Take from the poor give to the rich
William PF
Monday April 30 3:48 PM ET
Community Fund Cuts Proposed by Bush Drawing Fire
By Jonathan Nicholson
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A proposal by President Bush (news - web sites)
to slash funding for a Clinton-era program aimed at boosting access to
capital in poor neighborhoods faces is drawing fire from community
activists and lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
Bush has requested only $68 million for the Treasury Department (news
- web sites)'s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund for
fiscal 2002, a 42.4 percent drop from the $118 million Congress
approved for the current fiscal year.
The fund was set up in 1994 and awards money to banks and other
financial institutions that serve poor areas.
These so-called CDFIs offer mortgage financing for first-time
homebuyers, commercial loans for small businesses and other financial
services that may not be provided by more mainstream lenders.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010430/pl/budget_fund_dc_1.html
wpf
______________
Jim Alder
the term 'mind' advisedly, of course. The objective here is to make Bush
look bad, obviously. Let's watch.
William PF wrote:
>
> Bush's hounding of the poor and the disadvantaged continues unabated.
>
> Monday April 30 3:48 PM ET
> Community Fund Cuts Proposed by Bush Drawing Fire
>
> By Jonathan Nicholson
>
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A proposal by President Bush (news - web sites)
> to slash funding for a Clinton-era program aimed at boosting access to
> capital in poor neighborhoods faces is drawing fire from community
> activists and lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
>
> Bush has requested only $68 million...
Catch that? "Only" $68 million. Got to womder how much this Job
Hamilton makes to consider that amount an "only."
> for the Treasury Department (news
> - web sites)'s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund for
> fiscal 2002, a 42.4 percent drop from the $118 million Congress
> approved for the current fiscal year.
Sure sounds like Bush is trying to save money, all right. Taking this
money out of the mouths of poor people! Pretty shocking... but wait for
it....
> The fund was set up in 1994 and awards money to banks and other
> financial institutions that serve poor areas.
Hold on.... Bush is taking this money away from BANKS?? Those rotten
bankers you liberals are always wailing against for stiffing the poor?
Clinton wanted to give them still more money to loan out at high rates?
And Bush is taking some back?
Son't you trolls even read your own posts anymore?
Okay, let's see a show of hands. How many out there think that this
news story would STILL be posted here if Bush had decided to INCREASE
the amount rather than decrease it? But then, of course, the headline
would be that Bush was paying back his fat cat corporate banker friends?
- = - = - = -
Jim
"People may fail many times, but they
become failures only when they begin to
blame someone else." - UNKNOWN
Lone Haranguer
just an eyewash program to purchase votes in the ghetto. Wise up.
LZ
Captain Compassion
>Bush's hounding of the poor and the disadvantaged continues unabated.
>
>Monday April 30 3:48 PM ET
>Community Fund Cuts Proposed by Bush Drawing Fire
>
>By Jonathan Nicholson
>
>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A proposal by President Bush (news - web sites)
>to slash funding for a Clinton-era program aimed at boosting access to
>capital in poor neighborhoods faces is drawing fire from community
>activists and lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
>
>Bush has requested only $68 million for the Treasury Department (news
>- web sites)'s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund for
>fiscal 2002, a 42.4 percent drop from the $118 million Congress
>approved for the current fiscal year.
>
>The fund was set up in 1994 and awards money to banks and other
>financial institutions that serve poor areas.
>
Sortta like coporate welfare?
>These so-called CDFIs offer mortgage financing for first-time
>homebuyers, commercial loans for small businesses and other financial
>services that may not be provided by more mainstream lenders.
>
>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010430/pl/budget_fund_dc_1.html
>
>wpf
>
>______________
"You can never really own more than you can carry with two hands while
running at full speed." -- Robert A. Heinlein
The Greens/Green Party USA
PO Box 1134
Lawrence, MA 01842
The average temperature of the universe 3 degrees K
above absolute zero. I'm much more afraid of the cold.
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@uia.net
Captain Compassion
wrote:
>So lend them cab fare to go uptown. It's all show and no go anyway,
>just an eyewash program to purchase votes in the ghetto. Wise up.
>LZ
>
So Bush is gonna lose the Ghetto vote. Oh Dear.
>William PF wrote:
>>
>> Bush's hounding of the poor and the disadvantaged continues unabated.
>>
>> Monday April 30 3:48 PM ET
>> Community Fund Cuts Proposed by Bush Drawing Fire
>>
>> By Jonathan Nicholson
>>
>> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A proposal by President Bush (news - web sites)
>> to slash funding for a Clinton-era program aimed at boosting access to
>> capital in poor neighborhoods faces is drawing fire from community
>> activists and lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
>>
>> Bush has requested only $68 million for the Treasury Department (news
>> - web sites)'s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund for
>> fiscal 2002, a 42.4 percent drop from the $118 million Congress
>> approved for the current fiscal year.
>>
>> The fund was set up in 1994 and awards money to banks and other
>> financial institutions that serve poor areas.
>>
>> These so-called CDFIs offer mortgage financing for first-time
>> homebuyers, commercial loans for small businesses and other financial
>> services that may not be provided by more mainstream lenders.
>>
>> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010430/pl/budget_fund_dc_1.html
>>
>> wpf
>>
>> ______________
"You can never really own more than you can carry with two hands while
Rotoboy
ro...@128.0.0.2 (William PF) wrote:
> The fund was set up in 1994 and awards money to banks and other
> financial institutions that serve poor areas.
>
> These so-called CDFIs offer mortgage financing for first-time
> homebuyers, commercial loans for small businesses and other financial
> services that may not be provided by more mainstream lenders.
>
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010430/pl/budget_fund_dc_1.html
You ought to do a little research and see what the default rate is on
the loans given under these programs. They cost a hell of a lot more
than the budgeted amount. Getting rid of these piece-of-shit programs
are a great idea. If these people wants loans let them work and build
up their credit by paying their fucking bills.
--
The economic benefits of [Reagan's tax cut program] were summarized by President
Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: "It is undeniable that the sharp
reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth."
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
Foxtrot
> Okay, let's see a show of hands. How many out there think that this
>news story would STILL be posted here if Bush had decided to INCREASE
>the amount rather than decrease it?
Even when Bush INCREASES spending, they still accuse him of
barbarism. One of the local leftist doomsayers on usenet last
week claimed Bush wanted to "sacrifice kids' educations", even
though he's spending over 14% more than Clinton's final budget.
That's why most on the left are dismissed as a bunch of scare-
mongering kooks constantly crying gloom and doom.
Trebor
<rot...@earth-NOSPAM-link.com> wrote:
>In article <3aee0d0...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>,
> ro...@128.0.0.2 (William PF) wrote:
>
>> The fund was set up in 1994 and awards money to banks and other
>> financial institutions that serve poor areas.
>>
>> These so-called CDFIs offer mortgage financing for first-time
>> homebuyers, commercial loans for small businesses and other financial
>> services that may not be provided by more mainstream lenders.
>>
>> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010430/pl/budget_fund_dc_1.html
>
>You ought to do a little research and see what the default rate is on
>the loans given under these programs. They cost a hell of a lot more
>than the budgeted amount. Getting rid of these piece-of-shit programs
>are a great idea. If these people wants loans let them work and build
>up their credit by paying their fucking bills.
I would rather see filthy degenerate scum like you pay them a living
wage so they could pay their bills.
Trebor
wrote:
>On Tue, 01 May 2001 01:15:30 GMT, ro...@128.0.0.2 (William PF) wrote:
>
>>Bush's hounding of the poor and the disadvantaged continues unabated.
>>
>>Monday April 30 3:48 PM ET
>>Community Fund Cuts Proposed by Bush Drawing Fire
>>
>>By Jonathan Nicholson
>>
>>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A proposal by President Bush (news - web sites)
>>to slash funding for a Clinton-era program aimed at boosting access to
>>capital in poor neighborhoods faces is drawing fire from community
>>activists and lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
>>
>>Bush has requested only $68 million for the Treasury Department (news
>>- web sites)'s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund for
>>fiscal 2002, a 42.4 percent drop from the $118 million Congress
>>approved for the current fiscal year.
>>
>>The fund was set up in 1994 and awards money to banks and other
>>financial institutions that serve poor areas.
>>
>Sortta like coporate welfare?
You're thinking of the defense budget.
Trebor
wrote:
>So lend them cab fare to go uptown. It's all show and no go anyway,
>just an eyewash program to purchase votes in the ghetto. Wise up.
>LZ
If spending $118 million to help poor people is buying votes, then
what is spending $1.6 trillion to help rich people - price gouging?
Trebor
wrote:
> Now follow us as we take a tour of the antiBush mindset. And we use
>the term 'mind' advisedly, of course. The objective here is to make Bush
>look bad, obviously. Let's watch.
>
>William PF wrote:
>>
>> Bush's hounding of the poor and the disadvantaged continues unabated.
>>
>> Monday April 30 3:48 PM ET
>> Community Fund Cuts Proposed by Bush Drawing Fire
>>
>> By Jonathan Nicholson
>>
>> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A proposal by President Bush (news - web sites)
>> to slash funding for a Clinton-era program aimed at boosting access to
>> capital in poor neighborhoods faces is drawing fire from community
>> activists and lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
>>
>> Bush has requested only $68 million...
>
> Catch that? "Only" $68 million. Got to womder how much this Job
>Hamilton makes to consider that amount an "only."
Gotta wonder exactly how stupid you are to think that $68 million for
poor people is a lot of money when scum like you think $1.6 trillion
for rich people isn't enough.
Foxtrot
>Jim Alder <jima...@sssnet.com>>wrote:
>>William PF wrote:
>>> Bush has requested only $68 million...
>>
>> Catch that? "Only" $68 million. Got to womder how much this Job
>>Hamilton makes to consider that amount an "only."
>
>Gotta wonder exactly how stupid you are to think that $68 million for
>poor people is a lot of money when scum like you think $1.6 trillion
>for rich people isn't enough.
That $1.6T for the "rich people" (whose success the liberals
so deeply resent) is being returned to those who paid it.
As opposed to the $68M going to "poor people", which is just
another handout for those who didn't earn it. Slash it further.
Do try to keep in mind who actually earned the money.
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> Gotta wonder exactly how stupid you are to think that $68 million for
> poor people is a lot of money when scum like you think $1.6 trillion
> for rich people isn't enough.
$68 million for poor people to take out as loans, on which they then
default. Sounds like the same scam the Mexican government has going.
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >You ought to do a little research and see what the default rate is on
> >the loans given under these programs. They cost a hell of a lot more
> >than the budgeted amount. Getting rid of these piece-of-shit programs
> >are a great idea. If these people wants loans let them work and build
> >up their credit by paying their fucking bills.
>
> I would rather see filthy degenerate scum like you pay them a living
> wage so they could pay their bills.
Straw man.
Living wage or not, these people fucked up their credit on their own.
