Is Hillary "corrupt"?

[Robert Harris]

John McAdams says she is. Never mind that both the FBI and
the justice department said she broke no laws. She must be,
because the haters and smear artists who flood the world with
accusations against all democrats running for President, say so.

Instead of believing these trashers, why not get the actual
verifiable facts?

To understand this allegedly evil woman, read any VALID bio
on her. You will quickly see what her entire life has been
about. This is from Wikipedia. Not all of it is flattering.
But it is truly fascinating:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton



Robert Harris

[Bud]

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 5:47:15 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> John McAdams says she is.

Where?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/29/2016 5:47 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> John McAdams says she is. Never mind that both the FBI and the justice
> department said she broke no laws. She must be, because the haters and

Not exactly. Breaking a rule or violating a regulation may not rise to a
prosecutable violation of the law. And if you prosecute her you have to
prosecute everyone else who did the same thing.

> smear artists who flood the world with accusations against all democrats
> running for President, say so.
>
> Instead of believing these trashers, why not get the actual verifiable
> facts?
>

How? It's classified!

> To understand this allegedly evil woman, read any VALID bio on her. You

Even Wiki can be biased. We can be sure that the Nazis will always put
the worst spin on Democrats and the best spin on Republicans.

[Marcus Hanson]

As an expat Englishman living overseas,I have,of course,no horse in the US
Presidential election race. But she does come across as a "liberal
elitist"- the West has far too many of those already.

Couple of questions :

1)What is her position on releasing ALL the JFKA records?

2)When she becomes President - which,barring incapacitation ,she will -
does Bill become known as "The First Gentlemen"?

[John McAdams]

On 29 Jul 2016 17:47:13 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>John McAdams says she is. Never mind that both the FBI and
>the justice department said she broke no laws. She must be,
>because the haters and smear artists who flood the world with
>accusations against all democrats running for President, say so.
>

I guess ABC is among the "haters and smear artists:"

https://youtu.be/JXxf33unt44

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 29 Jul 2016 17:47:13 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>John McAdams says she is. Never mind that both the FBI and
>the justice department said she broke no laws. She must be,
>because the haters and smear artists who flood the world with
>accusations against all democrats running for President, say so.
>
>Instead of believing these trashers, why not get the actual
>verifiable facts?
>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opPh9uG29cQ

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[donald willis]

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 2:47:15 PM UTC-7, Robert Harris wrote:
> John McAdams says she is. Never mind that both the FBI and
> the justice department said she broke no laws. She must be,
> because the haters and smear artists who flood the world with
> accusations against all democrats running for President, say so.

I was just asking myself the same question. I had been thinking, Yes, but
I think it's just the opposition drumbeat, which has been going on some 25
years or so. However, she does seem to be in the pocket of Goldman Sachs
etc.

dcw

[mainframetech]

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 5:47:15 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:

A "valid bio" means that someone has to decided what's 'valid'. And
who will that be?

I support Hillary for president, but I'm not fooled into thinking that
Hillary is only an altruistic person. After all, there was that problem
with taking away all the W.H. furniture that belonged to the W.H. when she
left. She was made to put it back, at least. I'm a firm believer that
Hillary is similar to other politicians and wants to make plenty of bread,
which she has certainly done since her W.H. days. BUT, I also know she
has remembered to take care of her constituents all the time, when Senator
and otherwise.

I believe Hillary will try to fight against the Republican stagnation
in congress to get some needed things done. And I believe she will cut
off anyone at the knees if they get in her way. I think she can do the
job so much better than Trump that there's no contest.

