtained then looking at
that information in different ways would be legal. Too bad they
didn't data-mine for expired visas in August of 2001.
AZDuffman
> It isn't a question of don't know how. The population of this or any of
> the other nations cannot be supported without the built up division and
> specialization of labor (and the resulting productivity) that currently
> exists.
Well, I'll admit we do have a good division of labor in the USA.
Conservatives go to some sort of job daily while liberals wait for
handouts.
Jimbo
> On Jul 5, 10:03 am, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There was a minor dip at the end of the Clinton Administration, but
> > no
> > single pillar of the economy was in any serious jeopardy. There is
> > a
> > vast difference between a minor dip, and long term recession as
> > marked
> > the last year of the Bush Administration.
>
> The "internet bubble" ring a bell.
The internet bubble is nothing compared to the current recession.
> > yet I don't remember the media and the left (same thing, really)
>
> > > ready to blame Clinton.
>
> > Perhaps because there was nothing to blame Clinton for, at least not
> > where the economy is concerned.
>
> Sure there was,
Nope.
>
> > There has been no confistication. Companies that have been helped
> > have done so voluntarily, the government has not forced anyone to
> > take
> > money, nor do so for a share of the company's stock. Unless you're
> > absolutely bonkers, that does not design confistication. As far as
> > the tax rate, tough. The wealthy have been getting away with paying a
> > far lower percentage of their income due to tax exclusions and
> > loopholes for decades. It's time they paid their fair share.
>
> You need to read the tax code. The top half is paying for the bottom
> half.
As a percentage of income, the bottom half pays more, and has for a
very long time.
Jimbo
Bullshit.
Rod Speed
>>> We are headed into the worst depression we will ever see
>> Nope, wont be anything like as bad as the great depression,
>> essentially because we have decent welfare and bank deposit
>> guarantees now and even the fools that produced it did
>> something about it quickly this time.
> Agreed. I don't believe that the current recession will go into the type of
> deep depression this country experienced subsequent to the 1929 crash.
I dont either.
> Such a depression today would be an even bigger catastrophe.
Nope, because we have decent welfare now and guarantees on bank deposits.
> People today don't know how to fend for themselves as our parents and grandparents had done.
They dont need to with decent modern welfare.
They'd be able to grow their own food if they ever needed to,
if only because the information is so widely available on how
to do that and its so trivial to get what you need to do that.
Sid9
"AZDuffman" <srduf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87b07a03-7b9f-42b6...@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 4, 12:12 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> > Powell is hardly conservative. He endorsed Obama based
>> > on race
>>
>> He endorsed Obama because he knew that the McCain/Palin
>> ticked was the
>> same as voting for four more years of Bush Jr.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>
> Low unemploynment, lower taxes, protecting America. 4
> more years
> Constitution like we have now,
>
> Big
> Ass
> Mistake
> America
He endorsed Obama because he knew that the McCain/Palin
ticked was the same as voting for four more years of Bush
Jr.
1. McCain never had a chance after bush,jr / Cheney
2. His decision to choose Palin pushed the knife in deeper.
3. His and her performance during the campaign sealed their
fate and paved the way for the first black president.
4. Americans overcame their bigotry in the face of this
Republican disaster.
A McCain / Palin administration would be an extension of
bush,jr's incompetence in a time of a national crisis.
AZDuffman
]
> > You need to read the tax code. The top half is paying for the bottom
> > half.
>
> As a percentage of income, the bottom half pays more, and has for a
> very long time.
Not in 2009 America. Bottom half paying almost zilch and in fact get
EIC "refunds" in many cases. Sell that "bottom half pay more" to some
stupid liberal (redundant term) who believes it and not actual
numbers.
AZDuffman
> He endorsed Obama because he knew that the McCain/Palin
> ticked was the same as voting for four more years of Bush
> Jr.
He endorsed Obama based on Race. Obama had no qualifications.
> 1. McCain never had a chance after bush,jr / Cheney
McCain never had the desire to win. He thought the media would do his
work for him and thus never went after Obama. In spite of this he was
actually ahead in the polls as late as September.
> 2. His decision to choose Palin pushed the knife in deeper.
Palin was a good choice. For proof look at the "search and destroy"
mode the media went into. Unlike Hillary who got everywhere on her
husband's name, Palin actually acheived success on her own. And
looked good!
> 3. His and her performance during the campaign sealed their
> fate and paved the way for the first black president.
Can't argue much here. McCain expected the media would like him when
he was going against democrats the same way they were for him when he
ran against republicans. The New York Times alone turned on him
literally in days.
> 4. Americans overcame their bigotry in the face of this
> Republican disaster.
Not really. 90% of blacks voted the black guy.
> A McCain / Palin administration would be an extension of
> bush,jr's incompetence in a time of a national crisis.- Hide quoted text -
I'd rather that than Obama's incompetence and borderline treason.
Sid9
You made a mistake, your last sentence should read as
follows:
I'd rather that than bush,jr's incompetence and borderline
treason.
Obama is well prepared.
Understands our laws.
Does not shoot from the hip.
Has already improved our situation vis-avs Russia, Iraq, and
Iran.
Has regained America's respect world wide.
Understands and has done what was needed for our economy.
Gets nothing but nihilism and obstruction from the
opposition.
An opposition that offers up NOTHING.
The Republican Party is in disarray.
Who's speaks for the party?
Palin?
Gingrich?
Huckabee?
Limbo?
Duffman?
PG?
Clairbear?
Bonde?
billary?
Kenny Clifton?
With the departure of Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, Kennedy
and Shuler the religious faction seems to have lost
importance and leadership.
Jingoists and sword rattlers? A failed strategy that only
brought grief to America.