If you can't afford a loan don't get one. Even if you're a
college-educated white male, if you take out a loan and default on it
you won't be able to get another one. Why the hell should a bunch of
fucking degenerate lowlifes have a federally funded loan program?
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> You're thinking of the defense budget.
At least we can see tangible evidence of the defense budget going
towards something.
Trebor
<rot...@earth-NOSPAM-link.com> wrote:
>In article <3aee570e...@news.earthlink.net>,
> tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>
>> >You ought to do a little research and see what the default rate is on
>> >the loans given under these programs. They cost a hell of a lot more
>> >than the budgeted amount. Getting rid of these piece-of-shit programs
>> >are a great idea. If these people wants loans let them work and build
>> >up their credit by paying their fucking bills.
>>
>> I would rather see filthy degenerate scum like you pay them a living
>> wage so they could pay their bills.
>
>Straw man.
'Straw man' means the argument is easy to knock down. I don't see you
knocking anything down scum.
>
>Living wage or not, these people fucked up their credit on their own.
What the hell are you talking about, you brain dead racist? Who says
they have bad credit? The issue here is that regular banks don't want
to lend money to people in ghetto areas PERIOD, reguardless of their
credit history. Why don't you get your facts straight, racist scum?
cheers,
Trebor
Trebor
<rot...@earth-NOSPAM-link.com> wrote:
>In article <3aee57ee...@news.earthlink.net>,
> tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>
>> You're thinking of the defense budget.
>
>At least we can see tangible evidence of the defense budget going
>towards something.
Like killing poor people and making rich people richer.
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >> >You ought to do a little research and see what the default rate is on
> >> >the loans given under these programs. They cost a hell of a lot more
> >> >than the budgeted amount. Getting rid of these piece-of-shit programs
> >> >are a great idea. If these people wants loans let them work and build
> >> >up their credit by paying their fucking bills.
> >>
> >> I would rather see filthy degenerate scum like you pay them a living
> >> wage so they could pay their bills.
> >
> >Straw man.
>
> 'Straw man' means the argument is easy to knock down. I don't see you
> knocking anything down scum.
No, idiot, it doesn't.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a
person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has
the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted
version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the
position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of
a person to hurt the person.
----
Now, let's take the exchange above as an example.
1. "The default rate on these loans is quite high, so ending the
program is a good idea."
2. "The reason they don't pay their bills is because they are not paid
a living wage."
3. "People like you do not pay them a living wage and therefore you are
filthy scum."
4. "The fault lies not with the poor people defaulting on their loans
but with the lack of a living wage, which is attributable to scum like
you."
Note how you completely dodge the issue that these people default on
their loans.
> >Living wage or not, these people fucked up their credit on their own.
>
> What the hell are you talking about, you brain dead racist? Who says
> they have bad credit? The issue here is that regular banks don't want
> to lend money to people in ghetto areas PERIOD, reguardless of their
> credit history. Why don't you get your facts straight, racist scum?
Since you're so big on facts let's see some to support your contention.
A reputable data source with a URL would be jim dandy.
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >> >You ought to do a little research and see what the default rate is on
> >> >the loans given under these programs. They cost a hell of a lot more
> >> >than the budgeted amount. Getting rid of these piece-of-shit programs
> >> >are a great idea. If these people wants loans let them work and build
> >> >up their credit by paying their fucking bills.
> >>
> >> I would rather see filthy degenerate scum like you pay them a living
> >> wage so they could pay their bills.
> >
> >Straw man.
>
> 'Straw man' means the argument is easy to knock down. I don't see you
> knocking anything down scum.
No, idiot, it doesn't.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
----
> >Living wage or not, these people fucked up their credit on their own.
>
> What the hell are you talking about, you brain dead racist? Who says
> they have bad credit? The issue here is that regular banks don't want
> to lend money to people in ghetto areas PERIOD, reguardless of their
> credit history. Why don't you get your facts straight, racist scum?
Since you're so big on facts let's see some to support your contention.
A reputable data source with a URL would be jim dandy.
--
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >At least we can see tangible evidence of the defense budget going
> >towards something.
>
> Like killing poor people and making rich people richer.
Yeah? What poor people?
Trebor
>tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>
>>Jim Alder <jima...@sssnet.com>>wrote:
>>>William PF wrote:
>>>> Bush has requested only $68 million...
>>>
>>> Catch that? "Only" $68 million. Got to womder how much this Job
>>>Hamilton makes to consider that amount an "only."
>>
>>Gotta wonder exactly how stupid you are to think that $68 million for
>>poor people is a lot of money when scum like you think $1.6 trillion
>>for rich people isn't enough.
>
>That $1.6T for the "rich people" (whose success the liberals
>so deeply resent) is being returned to those who paid it.
Psychobabble. The rich wouldn't have any money at all if workers
didn't do all their work - so why not give it to the people who REALLY
worked for it, rather than the lazy parasites who stole it from them?
Because paying slave wages is really nothing more than theft. The
money in the US Treasury belongs to all the people and their
government, and whether it is payed out to rich people in more tax
bonuses or to poor people in government programs the debit is exactly
the same. Poor people shouldn't go hungry and without propper housing
or medical care just to give lazy rich people a free ride.
>
>As opposed to the $68M going to "poor people", which is just
>another handout for those who didn't earn it.
In fact, according to the IRS, poor people earn almost all of the
money in their pockets by the sweat of their own labor, while rich
people get most of their money by sitting on their worthless butts -
it's UNearned income. Learn the facts before airing your ignorance in
public.
Trebor
<rot...@earth-NOSPAM-link.com> wrote:
>In article <3aee5c5f...@news.earthlink.net>,
> tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>
>> Gotta wonder exactly how stupid you are to think that $68 million for
>> poor people is a lot of money when scum like you think $1.6 trillion
>> for rich people isn't enough.
>
>$68 million for poor people to take out as loans, on which they then
>default.
The only thing in default is that racist malignancy you call your
brain.
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >$68 million for poor people to take out as loans, on which they then
> >default.
>
> The only thing in default is that racist malignancy you call your
> brain.
In other words, "I have no argument to counter what you wrote, so I'm
going to fall back on the old tried-and-true tactic of calling you a
racist."
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >As opposed to the $68M going to "poor people", which is just
> >another handout for those who didn't earn it.
>
> In fact, according to the IRS, poor people earn almost all of the
> money in their pockets by the sweat of their own labor, while rich
> people get most of their money by sitting on their worthless butts -
> it's UNearned income. Learn the facts before airing your ignorance in
> public.
Poor people were also sitting on their worthless butts while future rich
people were working their asses off getting degrees.
Trebor
<rot...@earth-NOSPAM-link.com> wrote:
>In article <3aee6fee...@news.earthlink.net>,
> tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>
>> >At least we can see tangible evidence of the defense budget going
>> >towards something.
>>
>> Like killing poor people and making rich people richer.
>
>Yeah? What poor people?
Like a couple hundred thousand poor Iraqi children for starters.
Trebor
<rot...@earth-NOSPAM-link.com> wrote:
>In article <3aee6e08...@news.earthlink.net>,
> tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>
>>
>> >Living wage or not, these people fucked up their credit on their own.
>>
>> What the hell are you talking about, you brain dead racist? Who says
>> they have bad credit? The issue here is that regular banks don't want
>> to lend money to people in ghetto areas PERIOD, reguardless of their
>> credit history. Why don't you get your facts straight, racist scum?
>
>Since you're so big on facts let's see some to support your contention.
>A reputable data source with a URL would be jim dandy.
I don't have to waste my time since people in this country are
innocent until proven guilty - YOU are the racist asshole who said
people in inner cities are denied loans because they don't pay their
bills, so it is up to YOU to provide evidence that people who do pay
their bills are getting loans in the inner cities. But you can't,
because you're a racist LIAR and scumball. This isn't a program to
give people with bad credit loans - you are a bald-faced LIAR. This
is a program to give hard working people with decent credit the same
opportunity to get a loan that you have. Because most banks simply
don't want to loan money to people buying real estate or setting up
businesses in the inner cities. That's the entire issue. But you are
such a screwed-up piece of shit who's always too busy conducting your
right-wing class warfare routine, stereotyping everyone who's poor or
black as a lazy, dishonest social parasite, that all you're really
capable of is being the ignorant, lying racist jerk that you are.
cheers,
Trebor
Trebor
<rot...@earth-NOSPAM-link.com> wrote:
>In article <3aee706f...@news.earthlink.net>,
> tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>
>> >As opposed to the $68M going to "poor people", which is just
>> >another handout for those who didn't earn it.
>>
>> In fact, according to the IRS, poor people earn almost all of the
>> money in their pockets by the sweat of their own labor, while rich
>> people get most of their money by sitting on their worthless butts -
>> it's UNearned income. Learn the facts before airing your ignorance in
>> public.
>
>Poor people were also sitting on their worthless butts while future rich
>people were working their asses off getting degrees.
What degree is Jenna Bush going for - how to become worthless drunken
parasite.
Trebor
<rot...@earth-NOSPAM-link.com> wrote:
>In article <3aee7439...@news.earthlink.net>,
> tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>
>> >$68 million for poor people to take out as loans, on which they then
>> >default.
>>
>> The only thing in default is that racist malignancy you call your
>> brain.
>
>In other words, "I have no argument to counter what you wrote, so I'm
>going to fall back on the old tried-and-true tactic of calling you a
>racist."
No, I'm saying that any piece of shit who assumes that black people
are going to default on loans simply because they are black is a
racist.
King Pineapple
news:3aee706f...@news.earthlink.net...
> The
> money in the US Treasury belongs to all the people and their
> government,
So you're saying the money I paid in taxes belongs to YOU? Don't think so...
SWMyers
> >> >$68 million for poor people to take out as loans, on which they then
> >> >default.
> >>
> >> The only thing in default is that racist malignancy you call your
> >> brain.
> >
> >In other words, "I have no argument to counter what you wrote, so I'm
> >going to fall back on the old tried-and-true tactic of calling you a
> >racist."
>
> No, I'm saying that any piece of shit who assumes that black people
> are going to default on loans simply because they are black is a
> racist.
I didn't see any mention of blacks until you brought this up........
SWMyers
> > Now follow us as we take a tour of the antiBush mindset. And we use
> >the term 'mind' advisedly, of course. The objective here is to make Bush
> >look bad, obviously. Let's watch.
> >> Bush has requested only $68 million...
> >
> > Catch that? "Only" $68 million. Got to womder how much this Job
> >Hamilton makes to consider that amount an "only."
>
> Gotta wonder exactly how stupid you are to think that $68 million for
> poor people is a lot of money when scum like you think $1.6 trillion
> for rich people isn't enough.
Since the $68 million is a handout and $1.6 Trillion is a refund to those
people paying taxes they are hardly comparable.
SWMyers
> >>>> Bush has requested only $68 million...
> >>>
> >>> Catch that? "Only" $68 million. Got to womder how much this Job
> >>>Hamilton makes to consider that amount an "only."