Chris

[BOZ]

Is Hillary corrupt? Did Oswald shoot Kennedy?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/30/2016 12:25 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 7:47:15 AM UTC+10, Robert Harris wrote:
>> John McAdams says she is. Never mind that both the FBI and
>> the justice department said she broke no laws. She must be,
>> because the haters and smear artists who flood the world with
>> accusations against all democrats running for President, say so.
>>
>> Instead of believing these trashers, why not get the actual
>> verifiable facts?
>>
>> To understand this allegedly evil woman, read any VALID bio
>> on her. You will quickly see what her entire life has been
>> about. This is from Wikipedia. Not all of it is flattering.
>> But it is truly fascinating:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
> As an expat Englishman living overseas,I have,of course,no horse in the US
> Presidential election race. But she does come across as a "liberal
> elitist"- the West has far too many of those already.
>

False. As America goes, so goes England.
If Trump wins, save an apartment for me so that I can self-deport.

> Couple of questions :
>

> 1)What is her position on releasing ALL the JFKA records?
>

Don't Ask Don't Tell. You have to Google that to get the joke.

> 2)When she becomes President - which,barring incapacitation ,she will -
> does Bill become known as "The First Gentlemen"?
>

For heavens sake no. Too formal. First Dude.
But remember that the Secret Service has to keep calling him Mr. President.

[claviger]

Transparency International - What is Corruption?
HOW DO YOU DEFINE CORRUPTION? Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for
private gain. It can be classified as grand, petty and political,
depending ...
http://www.transparency.org/what-is-corruption/

What is corruption? | Corruptie
Corruption is the misuse of public power (by elected politician or appointed
civil ... A much more difficult, scientific definition for the concept
'corruption' was ...
http://www.corruptie.org/en/corruption/what-is-corruption/

Corruption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Corruption is a form of dishonest or unethical conduct by a person entrusted
with a position of ... Grand corruption is defined as corruption occurring
at the highest levels of government in a way that requires significant
subversion of the political, ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption
_______________________________________________________

Was she transparent about the Email scandal? Obviously not according to
the FBI investigation. The Administration in power gave orders to not
prosecute her anyway. Does that make them corrupt too?

The question might be asked if gross incompetence and willful disobedience
is a form of corruption. Hillary did things her way when she was First
Lady and not even Bill could control her. She was a loose cannon while he
was President.

The same question can be asked about her conduct as Secretary of State.
Was she corrupt or simply incompetent? Evidently she used that office to
solicit large donations to the Clinton Foundation. Is that appropriate
for a politician to do? Does it compromise the ability of a Secretary of
State to make decisions protecting citizens of the USA versus foreign
donors of large sums of money?

Given the circumstances of the Email scandal foreign hackers may know
about Hillary Clinton than we do. Will the Clinton foundation have to pay
hush money to these hackers or will political favors be enough to keep
them quiet?

[Robert Harris]

John McAdams wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2016 17:47:13 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> John McAdams says she is. Never mind that both the FBI and
>> the justice department said she broke no laws. She must be,
>> because the haters and smear artists who flood the world with
>> accusations against all democrats running for President, say so.
>>
>
> I guess ABC is among the "haters and smear artists:"
>
> https://youtu.be/JXxf33unt44

This was an "advisory" board, John. And the Clinton
Foundation is purely, non profit.

Undoubtedly, she thought he was a decent guy. I agree that
she shouldn't have done it, but you still haven't proven that
she broke any laws.



Robert Harris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Yes, she favors releasing the documents but they're all on her personal
server.

Which right now is probably at the bottom of the ocean next to JFK's
casket.

More seriously, I don't know about (1). She hasn't exactly been a strong
supporter of disclosure laws. Hence the purpose - in part - for the
private server, i.e., to avoid transparency laws.

As to (2), again, I guess so.

As to the inevitability of her election: boy, at this point I still think
it's a toss up; as unbelievable as that sounds. The country - large parts
of it - think we're headed in the wrong direction (it's called the "right
track/wrong track" poll) and don't want a status quo presidency. That's
why, to a large degree, Trump still has support: he's viewed as the person
who will turn the table over and make major changes.

What are those changes? Stupid ones, dumb ones, ill-conceived ones and
silly ones. But to his supporters these are still better - yes, really -
than what we've been doing.

Lot of angry people out there who simply aren't thinking straight.