Fiscal conservatives? The Republican Party version for
fiscal conservatives has a strange resemblance to Madoff.
Gun nuts? Not likely enough for a national party.
Jimbo
> Jimbo wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> hal wrote
> >>> We are headed into the worst depression we will ever see
> >> Nope, wont be anything like as bad as the great depression,
> >> essentially because we have decent welfare and bank deposit
> >> guarantees now and even the fools that produced it did
> >> something about it quickly this time.
> > Agreed. I don't believe that the current recession will go into the type of
> > deep depression this country experienced subsequent to the 1929 crash.
>
> I dont either.
>
> > Such a depression today would be an even bigger catastrophe.
>
> Nope, because we have decent welfare now and guarantees on bank deposits.
If a 1929 crash occurred, foreign lenders would rapidly dry up.
Welfare would most likely cease, or be sharply curtailed. The
government would be forced to print money, driving up inflation and
deepening the depression, and/or make some hard choices on who would
receive welfare.
>
> > People today don't know how to fend for themselves as our parents and grandparents had done.
>
> They dont need to with decent modern welfare.
>
> They'd be able to grow their own food if they ever needed to,
> if only because the information is so widely available on how
> to do that and its so trivial to get what you need to do that.
If a depression hit, the internet would shrink drastically. Not to
mention that reading how-to from a book is not the same as doing.
Jimbo
> On Jul 5, 3:48 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ]
>
> > > You need to read the tax code. The top half is paying for the bottom
> > > half.
>
> > As a percentage of income, the bottom half pays more, and has for a
> > very long time.
>
> Not in 2009 America.
Yes, in 2009 America.
AZDuffman
we eagerly await your proof of this.
robw
That's interesting.
Most of the FNC, right wing talk radio followers seem to be over 55.
The demos show that. Many posters here have identified themselves as
being in their 60's.
Want to try the who works and who gets a gov. check first of the month
again?
Rod Speed
> Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote
>> AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> You need to read the tax code. The top half is paying for the bottom half.
>>>> As a percentage of income, the bottom half pays more, and has for a very long time.
>>> Not in 2009 America.
>> Yes, in 2009 America.
> we eagerly await your proof of this.
Just how many of you are there between those ears ?
Table 1 in
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
<reams of your desperate attempts to bullshit your way out of your predicament preflushed where they belong>
Jimbo
I'm retired. I haven't yet started collecting Social Security, but
live off my investment income.
Jimbo
This is a well known fact. As a percentage of income, the middle
class and working poor pay a far higher amount of taxes. The rich and
corporations have any number of tax loopholes, exclusions, and
deductions that they can take advantage of. For example, Bill Gates
paid less then 9% of his income in taxes in 2009. Rush Limbaugh paid
less than 8%. These are known facts.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Jimbo wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> hal wrote
>>>>> We are headed into the worst depression we will ever see
>>>> Nope, wont be anything like as bad as the great depression,
>>>> essentially because we have decent welfare and bank deposit
>>>> guarantees now and even the fools that produced it did
>>>> something about it quickly this time.
>>> Agreed. I don't believe that the current recession will go into the type of
>>> deep depression this country experienced subsequent to the 1929 crash.
>> I dont either.
>>> Such a depression today would be an even bigger catastrophe.
>> Nope, because we have decent welfare now and guarantees on bank deposits.
> If a 1929 crash occurred, foreign lenders would rapidly dry up.
Nope. We did in fact see an INCREASED takeup of US treasurys
in the most recent complete implosion of the entire world's financial
system that happened a hell of a lot more quickly than that did during
the great depression, essentially because those decided that the US
was a safer bet for their money than anywhere else, even when those
US treasurys were paying a completely derisory rate of interest.
> Welfare would most likely cease, or be sharply curtailed.
Corse it wouldnt. Even with the great depression unemployment
rate of 20%, that still meant that 80% were employed and they
can be taxed to pay for the welfare of those who are unemployed.
> The government would be forced to print money, driving up inflation
You in fact see significant DEFLATION in a great depression.
> and deepening the depression, and/or make some
> hard choices on who would receive welfare.
Nope, not when its only 20% who are unemployed.
>>> People today don't know how to fend for themselves
>>> as our parents and grandparents had done.
>> They dont need to with decent modern welfare.
>> They'd be able to grow their own food if they ever needed to,
>> if only because the information is so widely available on how
>> to do that and its so trivial to get what you need to do that.
> If a depression hit, the internet would shrink drastically.
Wouldnt matter, all that sort of information would still
be there, even if you needed to access it at a public
library because you couldnt afford net access anymore.
> Not to mention that reading how-to from a book is not the same as doing.
Growing your own food isnt rocket science, its completely
trivial to teach little kids how to do it quite effectively.
Sure, manually harvesting say wheat with a scythe isnt that easy to get
from a book but utube would be able to show you how very easily.
Jimbo
> Jimbo wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Jimbo wrote
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> hal wrote
> >>>>> We are headed into the worst depression we will ever see
> >>>> Nope, wont be anything like as bad as the great depression,
> >>>> essentially because we have decent welfare and bank deposit
> >>>> guarantees now and even the fools that produced it did
> >>>> something about it quickly this time.
> >>> Agreed. I don't believe that the current recession will go into the type of
> >>> deep depression this country experienced subsequent to the 1929 crash.
> >> I dont either.
> >>> Such a depression today would be an even bigger catastrophe.
> >> Nope, because we have decent welfare now and guarantees on bank deposits.
> > If a 1929 crash occurred, foreign lenders would rapidly dry up.
>
> Nope. We did in fact see an INCREASED takeup of US treasurys
> in the most recent complete implosion of the entire world's financial
> system that happened a hell of a lot more quickly than that did during
> the great depression,
We are in a recession and foreign lenders are already starting to balk
at the amount of money we are borrowing. If we went into depression,
most likely so would they. Lending sources would dry up fast.