> >>
> >>Gotta wonder exactly how stupid you are to think that $68 million for
> >>poor people is a lot of money when scum like you think $1.6 trillion
> >>for rich people isn't enough.
> >
> >That $1.6T for the "rich people" (whose success the liberals
> >so deeply resent) is being returned to those who paid it.
>
> Psychobabble. The rich wouldn't have any money at all if workers
> didn't do all their work - so why not give it to the people who REALLY
> worked for it, rather than the lazy parasites who stole it from them?
> Because paying slave wages is really nothing more than theft. The
> money in the US Treasury belongs to all the people and their
> government, and whether it is payed out to rich people in more tax
> bonuses or to poor people in government programs the debit is exactly
> the same. Poor people shouldn't go hungry and without propper housing
> or medical care just to give lazy rich people a free ride.
The employees in this country are paid a wage. They are trading their labor
for a share of the income of the organization. They are paid on the value of
their efforts as well as the skill and education required to perform the
job. Who is being paid slave wages in this country? Each and every employee
has the ability to seek an education, to accept greater responsibility for
their actions and the actions of other employees, and the ability to freely
associate with organizations that will pay them the highest wage that they
can command.
The money in the US Treasury DOES belong to the people of this nation and
with it they pay the bills of the government. But the government doesn't
earn that money, it must confiscate it from the people, and some people
contribute nothing and receive a great deal of redistributed wealth and some
people contribute more than their fair share of the economic burden of this
country. I am going to guess that you've never paid taxes on an income
greater than $200K, because if you had you'd realize the tax breaks and
rebates are gone and have been for 20 years, the only people getting tax
breaks and rebates ARE the poor and in some cases they are receiving more in
tax breaks than they contributed (EIC). The tax cuts are being distributed
across the board and affect EVERYONE that pays taxes, the people paying the
most rightly are receiving most of the benefits of those custs but hardly in
a disproportionate share.
Poor people shouldn't go hungry or without medical insurance, but in life
people make choices and they also limit their potential value to other
organizations. It is not the responsibility of government to redistribute
the income of those that have worked their way up the ladder to those that
have not availed themselves of everything that this nation offers. Those are
not the principals that this nation was founded under, nor should it be the
future of it.
> >
> >As opposed to the $68M going to "poor people", which is just
> >another handout for those who didn't earn it.
>
> In fact, according to the IRS, poor people earn almost all of the
> money in their pockets by the sweat of their own labor, while rich
> people get most of their money by sitting on their worthless butts -
> it's UNearned income. Learn the facts before airing your ignorance in
> public.
Try some facts of your own, the majoriy of people earning wages in excess of
$75,000 worked their way UP the chain. It wasn't given to them, it was
through their efforts of education, responsibility, and drive. The "idle
wealthy" whom you are trying to attack make up less than 1/10th of 1% of the
nations population. Fully 2/3rds of the millionaires in this nation created
their wealth within their own lifetimes. Over 1/2 of the Billionaires
created ALL of their wealth in their own lifetimes. They did it by taking
money that THEY earned and investing it, buying real estate, or taking a
risk and founding new companies and organizations to do new things. It's not
unearned income, its a reward for taking a risk, it is a reward for striking
out on their own, it's a reward for providing jobs to hundreds or even
thouands of people that might not have had one otherwise.
As wealthy as Bill Gates is, he created his wealth wholly within his
lifetime. Not only did he create his own wealth he created Billions in
wealth for others, and in fact created more money for others than he created
for himself. His vision also allowed other companies to hire skilled and
highly paid people and so on and so on. So Gates not only positively
affected his own self and family and the employees of Microsoft and their
families - but the companies, the employees and the families of EVERY
company that both competes and coexists with Microsoft.
SWMyers
> >So lend them cab fare to go uptown. It's all show and no go anyway,
> >just an eyewash program to purchase votes in the ghetto. Wise up.
> >LZ
>
> If spending $118 million to help poor people is buying votes, then
> what is spending $1.6 trillion to help rich people - price gouging?
It is returning the money that they were overcharged.
SWMyers
> >> >At least we can see tangible evidence of the defense budget going
> >> >towards something.
> >>
> >> Like killing poor people and making rich people richer.
> >
> >Yeah? What poor people?
>
> Like a couple hundred thousand poor Iraqi children for starters.
Bwhahaha!!!! Try something with a little bit more of a reality check!
SWMyers
> >You ought to do a little research and see what the default rate is on
> >the loans given under these programs. They cost a hell of a lot more
> >than the budgeted amount. Getting rid of these piece-of-shit programs
> >are a great idea. If these people wants loans let them work and build
> >up their credit by paying their fucking bills.
>
> I would rather see filthy degenerate scum like you pay them a living
> wage so they could pay their bills.
I'd like to see them put a little investment in themselves and understand
the value of an education, work hard, and accept more responsibility and
receive their raises in order to earn a wage that allows them to support
their families. Many of today's wealthy started at minimum wage (as
teenagers or just starting out) and didn't try to start a family until they
could afford it. Some of the poor made significant mistakes starting out and
should recover from those self-inflicted mistakes on their own.
Lone Haranguer
Trebor wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 22:06:39 -0500, Lone Haranguer <lin...@qwest.net>
> wrote:
>
> >So lend them cab fare to go uptown. It's all show and no go anyway,
> >just an eyewash program to purchase votes in the ghetto. Wise up.
> >LZ
>
> If spending $118 million to help poor people is buying votes, then
> what is spending $1.6 trillion to help rich people - price gouging?
If you research the results of the program you will learn that it didn't
benefit "poor people" unless they were criminals.
Unscrupulous con artists took out loans and never repaid them. They
spent the cash, never having any intention to start a business.
The participating banks were afraid to say no to those who applied and
the government did not attempt to recoup the money.
Have the good sense to learn the difference between what a program
CLAIMS to be and what it actually is in practice.
The FACT is anyone with a reputable credit history can obtain loans. We
don't need the government to stick their oar in.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Trebor wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 May 2001 07:57:29 GMT, Foxtrot <Fox...@null.com> wrote:
>
> >tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >
> >>Jim Alder <jima...@sssnet.com>>wrote:
> >>>William PF wrote:
> >>>> Bush has requested only $68 million...
> >>>
> >>> Catch that? "Only" $68 million. Got to womder how much this Job
> >>>Hamilton makes to consider that amount an "only."
> >>
> >>Gotta wonder exactly how stupid you are to think that $68 million for
> >>poor people is a lot of money when scum like you think $1.6 trillion
> >>for rich people isn't enough.
> >
> >That $1.6T for the "rich people" (whose success the liberals
> >so deeply resent) is being returned to those who paid it.
>
> Psychobabble. The rich wouldn't have any money at all if workers
> didn't do all their work - so why not give it to the people who REALLY
> worked for it, rather than the lazy parasites who stole it from them?
> Because paying slave wages is really nothing more than theft. The
> money in the US Treasury belongs to all the people and their
> government, and whether it is payed out to rich people in more tax
> bonuses or to poor people in government programs the debit is exactly
> the same. Poor people shouldn't go hungry and without propper housing
> or medical care just to give lazy rich people a free ride.
> >
You sound like Lenin in 1918. You might take a trip to Russia to see
how your idea worked out after 70 years of trial and error.
> >As opposed to the $68M going to "poor people", which is just
> >another handout for those who didn't earn it.
>
> In fact, according to the IRS, poor people earn almost all of the
> money in their pockets by the sweat of their own labor, while rich
> people get most of their money by sitting on their worthless butts -
> it's UNearned income. Learn the facts before airing your ignorance in
> public.
Using one's brain IS a form of labor. Only those who don't have the
ability term it "sitting on their butts".
I don't know about you but my brain works just fine while sitting.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Standard Liberal ploy #5. If you can't win an argument on its merits,
drag race into the issue. It's a sure winner in Liberal minds.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
You're losing your objectivity and getting shrill Trebby. You can't
verify your statements so you played the race card.
One of the MAIN reasons banks do not want to loan money to start
businesses in inner cities is because no one will insure them. Why is
this? Because when the residents have a gripe they have a nasty habit
of looting and torching said businesses. The banks have a fiduciary
responsibility to their depositors and can't loan money willy-nilly to
bad risks who can't insure the investment. Try dropping the insurance
on a mortgaged home and see how long it takes to get a nasty letter from
the bank.
If the banks consider a borrower to be a bad risk, WHY should the
taxpayer furnish the money? Because he can't complain when the money is
lost? Why don't you just go down and co-sign for these loans if you
feel so confident in such a program?
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Right. It's our fault that Saddam Hussein is spending all his cash on
the Republican Guard and weapons of mass destruction.
Whatever you are inhaling it's making your brain shrink Trebby.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
A typical college student. She may grow up to be a prominent researcher
who discovers how to cure stupidity.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Did he mention the word "black"? Maybe you should track the past value
of the program? Get back to us when you know something.
LZ
Captain Compassion
>On Tue, 01 May 2001 03:30:41 GMT, dar...@uia.net (Captain Compassion)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 01 May 2001 01:15:30 GMT, ro...@128.0.0.2 (William PF) wrote:
>>
>>>Bush's hounding of the poor and the disadvantaged continues unabated.
>>>
>>>Monday April 30 3:48 PM ET
>>>Community Fund Cuts Proposed by Bush Drawing Fire
>>>
>>>By Jonathan Nicholson
>>>
>>>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A proposal by President Bush (news - web sites)
>>>to slash funding for a Clinton-era program aimed at boosting access to
>>>capital in poor neighborhoods faces is drawing fire from community
>>>activists and lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
>>>
>>>Bush has requested only $68 million for the Treasury Department (news
>>>- web sites)'s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund for
>>>fiscal 2002, a 42.4 percent drop from the $118 million Congress
>>>approved for the current fiscal year.
>>>
>>>The fund was set up in 1994 and awards money to banks and other
>>>financial institutions that serve poor areas.
>>>
>>Sortta like coporate welfare?
>
>You're thinking of the defense budget.
>
In the poor side of town you see only businisses there that can make
money in the poor side of town. If there was money to be made by banks
and lending instutions, excluding pawn shops, Then they would be
there. The Republican idea, educate the poor so they can get better
jobs and move out to where the services are. The Democrat idea, force
the services to move to the poor side of town and use government to
amortize their losses. Now the poor have the same services as the
better off but they can't use those services and they are still poor.
"You can never really own more than you can carry with two hands while
running at full speed." -- Robert A. Heinlein
For among other evils which being unarmed brings you,
it causes you to be despised, and this is one of those
ignominies against which a prince ought to guard himself,
as is shown later on. Because there is nothing proportionate
between the armed and the unarmed; and it is not reasonable
that he who is armed should yield obedience willingly to him
who is unarmed, or that the unarmed man should be secure among
armed servants. Because, there being in the one disdain and in
the other suspicion, it is not possible for them to work well
together. -- Nicolo Machiavelli
The Greens/Green Party USA
PO Box 1134
Lawrence, MA 01842
The average temperature of the universe 3 degrees K
above absolute zero. I'm much more afraid of the cold.