[Robert Harris]

John McAdams wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2016 17:47:13 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> John McAdams says she is. Never mind that both the FBI and
>> the justice department said she broke no laws. She must be,
>> because the haters and smear artists who flood the world with
>> accusations against all democrats running for President, say so.
>>
>> Instead of believing these trashers, why not get the actual
>> verifiable facts?
>>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opPh9uG29cQ

James Comey is a life-long Republican/conservative. If the
accusations he made before that Republican committee were
true, then why didn't he prosecute?

If he could PROVE his accusations, but failed to prosecute,
then he was guilty of obstruction of justice and ought to be
arrested.


Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Marcus Hanson wrote:
> On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 7:47:15 AM UTC+10, Robert Harris wrote:
>> John McAdams says she is. Never mind that both the FBI and
>> the justice department said she broke no laws. She must be,
>> because the haters and smear artists who flood the world with
>> accusations against all democrats running for President, say so.
>>
>> Instead of believing these trashers, why not get the actual
>> verifiable facts?
>>
>> To understand this allegedly evil woman, read any VALID bio
>> on her. You will quickly see what her entire life has been
>> about. This is from Wikipedia. Not all of it is flattering.
>> But it is truly fascinating:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
> As an expat Englishman living overseas,I have,of course,no horse in the US
> Presidential election race. But she does come across as a "liberal
> elitist"- the West has far too many of those already.

"elitist"??

You need to read her biography, and learn that she was raised
in a single parent household and started out as a Republican
and a member of "Youth for Goldwater" (I was also a member:-).

Her entire life has been spent in the defense of children and
families. This is from the Wikipedia article,

"Rodham then entered Yale Law School. There she served on the
editorial board of the Yale Review of Law and Social
Action.[45] During her second year, she worked at the Yale
Child Study Center,[46] learning about new research on early
childhood brain development and working as a research
assistant on the seminal work, Beyond the Best Interests of
the Child (1973).[47][48] She also took on cases of child
abuse at Yale???New Haven Hospital[47] and volunteered at New
Haven Legal Services to provide free legal advice for the
poor.[46] In the summer of 1970 she was awarded a grant to
work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project,
where she was assigned to Senator Walter Mondale's
Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. There she researched migrant
workers' problems in housing, sanitation, health and
education.[49] Edelman later became a significant mentor.[50]
Rodham was recruited by political advisor Anne Wexler to work
on the 1970 campaign of Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate
Joseph Duffey, with Rodham later crediting Wexler with
providing her first job in politics.[51]..

Rodham began a year of postgraduate study on children and
medicine at the Yale Child Study Center.[59] Her first
scholarly article, "Children Under the Law", was published in
the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973.[60] Discussing
the new children's rights movement, it stated that "child
citizens" were "powerless individuals"[61] and argued that
children should not be considered equally incompetent from
birth to attaining legal age, but that instead courts should
presume competence except when there is evidence otherwise,
on a case-by-case basis.[62] The article became frequently
cited in the field.[63]"

She has continued that agenda throughout her entire life, and
when the Republicans filibustered to block her bill for
universal health care, she still managed to get a bill
through congress that provided health care for over 8 million
children.

Quite a history for such a corrupt and evil criminal, eh:-)

>
> Couple of questions :
>
> 1)What is her position on releasing ALL the JFKA records?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csdASLh7F5w

>
> 2)When she becomes President - which,barring incapacitation ,she will -

I would become a nutter and a holy roller if that would
insure that you are right:-)

I could live with a Romney presidency and I might have voted
for McCain, if he hadn't made such a terrible VP choice, but
a Trump presidency absolutely terrifies me, in a multitude of
ways.

The LEAST of the problems with Trump, is that he is a
criminal and a con artist.

EVEN IF YOU HATE HILLARY, VOTE FOR HER, TO PREVENT THIS
MONSTER FROM TAKING OVER OUR COUNTRY.



Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Pretty much.