>
> > Welfare would most likely cease, or be sharply curtailed.
>
> Corse it wouldnt.
If we went into a depression, it most certainly would.
>
> > The government would be forced to print money, driving up inflation
>
> You in fact see significant DEFLATION in a great depression.
Not if the government were forced to print large amounts of money. I
point you to the 1930's Depression that hit Germany, coupled with the
European demand for reparation money. This resulted in hyper-
inflation, to the tune of 1 billion percent. Money was worth less
than the paper it was printed on.
>
> > and deepening the depression, and/or make some
> > hard choices on who would receive welfare.
>
> Nope, not when its only 20% who are unemployed.
If a Depression hit, in this day and age, more than 20% would be
unemployed.
>
> >>> People today don't know how to fend for themselves
> >>> as our parents and grandparents had done.
> >> They dont need to with decent modern welfare.
> >> They'd be able to grow their own food if they ever needed to,
> >> if only because the information is so widely available on how
> >> to do that and its so trivial to get what you need to do that.
> > If a depression hit, the internet would shrink drastically.
>
> Wouldnt matter, all that sort of information would still
> be there, even if you needed to access it at a public
> library because you couldnt afford net access anymore.
Public libraries would start to close without support.
>
> > Not to mention that reading how-to from a book is not the same as doing.
>
> Growing your own food isnt rocket science,
LOL! It's beyond the skill set of most people. Not to mention
finding seed to start with.
its completely
> trivial to teach little kids how to do it quite effectively.
>
> Sure, manually harvesting say wheat with a scythe isnt that easy to get
> from a book but utube would be able to show you how very easily.
YouTube would be gone.
Rod Speed
>>>> I dont either.
No they arent. Like I said, the takeup of US treasurys is better than
it was before the complete implosion of the world financial system.
> If we went into depression, most likely so would they.
Nope, because they would need the safety even more.
> Lending sources would dry up fast.
Nope. There isnt anywhere else for that money to go.
>>> Welfare would most likely cease, or be sharply curtailed.
>> Corse it wouldnt.
> If we went into a depression, it most certainly would.
Nope, because there would still be 80% employed, just like there was last time.
>>> The government would be forced to print money, driving up inflation
>> You in fact see significant DEFLATION in a great depression.
> Not if the government were forced to print large amounts of money.
Thats precisely what they did during the great depression and got deflation anyway.
> I point you to the 1930's Depression that hit Germany,
That was a completely different situation, where
it was in their intest to see galloping inflation because
they could pay the reparations in worthless paper money.
Nothing like that level of inflation happened anywhere else at that time.
> coupled with the European demand for reparation money.
That was the real reason for the inflation they got.
> This resulted in hyper- inflation, to the tune of 1 billion percent.
> Money was worth less than the paper it was printed on.
Because it made sense to pay reparations with worthless paper.
>>> and deepening the depression, and/or make some
>>> hard choices on who would receive welfare.
>> Nope, not when its only 20% who are unemployed.
> If a Depression hit, in this day and age, more than 20% would be unemployed.
Nope. Because the govt would take steps to avoid businesses
going bust at the rate they did during the great depression.
It was the terminally stupid Hoover approach of letting the market sort
it out that produced that result. Even the repugs arent that stupid anymore.
>>>>> People today don't know how to fend for themselves
>>>>> as our parents and grandparents had done.
>>>> They dont need to with decent modern welfare.
>>>> They'd be able to grow their own food if they ever needed to,
>>>> if only because the information is so widely available on how
>>>> to do that and its so trivial to get what you need to do that.
>>> If a depression hit, the internet would shrink drastically.
>> Wouldnt matter, all that sort of information would still
>> be there, even if you needed to access it at a public
>> library because you couldnt afford net access anymore.
> Public libraries would start to close without support.
How odd that they didnt during the great depression.
And even if they sacked all the staff and used unpaid volunteers instead,
they would still be available for those who no longer had any net access.
>>> Not to mention that reading how-to from a book is not the same as doing.
>> Growing your own food isnt rocket science,
> LOL! It's beyond the skill set of most people.
It isnt beyond what even little kids can be shown how to do.
Plenty of unemployed to do the teaching for free.
> Not to mention finding seed to start with.
Completely trivial to buy it.
>> its completely trivial to teach little kids how to do it quite effectively.
>> Sure, manually harvesting say wheat with a scythe isnt that easy to
>> get from a book but utube would be able to show you how very easily.
> YouTube would be gone.
Pigs arse it would. Radio didnt disappear during the great depression.
Neither did movies either.
Neither did newspapers. There was just more sharing of them etc.
Rod Speed
> On Jul 5, 3:48 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ]
>
>>> You need to read the tax code. The top half is paying for the bottom
>>> half.
>>
>> As a percentage of income, the bottom half pays more, and has for a
>> very long time.
>
> Not in 2009 America. Bottom half paying almost zilch
Lying, as always. Table 1
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
> and in fact get EIC "refunds" in many cases.
Nothing even remotely resembling the entire bottom half do.
> Sell that "bottom half pay more" to some stupid liberal (redundant term) who believes it and not actual numbers.
You lie about the actual numbers, just like you lie about everything else.
Sid9
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7bct4cF...@mid.individual.net...
The thousands of pages of the tax code exist for the
wealthy.
An ordinary working stiff who files a 1040EZ get NO benefit
from all the exceptions in the code.
Republican ending of the inheritance tax was a giveaway for
the rich.
Americans were fooled by the "death tax" lie promulgated by
Republicans
Les Cargill
>
> If a depression hit, the internet would shrink drastically. Not to
> mention that reading how-to from a book is not the same as doing.