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@uia.net
Jim Alder
>
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 22:40:56 -0400, Jim Alder <jima...@sssnet.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Now follow us as we take a tour of the antiBush mindset. And we use
> >the term 'mind' advisedly, of course. The objective here is to make Bush
> >look bad, obviously. Let's watch.
> >
> >>
> >> Bush's hounding of the poor and the disadvantaged continues unabated.
> >>
> >> Monday April 30 3:48 PM ET
> >> Community Fund Cuts Proposed by Bush Drawing Fire
> >>
> >> By Jonathan Nicholson
> >>
> >> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A proposal by President Bush (news - web sites)
> >> to slash funding for a Clinton-era program aimed at boosting access to
> >> capital in poor neighborhoods faces is drawing fire from community
> >> activists and lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
> >>
> >
> > Catch that? "Only" $68 million. Got to womder how much this Job
> >Hamilton makes to consider that amount an "only."
>
> poor people is a lot of money when scum like you think $1.6 trillion
> for rich people isn't enough.
"Gotta" wonder about that attention span of yours. This money was
being awarded to BANKS, not "poor people."
- = - = - = -
Jim
"People may fail many times, but they
become failures only when they begin to
blame someone else." - UNKNOWN
Jim Alder
>
> On Tue, 01 May 2001 07:57:29 GMT, Foxtrot <Fox...@null.com> wrote:
>
> >tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >
> >>Jim Alder <jima...@sssnet.com>>wrote:
> >>>William PF wrote:
> >>>> Bush has requested only $68 million...
> >>>
> >>> Catch that? "Only" $68 million. Got to womder how much this Job
> >>>Hamilton makes to consider that amount an "only."
> >>
> >>Gotta wonder exactly how stupid you are to think that $68 million for
> >>poor people is a lot of money when scum like you think $1.6 trillion
> >>for rich people isn't enough.
> >
> >That $1.6T for the "rich people" (whose success the liberals
> >so deeply resent) is being returned to those who paid it.
>
> Psychobabble. The rich wouldn't have any money at all if workers
> didn't do all their work - so why not give it to the people who REALLY
> worked for it, rather than the lazy parasites who stole it from them?
Heehee hee hee! Here we have the true liberal; utterly self-deluded
and mindlessly repeating things that he's been told, even though they
make absolutely no sense. The rich wouldn't have any money... so how did
they build the businesses that the 'poor people' work in? Trebor doesn't
care. He doesn't allow himself to think about that, because it would
confuse his dogma. Nor does he want to hear that most millionaires are
self made ones, not inherited ones.
> Because paying slave wages is really nothing more than theft.
Working for a living is slavery? Trebor thinks everyone is as poorly
paid as he is. His boss spent years earning enough to buy that
Blockbuster franchise or McDonalds, and Trebor wants a shortcut,
stepping right into an equal partnership. You want fries with that,
Trebor?
> The money in the US Treasury belongs to all the people and their
> government...
Wrong. It belongs to the government. They alone get to decide how to
spend it.
, ...and whether it is payed out to rich people in more tax
> bonuses or to poor people in government programs the debit is exactly
> the same.
Why aren't they "government bonuses?" That would be a more apropos
term than calling tax cuts 'bonuses.'
> Poor people shouldn't go hungry and without propper housing
> or medical care just to give lazy rich people a free ride.
When you can build a steel mill for 'free,' organize payroll,
personell, and find customers and raw materials, and a thousand other
jobs you have no clue about, you can call it a 'free ride.'
> >As opposed to the $68M going to "poor people", which is just
> >another handout for those who didn't earn it.
>
> In fact, according to the IRS, poor people earn almost all of the
> money in their pockets by the sweat of their own labor, while rich
> people get most of their money by sitting on their worthless butts -
> it's UNearned income. Learn the facts before airing your ignorance in
> public.
You just spent a whole deluded post campaigning for the honorability
of "unearned income." Now suddenly it's a bad thing? See, that's the
trouble with duplicity and hypocrisy; you get confused after a while.
Jim Alder
And Trebor will want his treatment for free, because he deserves it.
(he certainly needs it)
Jim Alder
"Poor" is a race now?? Or are yous aying that the poor are confined
to a particular race? I guess we know who the racist is in this
discussion.
Jim Alder
Ooooops! He said "poor people", Trebor. "Poor people" = "black
people" in your tiny mind, eh? Looks like the pot's calling the kettle
"poor" here, Trebor! Hee hee! You've been "outed"!
William PF
from your rage, you would have been able to read the last paragraph
in my post which was also part of the article the gist of which you
in classic goebels-like fashion of course chose to ignore.
This is what the last paragragh said: "These so-called CDFIs offer
mortgage financing for first-time homebuyers, commercial loans for
small businesses and other financial services that may not be provided
by more mainstream lenders."
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010430/pl/budget_fund_dc_1.html
So the money is first given to banks who then use it to offer more
affordable loans and mortgages to poor people in distressed areas. Now
you tell me that cutting these programs is not siphoning off
resources from the poor in order to give humangus taxcuts to the
super- rich.
All while corporate welfare is choking off the country literally and
figuratively.
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 22:40:56 -0400, Jim Alder <jima...@sssnet.com>
wrote:
> Now follow us as we take a tour of the antiBush mindset. And we use
>the term 'mind' advisedly, of course. The objective here is to make Bush
>look bad, obviously. Let's watch.
>
>William PF wrote:
>>
>> Bush's hounding of the poor and the disadvantaged continues unabated.
>>
>> Monday April 30 3:48 PM ET
>> Community Fund Cuts Proposed by Bush Drawing Fire
>>
>> By Jonathan Nicholson
>>
>> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A proposal by President Bush (news - web sites)
>> to slash funding for a Clinton-era program aimed at boosting access to
>> capital in poor neighborhoods faces is drawing fire from community
>> activists and lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
>>
>> Bush has requested only $68 million...
>
> Catch that? "Only" $68 million. Got to womder how much this Job
>Hamilton makes to consider that amount an "only."
>
>> for the Treasury Department (news
>> - web sites)'s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund for
>> fiscal 2002, a 42.4 percent drop from the $118 million Congress
>> approved for the current fiscal year.
>
> Sure sounds like Bush is trying to save money, all right. Taking this
>money out of the mouths of poor people! Pretty shocking... but wait for
>it....
>
>> The fund was set up in 1994 and awards money to banks and other
>> financial institutions that serve poor areas.
>
> Hold on.... Bush is taking this money away from BANKS?? Those rotten
>bankers you liberals are always wailing against for stiffing the poor?
>Clinton wanted to give them still more money to loan out at high rates?
>And Bush is taking some back?
>
> Son't you trolls even read your own posts anymore?
>
> Okay, let's see a show of hands. How many out there think that this
>news story would STILL be posted here if Bush had decided to INCREASE
>the amount rather than decrease it? But then, of course, the headline
>would be that Bush was paying back his fat cat corporate banker friends?
>
> - = - = - = -
>Jim
>
> "People may fail many times, but they
>become failures only when they begin to
>blame someone else." - UNKNOWN
wpf
______________
Jim Alder
Don't get your hopes up on that 'refund' idea. I prefer to consider
it a 'future reduction'. We both know they're probably going to wind up
spending the previous overcharges.
Jim Alder
>
> On Tue, 01 May 2001 01:15:30 GMT, ro...@128.0.0.2 (William PF) wrote:
>
> >Bush's hounding of the poor and the disadvantaged continues unabated.
> >
> >Monday April 30 3:48 PM ET
> >Community Fund Cuts Proposed by Bush Drawing Fire
> >
> >By Jonathan Nicholson
> >
> >WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A proposal by President Bush (news - web sites)
> >to slash funding for a Clinton-era program aimed at boosting access to
> >capital in poor neighborhoods faces is drawing fire from community
> >activists and lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
> >
> >- web sites)'s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund for
> >fiscal 2002, a 42.4 percent drop from the $118 million Congress
> >approved for the current fiscal year.
> >
> >financial institutions that serve poor areas.
> >
Nnnnooo, Captain! Pay attention! It would only be corporate welfare
if Bush INCREASED the amount! Decreasing the amount makes it "robbing
the poor." Remember, this is not about truth, it's about Bush-bashing.
Trebor
wrote:
>
>
I saw a movie like that once. A girl became a doctor so she could
cure her father of cancer. Unfortunately, she was too late - and so
is Jenna.
Trebor
LIAR!
Trebor
<swm...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Trebor" wrote
>> >>>> Bush has requested only $68 million...
>> >>>
>> >>> Catch that? "Only" $68 million. Got to womder how much this Job
>> >>>Hamilton makes to consider that amount an "only."
>> >>
>> >>Gotta wonder exactly how stupid you are to think that $68 million for
>> >>poor people is a lot of money when scum like you think $1.6 trillion
>> >>for rich people isn't enough.
>> >
>> >That $1.6T for the "rich people" (whose success the liberals
>> >so deeply resent) is being returned to those who paid it.
>>
>> Psychobabble. The rich wouldn't have any money at all if workers
>> didn't do all their work - so why not give it to the people who REALLY
>> worked for it, rather than the lazy parasites who stole it from them?
>> Because paying slave wages is really nothing more than theft. The
>> money in the US Treasury belongs to all the people and their
>> government, and whether it is payed out to rich people in more tax
>> bonuses or to poor people in government programs the debit is exactly
>> the same. Poor people shouldn't go hungry and without propper housing
>> or medical care just to give lazy rich people a free ride.
>
>The employees in this country are paid a wage.
Actually no - many are paid a slave wage, in spite of the fact that
slavery was outlawed. They are breaking the law, but the law isn't
being enforced because the rich are bribing our Congressmen with
'contributions', and so have conspired to keep them from enforcing it,
which is another crime. If the laws were really enforced in this
country, most rich people would be in jail and most poor people could
afford to buy a home.
cheers,
Trebor
Trebor
wrote:
>
>
>Trebor wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 01 May 2001 07:57:29 GMT, Foxtrot <Fox...@null.com> wrote:
>>
>> >tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>> >
>> >>Jim Alder <jima...@sssnet.com>>wrote:
>> >>>William PF wrote:
>> >>>> Bush has requested only $68 million...
>> >>>
>> >>> Catch that? "Only" $68 million. Got to womder how much this Job
>> >>>Hamilton makes to consider that amount an "only."
>> >>
>> >>Gotta wonder exactly how stupid you are to think that $68 million for
>> >>poor people is a lot of money when scum like you think $1.6 trillion
>> >>for rich people isn't enough.
>> >
>> >That $1.6T for the "rich people" (whose success the liberals
>> >so deeply resent) is being returned to those who paid it.
>>
>> Psychobabble. The rich wouldn't have any money at all if workers
>> didn't do all their work - so why not give it to the people who REALLY
>> worked for it, rather than the lazy parasites who stole it from them?