> dcw
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/30/2016 2:22 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2016 17:47:13 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> John McAdams says she is. Never mind that both the FBI and
>> the justice department said she broke no laws. She must be,
>> because the haters and smear artists who flood the world with
>> accusations against all democrats running for President, say so.
>>
>> Instead of believing these trashers, why not get the actual
>> verifiable facts?
>>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opPh9uG29cQ
>

Notice the (R-SC), Shouldn't that say T-SC for Tea Party.
So why didn't Comey recommend prosecution?
Because then he'd have to prosecute EVERYONE, including those very
Representatives and the Senators and ALL Secretaries of State.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/30/2016 2:15 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2016 17:47:13 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> John McAdams says she is. Never mind that both the FBI and
>> the justice department said she broke no laws. She must be,
>> because the haters and smear artists who flood the world with
>> accusations against all democrats running for President, say so.
>>
>
> I guess ABC is among the "haters and smear artists:"
>

Not all of them. Only a couple of them. Not David Muir who used to work in
Boston. He only introduced the segment, which was produced by the Nazi
wing of ABC. Remember Geraldo Rivera? He used to work at ABC. It's called
Fair and Balanced. MSNBC does the same thing. 10 Liberals and one Nazi.

[mainframetech]

In their pocket or just getting as much money as she can? We would
need to know if any promises were made. But most folks forget that we
have a watchdog in Bernie Sanders, who will be watching Clinton every day,
and will no doubt sound off if she goes too far over the line. Who's
going to watch Trump will his impossible $30 trillion plans?

Chris

[mainframetech]

So like the average politician, Republican or Democrat, she did the
same things that they did, but was more heavily investigated about it.
When Colin Powell used private email handles it was not investigated as
was Clinton. Trey Gowdy made the longest committee hearing ever and the
millions cost goes to all the taxpayers. A political move.

Chris

[mainframetech]

The odds of the president getting involved in the release of JFK
documents is small. There is a law in place now for them to be released
in 2017, and it will take a large movement of people to get the CIA and
other governmental entities to follow up on it.

Chris

[mainframetech]

We have to be careful about giving credit for "non-profit", since it has
been used to cover many financial dealings. Just the people at the head
of such an organization want it to be as large as possible, handling as
much money as possible, because that justifies large income and power for
them. As well, a 'non-profit' often invests in various schemes and is
therefore powerful in its choice of who will run certain offices and do
certain projects. That can make another form of income.

Those are just examples of ways to use 'non-profits' for personal
gain, but there are many more. Let us not too quickly make those involved
in them out to be saints. This is a capitalistic society. The Clintons
have shown themselves to be hungry for the greenback. However, I strongly
support Hillary over Trump, who is loved by Putin because Putin thinks he
will be easily manipulated due to his almighty ego.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 12:21:28 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:

> John McAdams wrote:
> > On 29 Jul 2016 17:47:13 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> John McAdams says she is. Never mind that both the FBI and
> >> the justice department said she broke no laws. She must be,
> >> because the haters and smear artists who flood the world with
> >> accusations against all democrats running for President, say so.
> >>
> >
> > I guess ABC is among the "haters and smear artists:"
> >
> > https://youtu.be/JXxf33unt44
>
> This was an "advisory" board, John. And the Clinton
> Foundation is purely, non profit.
>

And you believe that? <snicker>

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't want to speak for the OP, but I think his point was "Ignore her
humble beginnings and focus on WHO has bought her."

[donald willis]

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 5:28:51 AM UTC-7, Robert Harris wrote:
> Marcus Hanson wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 7:47:15 AM UTC+10, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> John McAdams says she is. Never mind that both the FBI and
> >> the justice department said she broke no laws. She must be,
> >> because the haters and smear artists who flood the world with
> >> accusations against all democrats running for President, say so.
> >>
> >> Instead of believing these trashers, why not get the actual
> >> verifiable facts?
> >>
> >> To understand this allegedly evil woman, read any VALID bio
> >> on her. You will quickly see what her entire life has been
> >> about. This is from Wikipedia. Not all of it is flattering.
> >> But it is truly fascinating:
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Robert Harris
> >
> > As an expat Englishman living overseas,I have,of course,no horse in the US
> > Presidential election race. But she does come across as a "liberal
> > elitist"- the West has far too many of those already.
>
> "elitist"??
>
> You need to read her biography, and learn that she was raised
> in a single parent household and started out as a Republican
> and a member of "Youth for Goldwater" (I was also a member:-).