>
Radio didn't shrink during the last depression. Is it
the same? Dunno.
--
Les Cargill
AZDuffman
> > Not in 2009 America. Bottom half paying almost zilch
>
> Lying, as always. Table 1http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
From your own source!---
The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned 68.2
percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of
every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.3 percent).
The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned
approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI),
yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top
1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal
individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns
Just when I think you can't make a bigger jerk out of yourself you
outdo yourself!
AZDuffman
> > we eagerly await your proof of this.
>
> This is a well known fact. As a percentage of income, the middle
> class and working poor pay a far higher amount of taxes. The rich and
> corporations have any number of tax loopholes, exclusions, and
> deductions that they can take advantage of. For example, Bill Gates
> paid less then 9% of his income in taxes in 2009. Rush Limbaugh paid
> less than 8%. These are known facts.- Hide quoted text -
Please cite a source. Limbaugh and Gates are in the top bracket for
sure, and most "loopholes" phase out far below what they earn.
However, even if Limbaugh paid "only 8%" a person with 1-2 kids
earning below $40,000 will pay very close to 0% after $1,000 in child
tax credits and other deductions.
So if they are "known facts" please cite the source. Also cite what
"loopholes the rich" are taking advantage of. Most tax shelters were
removed in the tax reform act of 1986 which set the top rate at a much
more fair 28%.
Jimbo
> On Jul 5, 6:55 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > we eagerly await your proof of this.
>
> > This is a well known fact. As a percentage of income, the middle
> > class and working poor pay a far higher amount of taxes. The rich and
> > corporations have any number of tax loopholes, exclusions, and
> > deductions that they can take advantage of. For example, Bill Gates
> > paid less then 9% of his income in taxes in 2009. Rush Limbaugh paid
> > less than 8%. These are known facts.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Please cite a source. Limbaugh and Gates are in the top bracket for
> sure, and most "loopholes" phase out far below what they earn.
> However, even if Limbaugh paid "only 8%" a person with 1-2 kids
> earning below $40,000 will pay very close to 0% after $1,000 in child
> tax credits and other deductions.
Brackets have little to do with it, and most "loopholes" do not phase
out. There are any number of trusts, preliminary accounts, and
numerous other shelters and loopholes in which to put your money. A
married couple, filing jointly, with two children, taking the standard
deduction, earning $40,000.00 (around $28,000 in Taxable income) will
pay approx. $3,400.00 in just federal taxes. That's 8.5% of their
income. My investment income streams grossed $610,000.00, after
deducting for the trust set up for my handicapped son, reinvestments,
Capital Investments, and mortgage interest and other deductions, my
taxable income was $175,000.00, deduct from that the energy credit,
charitable contributions, and some other assundry things, and my
federal tax was 43,500.00, or 7.1% of my income. I'm thinking about
shifing my investments out of Gold and back into the stock market
within the next few months, and barring some crash in the price of
Gold, I'm going to make a bundle, with no capital gains taxes to pay.
If a person of wealth is paying more than 10% in fed tax, they're not
paying attention.
Jimbo
Actually, radio did shrink a bit. However, the 1930's depression was
a whole different ball of wax. The US didn't already have a
crippling national debt to contend with, and the government was able
tos subsidize radio to some extent. They also subsidized radio and
television during WWII. If a similar collapse happened today, it
would be a whole different story.
Rod Speed
>>> If a depression hit, the internet would shrink drastically. Not to
>>> mention that reading how-to from a book is not the same as doing.
>> Radio didn't shrink during the last depression. Is it the same? Dunno.
> Actually, radio did shrink a bit.
No it didnt, and movies did better than normal too.
> However, the 1930's depression was a whole different ball of wax.
Wouldnt be on stuff like that.
> The US didn't already have a crippling national debt to contend with,
Yes it did.
> and the government was able tos subsidize radio to some extent.
Didnt happen. They didnt subsidise the movies either. Or the newspapers.
> They also subsidized radio and television during WWII.
Like hell they did in the sense of avoiding them going bust.
> If a similar collapse happened today, it would be a whole different story.
Like hell it would. Hordes would keep using the net because
its a much cheaper way to pass the time than anything else.
And even with say 30% unemployed, thats still 70%
employed who can keep using the net just like they do now.
Jimbo
Tune into the news once in a while. Germany, Japan, and China are
starting to tighten up on credit to the US, and are charging us higher
rates of interest for new debt. This has been all over the news in
the last few weeks.
> Like I said, the takeup of US treasurys is better than
> it was before the complete implosion of the world financial system.
>
> > If we went into depression, most likely so would they.
>
> Nope, because they would need the safety even more.
Nonsense. Our recession as triggered a world wide credit crunch,
resulting in recessions in almost all of the G8 Countries.
>
> > Lending sources would dry up fast.
>
> Nope. There isnt anywhere else for that money to go.
Except in support of their own economies. Which is the point.
>
> >>> Welfare would most likely cease, or be sharply curtailed.
> >> Corse it wouldnt.
> > If we went into a depression, it most certainly would.
>
> Nope, because there would still be 80% employed, just like there was last time.
Yep, and employment levels in the last depression can't be used to
judge what the employment levels in this depression would be. Such a
collapse would be much worse this time. Our government was able to
subsidize employment in the 1930's because it wasn't already strapped
with crippling debt. It won't have that luxury if a similar collapse
happened today.
>
> >>> The government would be forced to print money, driving up inflation
> >> You in fact see significant DEFLATION in a great depression.
> > Not if the government were forced to print large amounts of money.
>
> Thats precisely what they did during the great depression and got deflation anyway.
Because they weren't already saddled with crippling debt. A luxury
that they will not have this time around. Printing large amounts of
currency this time will be more reminiscent of post 1930's Germany.