>> Because paying slave wages is really nothing more than theft. The
>> money in the US Treasury belongs to all the people and their
>> government, and whether it is payed out to rich people in more tax
>> bonuses or to poor people in government programs the debit is exactly
>> the same. Poor people shouldn't go hungry and without propper housing
>> or medical care just to give lazy rich people a free ride.
>> >
>You sound like Lenin in 1918. You might take a trip to Russia to see
>how your idea worked out after 70 years of trial and error.
You might take a trip to the nazi concentration camps and see how your
idea worked out after 15 years of "compassionate conservatism".
>
>> >As opposed to the $68M going to "poor people", which is just
>> >another handout for those who didn't earn it.
>>
>> In fact, according to the IRS, poor people earn almost all of the
>> money in their pockets by the sweat of their own labor, while rich
>> people get most of their money by sitting on their worthless butts -
>> it's UNearned income. Learn the facts before airing your ignorance in
>> public.
>
>Using one's brain IS a form of labor.
That's also what every lazy, crooked thief believes, but it isn't
true. Watching the stock market is not a form of productive labor -
still less hiring a broker to watch the market for you.
> Only those who don't have the
>ability term it "sitting on their butts".
Only those who don't have a work ethic think sitting on their butts
watching the stock market is productive work.
>
>I don't know about you but my brain works just fine while sitting.
Then how do you know it won't work standing-up unless you try?
>LZ
Trebor
wrote:
>
>
>Trebor wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 22:06:39 -0500, Lone Haranguer <lin...@qwest.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >So lend them cab fare to go uptown. It's all show and no go anyway,
>> >just an eyewash program to purchase votes in the ghetto. Wise up.
>> >LZ
>>
>> If spending $118 million to help poor people is buying votes, then
>> what is spending $1.6 trillion to help rich people - price gouging?
>
>If you research the results of the program you will learn that it didn't
>benefit "poor people" unless they were criminals.
You are a filthy right-wing Nazi LIAR who can't back-up your racist
class warfare arguments. Pure and simple.
Trebor
wrote:
>
>
Standard Conservative ploy #1: Talk about blacks and make hateful and
derogatory generalizations about them without ever using the word, so
that when you're accused of being a racist you can pretend weren't
really talking about them.
Trebor
wrote:
>
>
>Trebor wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 01 May 2001 08:42:58 GMT, Rotoboy
>> <rot...@earth-NOSPAM-link.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3aee7439...@news.earthlink.net>,
>> > tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>> >
>> >> >$68 million for poor people to take out as loans, on which they then
>> >> >default.
>> >>
>> >> The only thing in default is that racist malignancy you call your
>> >> brain.
>> >
>> >In other words, "I have no argument to counter what you wrote, so I'm
>> >going to fall back on the old tried-and-true tactic of calling you a
>> >racist."
>>
>> No, I'm saying that any piece of shit who assumes that black people
>> are going to default on loans simply because they are black is a
>> racist.
>
>Did he mention the word "black"?
Yes, he did. The same way the confederate flag mentions the name
"nigger".
Trebor
wrote:
Of course, you are a LIAR. The issue isn't whether banks can make
money lending to inner city residents, because they can - the issue is
that they can make MORE money lending elsewhere. The issue is greed,
like everything else in this country.
>The Republican idea, educate the poor so they can get better
>jobs and move out to where the services are.
Since the effect of Republican policy is simply to make the rich
richer and the poor poorer, you are obviously a LIAR. Republicans
could care less about educating the poor, providing job training for
the poor, affordable housing for the poor, providing medical care for
the poor, or doing else besides screwing over the poor and paying them
slave wages.
> The Democrat idea, force
>the services to move to the poor side of town and use government to
>amortize their losses. Now the poor have the same services as the
>better off but they can't use those services and they are still poor.
"the poor have the same services as the better off"? - you are such a
rediculously brainwashed Nazi LIAR, you might as well rent out that
empty space between your ears to some storage company.
Trebor
<swm...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Trebor"
>> >> >At least we can see tangible evidence of the defense budget going
>> >> >towards something.
>> >>
>> >> Like killing poor people and making rich people richer.
>> >
>> >Yeah? What poor people?
>>
>> Like a couple hundred thousand poor Iraqi children for starters.
>
>Bwhahaha!!!! Try something with a little bit more of a reality check!
OK then, a couple of million innocent Iraqi children.
>
>
Trebor
<swm...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Trebor" wrote
>> > Now follow us as we take a tour of the antiBush mindset. And we use
>> >the term 'mind' advisedly, of course. The objective here is to make Bush
>> >look bad, obviously. Let's watch.
>
>> >> Bush has requested only $68 million...
>> >
>> > Catch that? "Only" $68 million. Got to womder how much this Job
>> >Hamilton makes to consider that amount an "only."
>>
>> Gotta wonder exactly how stupid you are to think that $68 million for
>> poor people is a lot of money when scum like you think $1.6 trillion
>> for rich people isn't enough.
>
>Since the $68 million is a handout and $1.6 Trillion is a refund to those
>people paying taxes they are hardly comparable.
You are a brainwashed moron. The rich have no more right to a
'refund' than your boss has a right to expect a 'refund' on your
salary (assuming you work, which I doubt). Your boss pays you a
salary for services rendered - it doesn't belong to him it belongs to
you. The rich and everyone else in this country pay taxes for
government services rendered, and for the privilege of living in the
richest country in the world. It doesn't belong to them - it belongs
to ALL the people. It is my money just as much as it is theirs. It
belongs where it can do the most good - and that means providing
health care for those who don't have it and helping the elderly buy
their drugs - NOT helping lazy and corrupt rich people pay off a few
more politicians.
cheers,
Trebor
Trebor
<swm...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Trebor"
>> >So lend them cab fare to go uptown. It's all show and no go anyway,
>> >just an eyewash program to purchase votes in the ghetto. Wise up.
>> >LZ
>>
>> If spending $118 million to help poor people is buying votes, then
>> what is spending $1.6 trillion to help rich people - price gouging?
>
>It is returning the money that they were overcharged.
They weren't overcharged anything you worthless bootlicker - the were
GROSSLY UNDERCHARGED. They bribed their congressmen to get tax
kickbacks and corporate welfare payoffs, they're violating the
Constitutional ammendment against slavery by paying slave wages, and
instead of being rewarded with even more kickbacks and payoffs they
should be in JAIL along with the politician crooks who illegally
conspired with them to raid the US Treasury.
cheers,
Trebor
Trebor
<swm...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Trebor" wrote
>> >You ought to do a little research and see what the default rate is on
>> >the loans given under these programs. They cost a hell of a lot more
>> >than the budgeted amount. Getting rid of these piece-of-shit programs
>> >are a great idea. If these people wants loans let them work and build
>> >up their credit by paying their fucking bills.
>>
>> I would rather see filthy degenerate scum like you pay them a living
>> wage so they could pay their bills.
>
>I'd like to see them put a little investment in themselves and understand
>the value of an education, work hard, and accept more responsibility and
>receive their raises in order to earn a wage that allows them to support
>their families.
I would like to see right-wing racist filth like you stop conducting
your class warfare, and assuming that people are poor because they are
lazy and stupid and unmotivated, rather than the simple FACT that they
are being paid slave wages by lazy rich people who do very little work
themselves. Because you simply show yourself to be a brainwashed
racist LIAR, and nothing more.
cheers,
Trebor
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >Poor people were also sitting on their worthless butts while future rich
> >people were working their asses off getting degrees.
>
> What degree is Jenna Bush going for - how to become worthless drunken
> parasite.
Yawn.
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >In other words, "I have no argument to counter what you wrote, so I'm
> >going to fall back on the old tried-and-true tactic of calling you a
> >racist."
>
> No, I'm saying that any piece of shit who assumes that black people
> are going to default on loans simply because they are black is a
> racist.
Where the hell did I say that? I said that poor people default on
loans. This is just as true for poor inner city black folk as it is for
poor white trash rednecks. The main difference is that the white trash
don't have a federal program to subsidize their loan defaults.
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >I didn't see any mention of blacks until you brought this up........
>
> LIAR!
Quote where I mentioned blacks.
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >Living wage or not, these people fucked up their credit on their own.
>
> What the hell are you talking about, you brain dead racist? Who says
> they have bad credit? The issue here is that regular banks don't want
> to lend money to people in ghetto areas PERIOD, reguardless of their
> credit history. Why don't you get your facts straight, racist scum?
Since you're so big on facts let's see some to support your contention.
A reputable data source with a URL would be jim dandy.
Rotoboy
ro...@128.0.0.2 (William PF) wrote:
> So the money is first given to banks who then use it to offer more
> affordable loans and mortgages to poor people in distressed areas.
Who then default on the loans, which is why the federal subsidy was
needed in the first place.
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> Of course, you are a LIAR. The issue isn't whether banks can make
> money lending to inner city residents, because they can - the issue is
> that they can make MORE money lending elsewhere. The issue is greed,
> like everything else in this country.
Wrong, idiot. Due to the crappy credit ratings of poor people lending
insstitutions can in fact make MORE money there by charging higher
interest rates to offset their risk. There are many companies (Capital
One comes to mind) whose primary business model is taking on higher-risk
clientelle and charging a higher rate of interest.
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >Standard Liberal ploy #5. If you can't win an argument on its merits,
> >drag race into the issue. It's a sure winner in Liberal minds.
> >LZ
>
> Standard Conservative ploy #1: Talk about blacks and make hateful and
> derogatory generalizations about them without ever using the word, so
> that when you're accused of being a racist you can pretend weren't
> really talking about them.
So if I mention blacks I'm a racist and if I don't mention blacks I'm a
racist. Amazing that you could read my mind like that.
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >You sound like Lenin in 1918. You might take a trip to Russia to see
> >how your idea worked out after 70 years of trial and error.
>
> You might take a trip to the nazi concentration camps and see how your
> idea worked out after 15 years of "compassionate conservatism".
I'd like to nominate Trabor for the "Worst Argument of All Time" award.
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >Yeah? What poor people?
>
> Like a couple hundred thousand poor Iraqi children for starters.
And their deaths are more the responsibility of the US military than the
tyrant that they live under?
Trebor
<rot...@earth-NOSPAM-link.com> wrote:
>In article <3aeeebdf...@news.earthlink.net>,
> tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>
>> >Standard Liberal ploy #5. If you can't win an argument on its merits,
>> >drag race into the issue. It's a sure winner in Liberal minds.
>> >LZ
>>
>> Standard Conservative ploy #1: Talk about blacks and make hateful and
>> derogatory generalizations about them without ever using the word, so
>> that when you're accused of being a racist you can pretend weren't
>> really talking about them.
>
>So if I mention blacks I'm a racist and if I don't mention blacks I'm a
>racist. Amazing that you could read my mind like that.