I remember when "Barry's Boys" ("We wanna go back to 1910") was the
favorite tune of the day. I still have a Goldwater pin from '64, although
I worked a day in LBJ campaign HQ....

[bpete1969]

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 5:47:15 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:

F.B.I. Director Comey did not state that Hillary Clinton didn't break the
law. He clearly established that classified material was mishandled and
that Hillary Clinton publicly lied about that fact. He also stated that
Hillary was too stupid to know that the law was broken and therefore,
decided against recommending prosecution.

Hardly a glowing endorsement for a potential president.

[Anthony Marsh]

His case load was already too big. He couldn't prosecute EVERYONE in
government.

> Robert Harris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

I thought the put it in the National Aechives, next to Jackie's pink suit.

> More seriously, I don't know about (1). She hasn't exactly been a strong
> supporter of disclosure laws. Hence the purpose - in part - for the
> private server, i.e., to avoid transparency laws.
>
> As to (2), again, I guess so.
>

Wrong. The only reason is laziness. Like some idiots here she wanted all
her e-mails on one program. She didn't want to have to check 20
different programs. Same with the phone. Like Obama she wanted
everything on one phone. She did not want to have to carry 20 phones
around. And there was not enough pocket room on her pantsuits to carry 5
phones, one for personal use, one for chitchat, one for Confidential,
one for Secret, one for TOP SECRET, and one for so sensitive that it
can't even be classified. FILE UNDER DO NOT FILE.

> As to the inevitability of her election: boy, at this point I still think
> it's a toss up; as unbelievable as that sounds. The country - large parts
> of it - think we're headed in the wrong direction (it's called the "right
> track/wrong track" poll) and don't want a status quo presidency. That's
> why, to a large degree, Trump still has support: he's viewed as the person
> who will turn the table over and make major changes.
>

Yes, some people LIKE war.

> What are those changes? Stupid ones, dumb ones, ill-conceived ones and
> silly ones. But to his supporters these are still better - yes, really -
> than what we've been doing.
>

To some of his supporters, anything is better than prosperity.
Because they think all the prosperity has been taken away from them and
give to minorities.

> Lot of angry people out there who simply aren't thinking straight.

But why can't you blame that on something scientific like global warming
or planetary alignment or something else?
Remember the movie and meme 2012?

>
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/31/2016 12:21 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> John McAdams wrote:
>> On 29 Jul 2016 17:47:13 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John McAdams says she is. Never mind that both the FBI and
>>> the justice department said she broke no laws. She must be,
>>> because the haters and smear artists who flood the world with
>>> accusations against all democrats running for President, say so.
>>>
>>
>> I guess ABC is among the "haters and smear artists:"
>>
>> https://youtu.be/JXxf33unt44
>
> This was an "advisory" board, John. And the Clinton Foundation is
> purely, non profit.
>

Sure, but I like the way you naively think that a non-profit can not be
corrupt. I used to work for a company that would scam people by claiming
they were donating to a non-profit. We got the profits from raising the
money for the non-profit.

> Undoubtedly, she thought he was a decent guy. I agree that she shouldn't
> have done it, but you still haven't proven that she broke any laws.
>

He's not a prosecutor.