>
> > I point you to the 1930's Depression that hit Germany,
>
> That was a completely different situation, where
> it was in their intest to see galloping inflation because
> they could pay the reparations in worthless paper money.
Nonsense. They had no interest in having galloping inflation, their
people were literally starving. Meeting the reparation requirements
is what caused inflation.
>
> Nothing like that level of inflation happened anywhere else at that time.
Because no one else was strapped with crippling debt, like the US
would be this time around.
>
> > coupled with the European demand for reparation money.
>
> That was the real reason for the inflation they got.
>
That was the main reason, but not the only reason.
> > This resulted in hyper- inflation, to the tune of 1 billion percent.
> > Money was worth less than the paper it was printed on.
>
> Because it made sense to pay reparations with worthless paper.
Your grasp on history is tenuous.
>
> >>> and deepening the depression, and/or make some
> >>> hard choices on who would receive welfare.
> >> Nope, not when its only 20% who are unemployed.
> > If a Depression hit, in this day and age, more than 20% would be unemployed.
>
> Nope. Because the govt would take steps to avoid businesses
> going bust at the rate they did during the great depression.
Yep. The government is already strapped with crippling debt.
Printing the amount of money it would take to keep business afloat
would result in hyper-inflation reminiscent of 1930's Germany.
>
> It was the terminally stupid Hoover approach of letting the market sort
> it out that produced that result. Even the repugs arent that stupid anymore.
I wouldn't count on it.
>
> >>>>> People today don't know how to fend for themselves
> >>>>> as our parents and grandparents had done.
> >>>> They dont need to with decent modern welfare.
> >>>> They'd be able to grow their own food if they ever needed to,
> >>>> if only because the information is so widely available on how
> >>>> to do that and its so trivial to get what you need to do that.
> >>> If a depression hit, the internet would shrink drastically.
> >> Wouldnt matter, all that sort of information would still
> >> be there, even if you needed to access it at a public
> >> library because you couldnt afford net access anymore.
> > Public libraries would start to close without support.
>
> How odd that they didnt during the great depression.
The government wasn't strapped with the kind of debt that it is now
during the Great Depression. Many state and local governments are
struggling to keep basic services open. Budgets are strained as the
Federal Government cuts funding, and state Governments has to pass
those cuts along.
>
> And even if they sacked all the staff and used unpaid volunteers instead,
People will be too busy planting, tending, and guarding their gardens
to volunteer.
> they would still be available for those who no longer had any net access.
So, you're talking about stuffing millions of people into the public
libraries to use the internet?
>
> >>> Not to mention that reading how-to from a book is not the same as doing.
> >> Growing your own food isnt rocket science,
> > LOL! It's beyond the skill set of most people.
>
> It isnt beyond what even little kids can be shown how to do.
And when the armed bands of people come to take the food, will the
kids be able to stop them?
>
> Plenty of unemployed to do the teaching for free.
The unemployed will be out struggling to survive, and the vast
majority of them will not know how to farm either.
>
> > Not to mention finding seed to start with.
>
> Completely trivial to buy it.
Not during a depression.
>
> >> its completely trivial to teach little kids how to do it quite effectively.
> >> Sure, manually harvesting say wheat with a scythe isnt that easy to
> >> get from a book but utube would be able to show you how very easily.
> > YouTube would be gone.
>
> Pigs arse it would.
The internet would be gone.
> Radio didnt disappear during the great depression.
The Government wasn't strapped with crippling debt at that time. It
was able to subsidize some industries. That is not the case now.
>
> Neither did movies either.
See above.
>
> Neither did newspapers.
See above.
> There was just more sharing of them etc.-
I don't think you have a good grasp of what a collapse such as the
Great Depression would mean on a similar scale in modern terms. It
would be far worse than you are imagining.
Sid9
"Jimbo" <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:98388694-492c-4df0...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
An excellent analysis.
Just to carry it a little further.
If we taxed your $40,000 example one percent more it would
an effect on his family's life
If we tax you one percent more it would have no effect on
your life and be barely noticeable.
It's hard to quantify the impact of tax policy on middle
class and wealthy Americans.
Rod Speed
>>>>>> I dont either.
>> No they arent.
Do that repeatedly, more than daily thanks.
> Germany, Japan, and China are starting to tighten up on credit to the US,
Like hell they are.
> and are charging us higher rates of interest for new debt.
Pity about US treasurys that are selling better than they have
EVER done, at interest rates lower than they have EVER been.
> This has been all over the news in the last few weeks.
Pity about US treasurys. Typical journos that dont have a fucking clue.
>> Like I said, the takeup of US treasurys is better than it was
>> before the complete implosion of the world financial system.
>>> If we went into depression, most likely so would they.
>> Nope, because they would need the safety even more.
> Nonsense.
Fact.
> Our recession as triggered a world wide credit crunch,
The complete implosion of the entire world financial system did that.
> resulting in recessions in almost all of the G8 Countries.
>>> Lending sources would dry up fast.
>> Nope. There isnt anywhere else for that money to go.
> Except in support of their own economies.
There is plenty of money for both.
> Which is the point.
Nope.
>>>>> Welfare would most likely cease, or be sharply curtailed.
>>>> Corse it wouldnt.
>>> If we went into a depression, it most certainly would.
>> Nope, because there would still be 80% employed, just like there was last time.
> Yep, and employment levels in the last depression can't be used
> to judge what the employment levels in this depression would be.
Yes, they wouldnt be as high this time. Essentially because EVERY
country that matters actually did something about the complete implosion
of the entire world financial system MUCH more quickly this time and not
one was actually stupid enough to maintain that the market would fix
itself, and that there was no need for any govt to do anything about it.