From: Rotoboy (rot...@earth-NOSPAM-link.com)
Subject: Re: Cincinnati: BUTTMASTER RACISM CAUSES GIGGLES
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,
alt.impeach.clinton, alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.liberalism,
alt.politics.republicans, alt.radio.talk, alt.society.liberalism
View complete thread (5 articles)
Date: 2001-04-19 23:28:18 PST
Blacks generally don't own business, they just burn them down,
especially when they're owned by Koreans.
From: Rotoboy (rot...@earth-NOSPAM-link.com)
Subject: Re: We're not doing enough to populate the planet!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush, alt.politics, alt.politics.liberalism,
alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.libertarian,
alt.politics.republicans
View complete thread (9 articles)
Date: 2001-04-20 14:14:04 PST
In article <Zc%D6.4151$7T.1...@news2.atl>,
"hopefuller" <hopef...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't blame you for wanting to fuck white women. I mean, consider the
> > alternative.
>
> You're right about that. The only thing I do with a white man is let him
> tongue my ass. Want some Rotorimmer.
I meant black women. When you can have a white woman, why settle?
------
BUSTED!
Trebor
<rot...@earth-NOSPAM-link.com> wrote:
>In article <3aeeebef...@news.earthlink.net>,
> tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>
>> Of course, you are a LIAR. The issue isn't whether banks can make
>> money lending to inner city residents, because they can - the issue is
>> that they can make MORE money lending elsewhere. The issue is greed,
>> like everything else in this country.
>
>Wrong, idiot. Due to the crappy credit ratings of poor people lending
>insstitutions can in fact make MORE money there by charging higher
>interest rates to offset their risk. There are many companies (Capital
>One comes to mind) whose primary business model is taking on higher-risk
>clientelle and charging a higher rate of interest.
You're talking out of you ass racist. We're talking about loans, not
loan sharking or pawn shops. Loan sharks don't give out home
mortgages.
Trebor
<rot...@earth-NOSPAM-link.com> wrote:
>In article <3aeede06...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>,
> ro...@128.0.0.2 (William PF) wrote:
>
>> So the money is first given to banks who then use it to offer more
>> affordable loans and mortgages to poor people in distressed areas.
>
>Who then default on the loans, which is why the federal subsidy was
>needed in the first place.
The fact that stasistically more people default on loans - primarily
because life is so much more difficult in the inner city and not
because they are more immoral than you - does not mean that all of
them will, or even a large minority do. Nor does it mean that
everyone who works hard and has a good credit record should be denied
a loan simply because they live where they do rather than where you
do. You are a racist.
SWMyers
> >The employees in this country are paid a wage.
>
> Actually no - many are paid a slave wage, in spite of the fact that
> slavery was outlawed. They are breaking the law, but the law isn't
> being enforced because the rich are bribing our Congressmen with
> 'contributions', and so have conspired to keep them from enforcing it,
> which is another crime. If the laws were really enforced in this
> country, most rich people would be in jail and most poor people could
> afford to buy a home.
Bwahahaha!!!! Care to back that up with a fact of some kind? Home ownership
is around 70% - the highest point in history.
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >> Standard Conservative ploy #1: Talk about blacks and make hateful and
> >> derogatory generalizations about them without ever using the word, so
> >> that when you're accused of being a racist you can pretend weren't
> >> really talking about them.
> >
> >So if I mention blacks I'm a racist and if I don't mention blacks I'm a
> >racist. Amazing that you could read my mind like that.
Quote 1: "Blacks generally don't own business, they just burn them
down, especially when they're owned by Koreans."
And you're going to sit there and tell me this isn't true? Every time
the black community decides to riot it's white and Korean businesses
that get targeted. Blacks actually own very few businesses in their own
communities, and thus they resent other races who do.
Quote 1: "I meant black women. When you can have a white woman, why
settle?"
Let's take a look at the entire exchange on this thread in order to get
the entire context. The post I was responding to was from a guy
claiming to be black who said something about how much he liked to fuck
conservative white women. We got in a little flame war, that's all.
If you want to read the whole thread you can do so at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&ic=1&th=8dbc4860c18272
e0,9&seekm=rotoboy-4B08C7.14134820042001%40nnrp04.earthlink.net#p
------------
Message 8 in threadFrom: Rotoboy (rot...@earth-NOSPAM-link.com)
Subject: Re: We're not doing enough to populate the planet!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush, alt.politics, alt.politics.liberalism,
alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.libertarian,
alt.politics.republicans
Date: 2001-04-20 14:14:04 PST
In article <Zc%D6.4151$7T.1...@news2.atl>,
"hopefuller" <hopef...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > And while you're out cuckolding for crack-whore gangbangs,
> >
> > You might want to learn what the word "cuckold" means, genius.
>
> All you have to do is a Google search, Rotorimmer. I pulled a few quotes off
> the net for you.
>
> Whether it is submission or humiliation, licking another man's semen from
> your girl's pussy is #1 on the hit parade for cuckolds.
>
> The cuckold wants to do it in front of the lover, while his girl is holding
> and kissing him, you will have your "place" made perfectly clear to all
> involved - especially if the two of them laugh at your difficulty swallowing
> all of it.
LOL. "Cuckold" is a term from Shakespeare, meaning a wife who cheats on
her husband. Regardless of whatever usage the term may have acquired in
your gutteral street vernacular you are still incorrect.
> > > we're leaving creampies for you at home. We love leaving a little
> > > desert for your rototongue rotoboy. Nothing like using 3 holes in
> > > a prim-n-proper right-wing whitelady, hell, somebodys' got to
> > > please 'em.
> >
> > I don't blame you for wanting to fuck white women. I mean, consider the
> > alternative.
>
> You're right about that. The only thing I do with a white man is let him
> tongue my ass. Want some Rotorimmer.
I meant black women. When you can have a white woman, why settle?
------------
> BUSTED!
LOL. hardly. If that's the best you can come up with as overt proof of
my racism then you're in really bad shape.
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >> >Living wage or not, these people fucked up their credit on their own.
> >>
> >> What the hell are you talking about, you brain dead racist? Who says
> >> they have bad credit? The issue here is that regular banks don't want
> >> to lend money to people in ghetto areas PERIOD, reguardless of their
> >> credit history. Why don't you get your facts straight, racist scum?
> >
> >Since you're so big on facts let's see some to support your contention.
> >A reputable data source with a URL would be jim dandy.
>
> I don't have to waste my time since people in this country are
> innocent until proven guilty - YOU are the racist asshole who said
> people in inner cities are denied loans because they don't pay their
> bills, so it is up to YOU to provide evidence that people who do pay
> their bills are getting loans in the inner cities.
Translation: "I can't back up anything I say, so you're a racist!"
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> hahaha! oh, they can't? Then I guess you never heard of the
> savings-in-loan bailout, did you?
Actually, no, I haven't. I've heard of the "Savings and Loan bailout."
Is that what you mean? What exactly is a "savings-in-loan"?
SWMyers
> >> >In other words, "I have no argument to counter what you wrote, so I'm
> >> >going to fall back on the old tried-and-true tactic of calling you a
> >> >racist."
> >>
> >> No, I'm saying that any piece of shit who assumes that black people
> >> are going to default on loans simply because they are black is a
> >> racist.
> >
> >Did he mention the word "black"?
>
> Yes, he did. The same way the confederate flag mentions the name
> "nigger".
Bwahahaha!!!!! Now you use the "n" word! Where does the flag say that? If
that flag says it, then the US flag says it, the British flag says it, the
Egyptian flag says it.......
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >Wrong, idiot. Due to the crappy credit ratings of poor people lending
> >insstitutions can in fact make MORE money there by charging higher
> >interest rates to offset their risk. There are many companies (Capital
> >One comes to mind) whose primary business model is taking on higher-risk
> >clientelle and charging a higher rate of interest.
>
> You're talking out of you ass racist. We're talking about loans, not
> loan sharking or pawn shops. Loan sharks don't give out home
> mortgages.
Capital One is a loan sharking operation? LOL!
http://www.capitalone.com/indexn.shtml
"Started as an independent company in 1995, Capital One has quickly
risen to the top of the credit card industry in the U.S. With a global
customer base already at 36.5 million, managed loans totaling 31.6
billion, and through our pioneering information technology efforts,
Capital One is in a prime position to lead the financial services
marketplace through this century, especially on the Internet."
You can apply for credit cards, home loans, auto loans, all kinds of
things on their website.
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >Who then default on the loans, which is why the federal subsidy was
> >needed in the first place.
>
> The fact that stasistically more people default on loans - primarily
> because life is so much more difficult in the inner city
Boo hoo. Get a fucking education and move out of the inner city.
> and not
> because they are more immoral than you - does not mean that all of
> them will, or even a large minority do. Nor does it mean that
> everyone who works hard and has a good credit record should be denied
> a loan simply because they live where they do rather than where you
> do.
People who work hard and have good credit ratings (a) don't tend to live
in the inner city, and (b) have no problems getting credit.
> You are a racist.
Yawn.
Trebor
<rot...@earth-NOSPAM-link.com> wrote:
>In article <3aeeebf2...@news.earthlink.net>,
> tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
>
>> hahaha! oh, they can't? Then I guess you never heard of the
>> savings-in-loan bailout, did you?
>
>Actually, no, I haven't.
Didn't think so.
SWMyers
> >> Gotta wonder exactly how stupid you are to think that $68 million for
> >> poor people is a lot of money when scum like you think $1.6 trillion
> >> for rich people isn't enough.
> >
> >Since the $68 million is a handout and $1.6 Trillion is a refund to those
> >people paying taxes they are hardly comparable.
>
> You are a brainwashed moron. The rich have no more right to a
> 'refund' than your boss has a right to expect a 'refund' on your
> salary (assuming you work, which I doubt). Your boss pays you a
> salary for services rendered - it doesn't belong to him it belongs to
> you. The rich and everyone else in this country pay taxes for
> government services rendered, and for the privilege of living in the
> richest country in the world. It doesn't belong to them - it belongs
> to ALL the people. It is my money just as much as it is theirs. It
> belongs where it can do the most good - and that means providing
> health care for those who don't have it and helping the elderly buy
> their drugs - NOT helping lazy and corrupt rich people pay off a few
> more politicians.
I have AGREED to trade my services to my employer in exchange for a
spendable income. Once I do the work and they have paid me (by the way, I
work for a woman - your "him" comment shows you to be a sexist as well as
the racist you have shown yourself to be) it belongs to me.
We elect our leaders to decide the best use of our confiscated monies. It is
not theirs, it is not the government's it belongs to the people and the
money should be used for programs that benefit ALL Americans equally. The
excess monies collected should be returned to those that pay the taxes. I
disagree with you that using excessive taxes to give money to those that
CHOOSE not to take health care from their employers (a Kaiser study in
December shows that 70% of those without insurance CHOOSE not to participate
in their employers plans). Let the other 30% buy into some government
managed insurance pool but don't use excessive taxes to fund it. Where were
the elderly promised a free ride in their latter years? Where was it written
that once you reach some annointed age you will lose all responsibility for
your activities and needs? Once again you want those that are paying the
most in taxes to subsidize the wrong decisions made by the uninsured and the
elderly when it came time to plan for their future.