> Such a collapse would be much worse this time.
Have fun explaining how come it isnt the same time after 1929.
> Our government was able to subsidize employment in the
> 1930's because it wasn't already strapped with crippling debt.
Its done that much quicker this time around, regardless of the debt.
Essentially because everyone who matters noticed that we managed
WW2 fine with MUCH higher levels of debt than we have now.
> It won't have that luxury if a similar collapse happened today.
Wrong. Its has done precisely that much more quickly this time around.
>>>>> The government would be forced to print money, driving up inflation
>>>> You in fact see significant DEFLATION in a great depression.
>>> Not if the government were forced to print large amounts of money.
>> Thats precisely what they did during the great depression and got deflation anyway.
> Because they weren't already saddled with crippling debt.
We've already seen some deflation, regardless of the level
of debt and we didnt see hyper inflation as a result of the
much greater level of debt we chose to run up during WW2.
> A luxury that they will not have this time around.
Wrong again.
> Printing large amounts of currency this time will
> be more reminiscent of post 1930's Germany.
Nope nothing even remotely resembling anything like it.
AND germany survived that hyperinflation fine ANYWAY.
>>> I point you to the 1930's Depression that hit Germany,
>> That was a completely different situation, where
>> it was in their intest to see galloping inflation because
>> they could pay the reparations in worthless paper money.
> Nonsense.
Fact.
> They had no interest in having galloping inflation,
Corse they did, that wiped out the reparations.
> their people were literally starving.
Like hell they were.
> Meeting the reparation requirements is what caused inflation.
So it wasnt printing money ? You cant have it both ways.
>> Nothing like that level of inflation happened anywhere else at that time.
> Because no one else was strapped with crippling debt,
Wrong again, most obviously with WW1.
> like the US would be this time around.
Nothing like what happened with WW2.
>>> coupled with the European demand for reparation money.
>> That was the real reason for the inflation they got.
> That was the main reason, but not the only reason.
It was the only reason for the HYPER inflation.
>>> This resulted in hyper- inflation, to the tune of 1 billion percent.
>>> Money was worth less than the paper it was printed on.
>> Because it made sense to pay reparations with worthless paper.
> Your grasp on history is tenuous.
Yours is completely hopeless.
>>>>> and deepening the depression, and/or make some
>>>>> hard choices on who would receive welfare.
>>>> Nope, not when its only 20% who are unemployed.
>>> If a Depression hit, in this day and age, more than 20% would be unemployed.
>> Nope. Because the govt would take steps to avoid businesses
>> going bust at the rate they did during the great depression.
> Yep. The government is already strapped with crippling debt.
Nope. We managed a much higher level of debt as a result of WW2 fine.
> Printing the amount of money it would take to keep business afloat
> would result in hyper-inflation reminiscent of 1930's Germany.
Have fun explaining why WW2 didnt.
>> It was the terminally stupid Hoover approach of letting the market sort
>> it out that produced that result. Even the repugs arent that stupid anymore.
> I wouldn't count on it.
Dont need to count on anything, we have already seen
not one govt that matters do nothing like that this time.
>>>>>>> People today don't know how to fend for themselves
>>>>>>> as our parents and grandparents had done.
>>>>>> They dont need to with decent modern welfare.
>>>>>> They'd be able to grow their own food if they ever needed to,
>>>>>> if only because the information is so widely available on how
>>>>>> to do that and its so trivial to get what you need to do that.
>>>>> If a depression hit, the internet would shrink drastically.
>>>> Wouldnt matter, all that sort of information would still
>>>> be there, even if you needed to access it at a public
>>>> library because you couldnt afford net access anymore.
>>> Public libraries would start to close without support.
>> How odd that they didnt during the great depression.
> The government wasn't strapped with the kind of
> debt that it is now during the Great Depression.
It was in spades with WW2. They werent closed then even
when there was a hell of a shortage of manpower as well.
> Many state and local governments are
> struggling to keep basic services open.
No need to close librarys, just stop paying the staff and use volunteers instead.
> Budgets are strained as the Federal Government cuts funding,
That hasnt happened.
> and state Governments has to pass those cuts along.
There are no such cuts and even if they choose to sack
all the staff, the librarys can stay open using volunteers.
Its not as if they even need to keep buying books if most are just
using them for net access and access to the existing books.
>> And even if they sacked all the staff and used unpaid volunteers instead,
> People will be too busy planting, tending, and guarding their gardens to volunteer.
Mindlessly silly. Its perfectly possible to do both and most of those
I know who grow almost all of their food volunteer simultaneously fine.
>> they would still be available for those who no longer had any net access.
> So, you're talking about stuffing millions of people
> into the public libraries to use the internet?
Only those who need to use it to work out how to grow
their food and who choose not to just ask someone
else who is already doing that how to do that.
Sure, some will choose to go that route for a free way to pass the time,
but that wouldnt be anything like the end of civilisation as we know it.
Plenty would just continue with free to air radio and TV and
we could even get real radical and show them how to grow
their own food that way using volunteers to do that too.
>>>>> Not to mention that reading how-to from a book is not the same as doing.
>>>> Growing your own food isnt rocket science,
>>> LOL! It's beyond the skill set of most people.
>> It isnt beyond what even little kids can be shown how to do.
> And when the armed bands of people come to take the food,
We didnt see anything like that during the great depression.
There might just be a reason why we didnt.
> will the kids be able to stop them?
There parents certainly can.
>> Plenty of unemployed to do the teaching for free.
> The unemployed will be out struggling to survive,
Nope. Some of them will be growing their own food and
can show anyone else who is interested how to do that.
> and the vast majority of them will not know how to farm either.
Completely trivial to find someone to show you how to
do that if you're too stupid to use the net to work that out.
>>> Not to mention finding seed to start with.
>> Completely trivial to buy it.
> Not during a depression.
Thats precisely what happened during the great depression.
>>>> its completely trivial to teach little kids how to do it quite effectively.
>>>> Sure, manually harvesting say wheat with a scythe isnt that easy to
>>>> get from a book but utube would be able to show you how very easily.
>>> YouTube would be gone.
>> Pigs arse it would.
> The internet would be gone.
Pigs arse it would. Radio, newspapers, movies etc etc etc werent gone during the great depression.
>> Radio didnt disappear during the great depression.
> The Government wasn't strapped with crippling debt at that time.
It was during WW2 and radio and TV kept going fine anyway.
> It was able to subsidize some industries.
But it didnt do that.
> That is not the case now.
Wrong. The current debt levels arent as high as they got to during WW2.
>> Neither did movies either.
> See above.
Completely useless. They werent subsidised by govt.
>> Neither did newspapers.
> See above.
Completely useless. They werent subsidised by govt.
>> There was just more sharing of them etc.-
> I don't think you have a good grasp of what a collapse such as the
> Great Depression would mean on a similar scale in modern terms.
You dont have a clue about what would actually happen.
> It would be far worse than you are imagining.
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
Jimbo
> > Tune into the news once in a while.
>
> Do that repeatedly, more than daily thanks.
>
Apparently, not with very much comprehension. LIke I said, you
obviously have no concept of what a similar collapse and subsequent
depression, in modern terms would mean.
Rod Speed
>>> Tune into the news once in a while.
>> Do that repeatedly, more than daily thanks.
> Apparently, not with very much comprehension.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> LIke I said, you obviously have no concept of what a similar collapse
> and subsequent depression, in modern terms would mean.
Like I said, easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
We have in fact seen the exact opposite of what you stupidly claim,
even the stupid repugs who produced the complete implosion of the
entire world financial system werent actually stupid enough to believe
that the market would sort itself out, or engage in mindless protectionism,
and had enough of a clue to notice that we survived much higher debt
levels during WW2 fine, even if you are so stupid you havent even noticed.
Jimbo
> "Jimbo" <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Exactly.
Jimbo
> Jimbo wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Jimbo wrote
> >>> Tune into the news once in a while.
> >> Do that repeatedly, more than daily thanks.
> > Apparently, not with very much comprehension.
>
> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
> > LIke I said, you obviously have no concept of what a similar collapse
> > and subsequent depression, in modern terms would mean.
>
> Like I said, easy to claim.
Proven by your posts. You haven't got a clue.
AZDuffman
>
> - Show quoted text -
so, if you think higher taxes are so much better why don't YOU pay
them?
Maybe you are just another greedy Obama supporter?
AZDuffman
Nice of you to say someone won't miss their money. But the best
soultion would be a flat tax of say 10-12%, no deductions for
anything. Nothing more fair than everyone paying the same %.
Jimbo
He didn't say that at all. Please read for comprehension next time.
The fact is, that an additional 1% of tax would not impact my
financial situation to the extent that 1% would impact the situation
of a family with an income of $40,000.00. That's just plain fact.
But the best
> soultion would be a flat tax of say 10-12%, no deductions for
> anything. Nothing more fair than everyone paying the same %.- Hide quoted text -
>
I have no problem with a flat tax, however the people that make our
laws are mostly old rich guys who will never go for it. There has
been several very good flat tax bills introduced, but they never go
anywhere. At least you finally agree that, as a percentage of
income, rich people are paying less in taxes than the middle class and
working poor.
Jimbo
Can you quote me where I said that higher taxes are better? I made a
simple statement of fact.
>
> Maybe you are just another greedy Obama supporter?
I think you complain just to hear your head rattle. Like claiming
that the Senate race was stolen in Minnesota. Nevermind that Colman
challenged the most votes, nevermind that the Minnesota Elections
Board reviewed each challenged vote, and certified the election, and
nevermind that the election went through not one, not two, but three
judicial reviews, somehow in your mind that adds up to being stolen.
LOL! How silly.
Michael Coburn
>Nice of you to say someone won't miss their money. But the best
>soultion would be a flat tax of say 10-12%, no deductions for anything.
>Nothing more fair than everyone paying the same %.
**************************************************
There are many ways to tax. Some are better than others. A flat tax on
income may be best for funding a single payer health insurance system so
long as there is welfare for the poor and additional taxation on
consumption that is known to cause health problems.
A flat tax on asset ownership is the best way to fund property rights
enforcement (that includes the entire military budget and all prisons and
courts and law enforcement) . Obviously, those without any ownership
rights do not need any property rights protections and those that own a
lot of assets need the protection in proportion to the "privilege" being
protected. Tis a "flat" tax.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
AZDuffman
Don't put those words in my mouth. I don't agree with that at all.
Unless you can show me rich people paying a rate of 0% which is what
you pay if you are <$40K or so with a couple kids. Even without the
kids you will pay 10-15% at the very, very, very most. Meawhile you
ake $200K and you will pay an average rate of >25% easily.
AZDuffman
> I think you complain just to hear your head rattle. Like claiming
> that the Senate race was stolen in Minnesota. Nevermind that Colman
> challenged the most votes, nevermind that the Minnesota Elections
> Board reviewed each challenged vote, and certified the election, and
> nevermind that the election went through not one, not two, but three
> judicial reviews, somehow in your mind that adds up to being stolen.
> LOL! How silly.- Hide quoted text -
It was stolen, votes were somehow "found." And they added "intent"
based on a guess, no matter what the optical scanner read. Where I
come from you have taken standardized tests for years and know to
color in the little circle, if you don't do that then you don't get
counted. I also find it funny that everytime a Democrat calls for a
recount they seem to keep counting long enough to "find" enough cotes
to win.