SWMyers
> So the money is first given to banks who then use it to offer more
> you tell me that cutting these programs is not siphoning off
> resources from the poor in order to give humangus taxcuts to the
> super- rich.
> All while corporate welfare is choking off the country literally and
> figuratively.
Where is the mnoney being pulled from those communities to provide a tax
cut? Less is being made available, but it is still being transferred from
those that pay excessive taxes to those that don't.
SWMyers
> >> If spending $118 million to help poor people is buying votes, then
> >> what is spending $1.6 trillion to help rich people - price gouging?
> >
> >It is returning the money that they were overcharged.
>
> They weren't overcharged anything you worthless bootlicker - the were
> GROSSLY UNDERCHARGED. They bribed their congressmen to get tax
> kickbacks and corporate welfare payoffs, they're violating the
> Constitutional ammendment against slavery by paying slave wages, and
> instead of being rewarded with even more kickbacks and payoffs they
> should be in JAIL along with the politician crooks who illegally
> conspired with them to raid the US Treasury.
You have proof of this somewhere? The wealthy pay a disproportionate share
of taxes based on the return that they will get in benefits. Education,
police, fire, roads, military, etc are all the same for everyone whether you
are rich or poor. The wealthy will get less of a return on the monies
confiscated for medicare and social security than the poor. So how are they
undercharged you socialist scum..... (really what does name calling add to a
conversation?)
What tax kickbacks? Corporate welfare in some cases does more for the
working Joe than the company or the stockholders (who happen to primarily be
your neighbors rather than your incorrect "idle wealthy" view). Incentives
are used to lure organizations in to create jobs, the community and
government will receive far more than they give up in most deals - in other
taxes, job creation, etc.
SWMyers
> >> >> Like killing poor people and making rich people richer.
> >> >
> >> >Yeah? What poor people?
> >>
> >> Like a couple hundred thousand poor Iraqi children for starters.
> >
>
> OK then, a couple of million innocent Iraqi children.
We're waiting......
SWMyers
> >In the poor side of town you see only businisses there that can make
> >money in the poor side of town. If there was money to be made by banks
> >and lending instutions, excluding pawn shops, Then they would be
> >there.
>
> Of course, you are a LIAR. The issue isn't whether banks can make
> money lending to inner city residents, because they can - the issue is
> that they can make MORE money lending elsewhere. The issue is greed,
> like everything else in this country.
You are incorrect. Pay attention to your local paper (if you live in a
decent sized city), usually about once a year they will publish figures
showing where banks lend money and where it comes in and where the defaults
are. It DOES boil down to neighborhood (not necessarily race related
either), it makes no sense to make a bank lend money if there is a larger
than reasonable risk that the money won't be repaid. If there is, you raise
interest rates to cover potential losses, but is that fair to people in
other areas that AREN'T defaulting? They can't raise rates too high and they
can't raise them in the one location so the "government" steps in to "help".
Banks are in existance to provide a return on the investment of their
investors and to redirect the deposits that it is intrusted with to create a
rate of return for their depositors. That's it, it isn't there to play
social nanny to people that can't or won't pay their bills. If it requires a
government subsidy to cover the losses then it is a wealth transfer scheme
>
> >The Republican idea, educate the poor so they can get better
> >jobs and move out to where the services are.
>
> Since the effect of Republican policy is simply to make the rich
> richer and the poor poorer, you are obviously a LIAR. Republicans
> could care less about educating the poor, providing job training for
> the poor, affordable housing for the poor, providing medical care for
> the poor, or doing else besides screwing over the poor and paying them
> slave wages.
Since you don't know what you are talking about, you would be the liar.
Republicans care deeply about all of those topics, they just don't feel that
it is the place of government to provide those services. They would prefer
to see people EARNING their way through life rather than have to abscond
with the fruits of others labors.
>
> > The Democrat idea, force
> >the services to move to the poor side of town and use government to
> >amortize their losses. Now the poor have the same services as the
> >better off but they can't use those services and they are still poor.
>
> "the poor have the same services as the better off"? - you are such a
> rediculously brainwashed Nazi LIAR, you might as well rent out that
> empty space between your ears to some storage company.
What government services do the poor not receive that the wealthy do?
Rotoboy
tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >> hahaha! oh, they can't? Then I guess you never heard of the
> >> savings-in-loan bailout, did you?
> >
> >Actually, no, I haven't.
>
> Didn't think so.
Creative use of editing there. My response was: Actually, no, I
haven't. I've heard of the "Savings and Loan bailout." Is that what
you mean? What exactly is a "savings-in-loan"?
The fact that you're too stupid to know the correct title of the
industry that you are discussing does wonders for your credibility.
SWMyers
> >> I would rather see filthy degenerate scum like you pay them a living
> >> wage so they could pay their bills.
> >
> >I'd like to see them put a little investment in themselves and understand
> >the value of an education, work hard, and accept more responsibility and
> >receive their raises in order to earn a wage that allows them to support
> >their families.
>
> I would like to see right-wing racist filth like you stop conducting
> your class warfare, and assuming that people are poor because they are
> lazy and stupid and unmotivated, rather than the simple FACT that they
> are being paid slave wages by lazy rich people who do very little work
> themselves. Because you simply show yourself to be a brainwashed
> racist LIAR, and nothing more.
Where did you see me bring race into this discussion? Where did you see me
interject class warfare? That's right, I didn't, you did and it is a
recurring theme. People disagree with your discussion and they are racists
because they are "against" poor people. Somehow in YOUR little mind you
equate poor with some race, based on your comments you believe that all poor
people are black. You believe that reducing various government programs
hurts blacks, when there are more blacks in the middle class than there are
poor. There are more white people drawing welfare payments than blacks as
well. You have yet to point out what a "slave wage" is and cannot do so
because it DOESN'T exist in this country. The average American makes nearly
100 times what the average person in a 3rd world country makes. The average
American would be wealthy in MOST of the world. The POOREST American is
better off than the middle class in fully 1/2 of the world. You have been
brainwashed into believing that you cannot make it in the world because you
are a loser. Most wealthy people started with nothing and built their
fortunes themselves, in some cases they failed 3 and 4 times before finally
making it. You seem to be jealous of success because you haven't been able
to achieve it. People aren't losers until they give up, people aren't losers
until they believe that it takes more than they have to succeed and from my
EXPERIENCE no one is a loser until they believe that they are.
Lone Haranguer
Trebor wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 May 2001 08:35:08 -0500, Lone Haranguer <lin...@qwest.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Trebor wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 01 May 2001 08:44:59 GMT, Rotoboy
> >> <rot...@earth-NOSPAM-link.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <3aee706f...@news.earthlink.net>,
> >> > tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >As opposed to the $68M going to "poor people", which is just
> >> >> >another handout for those who didn't earn it.
> >> >>
> >> >> In fact, according to the IRS, poor people earn almost all of the
> >> >> money in their pockets by the sweat of their own labor, while rich
> >> >> people get most of their money by sitting on their worthless butts -
> >> >> it's UNearned income. Learn the facts before airing your ignorance in
> >> >> public.
> >> >
> >> >Poor people were also sitting on their worthless butts while future rich
> >> >people were working their asses off getting degrees.
> >>
> >> What degree is Jenna Bush going for - how to become worthless drunken
> >> parasite.
> >
> >A typical college student. She may grow up to be a prominent researcher
> >who discovers how to cure stupidity.
> >LZ
>
> I saw a movie like that once. A girl became a doctor so she could
> cure her father of cancer. Unfortunately, she was too late - and so
> is Jenna.
I hear your name is way up on the list as a test subject.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Trebor wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 May 2001 12:29:43 GMT, "SWMyers"
> <swm...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Trebor" wrote
> >> >>>> Bush has requested only $68 million...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Catch that? "Only" $68 million. Got to womder how much this Job
> >> >>>Hamilton makes to consider that amount an "only."
> >> >>
> >> >>Gotta wonder exactly how stupid you are to think that $68 million for
> >> >>poor people is a lot of money when scum like you think $1.6 trillion
> >> >>for rich people isn't enough.
> >> >
> >> >That $1.6T for the "rich people" (whose success the liberals
> >> >so deeply resent) is being returned to those who paid it.
> >>
> >> Psychobabble. The rich wouldn't have any money at all if workers
> >> didn't do all their work - so why not give it to the people who REALLY
> >> worked for it, rather than the lazy parasites who stole it from them?
> >> Because paying slave wages is really nothing more than theft. The
> >> money in the US Treasury belongs to all the people and their
> >> government, and whether it is payed out to rich people in more tax
> >> bonuses or to poor people in government programs the debit is exactly
> >> the same. Poor people shouldn't go hungry and without propper housing
> >> or medical care just to give lazy rich people a free ride.
> >
> >The employees in this country are paid a wage.
>
> Actually no - many are paid a slave wage, in spite of the fact that
> slavery was outlawed. They are breaking the law, but the law isn't
> being enforced because the rich are bribing our Congressmen with
> 'contributions', and so have conspired to keep them from enforcing it,
> which is another crime. If the laws were really enforced in this
> country, most rich people would be in jail and most poor people could
> afford to buy a home.
>
> cheers,
> Trebor
Dream on Treb. If you have proof of your claim, call the appropriate
authorities.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Trebor wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 May 2001 08:19:12 -0500, Lone Haranguer <lin...@qwest.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Trebor wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 01 May 2001 07:57:29 GMT, Foxtrot <Fox...@null.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Jim Alder <jima...@sssnet.com>>wrote:
> >> >>>William PF wrote:
> >> >>>> Bush has requested only $68 million...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Catch that? "Only" $68 million. Got to womder how much this Job
> >> >>>Hamilton makes to consider that amount an "only."
> >> >>
> >> >>Gotta wonder exactly how stupid you are to think that $68 million for
> >> >>poor people is a lot of money when scum like you think $1.6 trillion
> >> >>for rich people isn't enough.
> >> >
> >> >That $1.6T for the "rich people" (whose success the liberals
> >> >so deeply resent) is being returned to those who paid it.
> >>
> >> Psychobabble. The rich wouldn't have any money at all if workers
> >> didn't do all their work - so why not give it to the people who REALLY
> >> worked for it, rather than the lazy parasites who stole it from them?
> >> Because paying slave wages is really nothing more than theft. The
> >> money in the US Treasury belongs to all the people and their
> >> government, and whether it is payed out to rich people in more tax
> >> bonuses or to poor people in government programs the debit is exactly
> >> the same. Poor people shouldn't go hungry and without propper housing
> >> or medical care just to give lazy rich people a free ride.
> >> >
> >You sound like Lenin in 1918. You might take a trip to Russia to see
> >how your idea worked out after 70 years of trial and error.