Luckily Algore didn't pull off his election theft.
AZDuffman
> There are many ways to tax. Some are better than others. A flat tax on
> income may be best for funding a single payer health insurance system so
> long as there is welfare for the poor and additional taxation on
> consumption that is known to cause health problems.
Hopefully we never live in such a world. Sounds like Nazi Germany.
Michael Coburn
Do you actually wear a coonskin cap, or are you a pretend aristocrat?
Jimbo
> On Jul 6, 9:09 am, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think you complain just to hear your head rattle. Like claiming
> > that the Senate race was stolen in Minnesota. Nevermind that Colman
> > challenged the most votes, nevermind that the Minnesota Elections
> > Board reviewed each challenged vote, and certified the election, and
> > nevermind that the election went through not one, not two, but three
> > judicial reviews, somehow in your mind that adds up to being stolen.
> > LOL! How silly.- Hide quoted text -
>
> It was stolen,
Nonsense.
Jimbo
You should, because it is true, as I demonstrated earlier.
> Unless you can show me rich people paying a rate of 0% which is what
> you pay if you are <$40K or so with a couple kids.
Nonsense. At $40,000 dollars, a couple filing jointly, with two
dependants, and useing the standard deduction will pay approx.
$3,400.00 in Fed Taxes.
Even without the
> kids you will pay 10-15% at the very, very, very most. Meawhile you
> ake $200K and you will pay an average rate of >25% easily.- Hide quoted text -
Again, see my previous example. That is simply not true.
Jimbo
>
Get out a calculator. You make 200K, most people at that income
level will be purchasing their own home, so figure a morgage interest
deduction, deductions for IRA and other tax exempt or tax deferred
investments, trusts, deductions for the kids, wife, and personal
exemption, and other assundry deductions and you can normally reduce
your taxable income down to $120,000. Your overall tax rate on that
will be 22%. Of course, $200,000.00 really isn't considered rich
any more. Not even upper middle class.
AZDuffman
> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:58:12 -0700, AZDuffman wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 12:22 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> There are many ways to tax. Some are better than others. A flat tax
> >> on income may be best for funding a single payer health insurance
> >> system so long as there is welfare for the poor and additional taxation
> >> on consumption that is known to cause health problems.
>
> > Hopefully we never live in such a world. Sounds like Nazi Germany.
>
> Do you actually wear a coonskin cap, or are you a pretend aristocrat?
I don't like any type of hats.
Rod Speed
More fool you. Its obscenely regressive.
> however the people that make our laws are mostly old rich guys
Another lie.
> who will never go for it.
Not one modern first world country is actually that stupid either.
> There has been several very good flat tax bills introduced,
Nope, not one.
> but they never go anywhere.
Because no one is stupid enough to go that route.
> At least you finally agree that, as a percentage of income, rich people
> are paying less in taxes than the middle class and working poor.
He doesnt agree. He actually is that stupid.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Jimbo wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Jimbo wrote
>>>>> Tune into the news once in a while.
>>>> Do that repeatedly, more than daily thanks.
>>> Apparently, not with very much comprehension.
>> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>> LIke I said, you obviously have no concept of what a similar
>>> collapse and subsequent depression, in modern terms would mean.
>> Like I said, easy to claim.
> Proven by your posts. You haven't got a clue.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Thanks for running up the white flag so enthusiastically with that flagrant dishonesty.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> AZDuffman wrote
>>> Not in 2009 America. Bottom half paying almost zilch
>> Lying, as always. Table 1
>> http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
> From your own source!---
> The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned
> 68.2 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out
> of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.3 percent).
Irrelevant to your pig ignorant bare faced lie at the top, you silly little pathological liar.
> The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned
> approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's income (as defined
> by AGI), yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes.
Irrelevant to your pig ignorant bare faced lie at the top, you silly little pathological liar.
> That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount
> of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns
Irrelevant to your pig ignorant bare faced lie at the top, you silly little pathological liar.
<reams of your puerile name calling and lying flushed where it belongs>
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> AZDuffman wrote
>>> Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> You need to read the tax code. The top half is paying for the bottom half.
>>>> As a percentage of income, the bottom half pays more, and has for a very long time.
>>> Not in 2009 America. Bottom half paying almost zilch
>> Lying, as always. Table 1
>> http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
>>> and in fact get EIC "refunds" in many cases.
>> Nothing even remotely resembling the entire bottom half do.
>>> Sell that "bottom half pay more" to some stupid liberal
>>> (redundant term) who believes it and not actual numbers.
>> You lie about the actual numbers, just like you lie about everything else.
> The thousands of pages of the tax code exist for the wealthy.
Another lie, most obviously with the deduction for mortgage interest and kids.
> An ordinary working stiff who files a 1040EZ get NO benefit from all the exceptions in the code.
No one is holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to file a 1040EZ.
If someone is doing that, call the cops.
> Republican ending of the inheritance tax was a giveaway for the rich.
It was also a giveaway for the middle class and quite a bit of the working class too.
> Americans were fooled by the "death tax" lie promulgated by Republicans
Its something that has been binned right thruout the modern first world now, so
it cant be the repugs which even you should have noticed arent everywhere else.
Jimbo
LOL! It's now quite apparent that you haven't got a clue.
Rod Speed
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Jimbo
Well, if the economy were to collapse, you'll look pretty funny
running around crying "Where's my internet!" LOL! You have
absolutely no clue.
Rod Speed
> Well, if the economy were to collapse,
Taint gunna happen, you watch.
<reams of your desperate attempt to bullshit your way out of your predicament
that fools absolutely no one at all, as always, flushed where it belongs>