>
> You might take a trip to the nazi concentration camps and see how your
> idea worked out after 15 years of "compassionate conservatism".
> >
I think you've jumped the rails.
> >> >As opposed to the $68M going to "poor people", which is just
> >> >another handout for those who didn't earn it.
> >>
> >> In fact, according to the IRS, poor people earn almost all of the
> >> money in their pockets by the sweat of their own labor, while rich
> >> people get most of their money by sitting on their worthless butts -
> >> it's UNearned income. Learn the facts before airing your ignorance in
> >> public.
> >
> >Using one's brain IS a form of labor.
>
> That's also what every lazy, crooked thief believes, but it isn't
> true. Watching the stock market is not a form of productive labor -
> still less hiring a broker to watch the market for you.
What about CEOs who plot marketing strategy? Inventors who come up with
new gadgets? Writers who dream up plots? Etc.
All this brain usage is not labor?
>
> > Only those who don't have the
> >ability term it "sitting on their butts".
>
> Only those who don't have a work ethic think sitting on their butts
> watching the stock market is productive work.
What about the plant manager sitting on his butt trying to make his
plant productive? If he does a poor job, all the workers lose their
jobs. Yet he does his "work" sitting on his butt.
> >
> >I don't know about you but my brain works just fine while sitting.
>
> Then how do you know it won't work standing-up unless you try?
I've been in various work situations, both labor and management. Some
people are better suited to labor, some to management. Your ability
determines which job you hold. Despite what the Declaration of
Independence says, we are NOT created equal. Look at IQ scores for a
clue.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Trebor wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 May 2001 08:37:12 -0500, Lone Haranguer <lin...@qwest.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Trebor wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 01 May 2001 08:42:58 GMT, Rotoboy
> >> <rot...@earth-NOSPAM-link.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <3aee7439...@news.earthlink.net>,
> >> > tre...@my-deja.com (Trebor) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >$68 million for poor people to take out as loans, on which they then
> >> >> >default.
> >> >>
> >> >> The only thing in default is that racist malignancy you call your
> >> >> brain.
> >> >
> >> >In other words, "I have no argument to counter what you wrote, so I'm
> >> >going to fall back on the old tried-and-true tactic of calling you a
> >> >racist."
> >>
> >> No, I'm saying that any piece of shit who assumes that black people
> >> are going to default on loans simply because they are black is a
> >> racist.
> >
> >Did he mention the word "black"?
>
> Yes, he did. The same way the confederate flag mentions the name
> "nigger".
Your imagination is two blocks ahead of reality.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Trebor wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 May 2001 12:05:49 GMT, "SWMyers"
> <swm...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Trebor" wrote
> >> > Now follow us as we take a tour of the antiBush mindset. And we use
> >> >the term 'mind' advisedly, of course. The objective here is to make Bush
> >> >look bad, obviously. Let's watch.
> >
> >> >> Bush has requested only $68 million...
> >> >
> >> > Catch that? "Only" $68 million. Got to womder how much this Job
> >> >Hamilton makes to consider that amount an "only."
> >>
> >> Gotta wonder exactly how stupid you are to think that $68 million for
> >> poor people is a lot of money when scum like you think $1.6 trillion
> >> for rich people isn't enough.
> >
> >Since the $68 million is a handout and $1.6 Trillion is a refund to those
> >people paying taxes they are hardly comparable.
>
> You are a brainwashed moron. The rich have no more right to a
> 'refund' than your boss has a right to expect a 'refund' on your
> salary (assuming you work, which I doubt). Your boss pays you a
> salary for services rendered - it doesn't belong to him it belongs to
> you. The rich and everyone else in this country pay taxes for
> government services rendered, and for the privilege of living in the
> richest country in the world. It doesn't belong to them - it belongs
> to ALL the people. It is my money just as much as it is theirs. It
> belongs where it can do the most good - and that means providing
> health care for those who don't have it and helping the elderly buy
> their drugs - NOT helping lazy and corrupt rich people pay off a few
> more politicians.
>
> cheers,
> Trebor
If you envy rich people so much, why don't you become one of them? You
sound just like the Russian peasant envying the Kulack's house. Have
you ever read "Quiet Flows the Don" by Sholokov? I recommend it.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Trebor wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 May 2001 12:30:36 GMT, "SWMyers"
> <swm...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Trebor"
> >> >So lend them cab fare to go uptown. It's all show and no go anyway,
> >> >just an eyewash program to purchase votes in the ghetto. Wise up.
> >> >LZ
> >>
> >> If spending $118 million to help poor people is buying votes, then
> >> what is spending $1.6 trillion to help rich people - price gouging?
> >
> >It is returning the money that they were overcharged.
>
> They weren't overcharged anything you worthless bootlicker - the were
> GROSSLY UNDERCHARGED. They bribed their congressmen to get tax
> kickbacks and corporate welfare payoffs, they're violating the
> Constitutional ammendment against slavery by paying slave wages, and
> instead of being rewarded with even more kickbacks and payoffs they
> should be in JAIL along with the politician crooks who illegally
> conspired with them to raid the US Treasury.
>
> cheers,
> Trebor
Are you on Castro's payroll? Communism has been shown to be a failed
idea. Let go of the anchor, that boat already sank.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Trebor wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 May 2001 08:07:17 -0500, Lone Haranguer <lin...@qwest.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Trebor wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 22:06:39 -0500, Lone Haranguer <lin...@qwest.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >So lend them cab fare to go uptown. It's all show and no go anyway,
> >> >just an eyewash program to purchase votes in the ghetto. Wise up.
> >> >LZ
> >>
> >> If spending $118 million to help poor people is buying votes, then
> >> what is spending $1.6 trillion to help rich people - price gouging?
> >
> >If you research the results of the program you will learn that it didn't
> >benefit "poor people" unless they were criminals.
>
> You are a filthy right-wing Nazi LIAR who can't back-up your racist
> class warfare arguments. Pure and simple.
I bathe at least once daily.
I make no racist class warfare argument. I simply face reality.
You should try it.
LZ
Trebor
<swm...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Trebor" wrote
>> >> Gotta wonder exactly how stupid you are to think that $68 million for
>> >> poor people is a lot of money when scum like you think $1.6 trillion
>> >> for rich people isn't enough.
>> >
>> >Since the $68 million is a handout and $1.6 Trillion is a refund to those
>> >people paying taxes they are hardly comparable.
>>
>> You are a brainwashed moron. The rich have no more right to a
>> 'refund' than your boss has a right to expect a 'refund' on your
>> salary (assuming you work, which I doubt). Your boss pays you a
>> salary for services rendered - it doesn't belong to him it belongs to
>> you. The rich and everyone else in this country pay taxes for
>> government services rendered, and for the privilege of living in the
>> richest country in the world. It doesn't belong to them - it belongs
>> to ALL the people. It is my money just as much as it is theirs. It
>> belongs where it can do the most good - and that means providing
>> health care for those who don't have it and helping the elderly buy
>> their drugs - NOT helping lazy and corrupt rich people pay off a few
>> more politicians.
>
>I have AGREED to trade my services to my employer in exchange for a
>spendable income.
Just like you have AGREED to follow the laws of the land if you want
to live in this country - including paying your taxes. You are
legally obligated to pay your taxes, just like your boss is legally
obligated to pay your wages.
> Once I do the work and they have paid me (by the way, I
>work for a woman - your "him" comment shows you to be a sexist as well as
>the racist you have shown yourself to be) it belongs to me.
>We elect our leaders to decide the best use of our confiscated monies.
If you think that your money is being confiscated, you have the
freedom to go somehwere else where you will not have to pay taxes.
You do not have the right to break the law or expect others to
shoulder your burden.
> It is
>not theirs, it is not the government's it belongs to the people
psychobabble: a democracy IS the 'government of the people' - how
can the people steal from the people? It's like saying "It's not your
money, it's SWMeyers money" You're playing word games.
> and the
>money should be used for programs that benefit ALL Americans equally
...and obviously, since some Americans are already benefiting much
more than equally (the rich), while others are benefiting much less
than equally (the poor), the money should be spent to alleviate some
of the inequality which is the most unjust and painful - like having
no medical care.
>. The
>excess monies collected should be returned to those that pay the taxes.
Using that logic, you should return that portion of your paycheck you
don't want to spend to your employer, rather than pay off your debts
or bring your sick children to a doctor
> I
>disagree with you that using excessive taxes to give money to those that
>CHOOSE not to take health care from their employers (a Kaiser study in
>December shows that 70% of those without insurance CHOOSE not to participate
>in their employers plans).
In fact that's a lie. In the first place many people are unemployed,
self employed or employed by companies that don't offer health
insurance at all. Those who don't participate in company health plans
most likely opt out simply because they can't afford it. It's a
choice between paying their rent and eating, or having medical
coverage, which is of course NO real choice at all.
> Let the other 30% buy into some government
>managed insurance pool but don't use excessive taxes to fund it. Where were
>the elderly promised a free ride in their latter years?
The same place it was written "certain unalienable rights, and among
these are LIFE, liberty and the persuit of happiness."
>Where was it written
>that once you reach some annointed age you will lose all responsibility for
>your activities and needs?
The same place where it's written "love they neighbor as thyself" and
"do unto others as they would do unto you", scumbag.
>Once again you want those that are paying the
>most in taxes to subsidize the wrong decisions made by the uninsured and the
>elderly when it came time to plan for their future.
No - I want those who are bribing our Congresspeople and raiding our
Treasury to stop treating workers like slaves and start paying a
living wage so that everyone can afford to see a doctor.
Trebor
<rot...@earth-NOSPAM-link.com> wrote:
>
>
>Boo hoo.
Fuck you
Lone Haranguer
Trebor wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 May 2001 12:39:26 GMT, "SWMyers"
> <swm...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Trebor" wrote
> >> >You ought to do a little research and see what the default rate is on
> >> >the loans given under these programs. They cost a hell of a lot more
> >> >than the budgeted amount. Getting rid of these piece-of-shit programs
> >> >are a great idea. If these people wants loans let them work and build
> >> >up their credit by paying their fucking bills.
> >>
> >> I would rather see filthy degenerate scum like you pay them a living
> >> wage so they could pay their bills.
> >
> >I'd like to see them put a little investment in themselves and understand
> >the value of an education, work hard, and accept more responsibility and
> >receive their raises in order to earn a wage that allows them to support
> >their families.
>
> I would like to see right-wing racist filth like you stop conducting
> your class warfare, and assuming that people are poor because they are
> lazy and stupid and unmotivated, rather than the simple FACT that they
> are being paid slave wages by lazy rich people who do very little work
> themselves. Because you simply show yourself to be a brainwashed
> racist LIAR, and nothing more.
>
> cheers,
> Trebor
Trebby! If your tirade were true, poor people would always be poor and
rich people would always be rich.
In reality, poor people become millionaires and rich people go bankrupt.
PFFFFTTTT! There goes the substance of your rant.
LZ