>
>
> Robert Harris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly rightwing paranoia. The only charge that sticks is that Hillary is
a politician. Guilty. That's why the Fascists like Trump because he is
not a politician. It doesn't matter how crooked he is, because that was
only in the private sector.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/30/2016 8:59 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 5:47:15 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> John McAdams says she is. Never mind that both the FBI and
>> the justice department said she broke no laws. She must be,
>> because the haters and smear artists who flood the world with
>> accusations against all democrats running for President, say so.
>>
>> Instead of believing these trashers, why not get the actual
>> verifiable facts?
>>
>> To understand this allegedly evil woman, read any VALID bio
>> on her. You will quickly see what her entire life has been
>> about. This is from Wikipedia. Not all of it is flattering.
>> But it is truly fascinating:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
>
>
>
> A "valid bio" means that someone has to decided what's 'valid'. And
> who will that be?
>
> I support Hillary for president, but I'm not fooled into thinking that

I don't think anyone here is smart enough to understand this, but for the
record I only supported Hillary to make sure that Bernie would be
Vice-President. That is where the real power will be when the Senate is
tied 50-50. As my T-shirt says: Bernie for Vice-President: He hates ties.
Someone threatened to shoot me if I kept wearing it. I stopped wearing it
when he officially dropped out. I was quite pleased to see Tim Kaine say
the other day that HE hates ties.

> Hillary is only an altruistic person. After all, there was that problem

I am religiously obligated to vote for Hillary. She is a Methodist.
I am forbidden by my religion to vote for the Devil.

> with taking away all the W.H. furniture that belonged to the W.H. when she
> left. She was made to put it back, at least. I'm a firm believer that

Oh my. How scandalous. Do you remember who did the best redecorating of
the WH?

> Hillary is similar to other politicians and wants to make plenty of bread,
> which she has certainly done since her W.H. days. BUT, I also know she
> has remembered to take care of her constituents all the time, when Senator
> and otherwise.
>
> I believe Hillary will try to fight against the Republican stagnation
> in congress to get some needed things done. And I believe she will cut
> off anyone at the knees if they get in her way. I think she can do the
> job so much better than Trump that there's no contest.
>

So, was Oabama able to get everything done?
Hillary is just serving Obama's third term by proxy.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Bernie Sanders.

[mainframetech]

After all, Trump is close to acquiring nuclear weapons!

Chris

[bigdog]

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:57:55 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 2:35:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 2:47:15 PM UTC-7, Robert Harris wrote:
> > > John McAdams says she is. Never mind that both the FBI and
> > > the justice department said she broke no laws. She must be,
> > > because the haters and smear artists who flood the world with
> > > accusations against all democrats running for President, say so.
> >
> > I was just asking myself the same question. I had been thinking, Yes, but
> > I think it's just the opposition drumbeat, which has been going on some 25
> > years or so. However, she does seem to be in the pocket of Goldman Sachs
> > etc.
> >
> > dcw
>
>
>
> In their pocket or just getting as much money as she can?

Which is pretty much the definition of being in their pocket. You don't
think they gave her all that money because the think she is such an
eloquent orator do you?

> We would
> need to know if any promises were made.

People who give other people lots of money want something in return.

> But most folks forget that we
> have a watchdog in Bernie Sanders, who will be watching Clinton every day,
> and will no doubt sound off if she goes too far over the line.

Oh, that'll stop her. Crazy Bernie guarding the hen house.

> Who's
> going to watch Trump will his impossible $30 trillion plans?
>

If Hillary doesn't get elected, that would free up Crazy Bernie.

[bigdog]

Yes, infinity to 1 is pretty small.

> There is a law in place now for them to be released
> in 2017, and it will take a large movement of people to get the CIA and
> other governmental entities to follow up on it.
>

As if anybody of consequence cares.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/1/2016 12:08 AM, bpete1969 wrote:
> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 5:47:15 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> John McAdams says she is. Never mind that both the FBI and
>> the justice department said she broke no laws. She must be,
>> because the haters and smear artists who flood the world with
>> accusations against all democrats running for President, say so.
>>
>> Instead of believing these trashers, why not get the actual
>> verifiable facts?
>>
>> To understand this allegedly evil woman, read any VALID bio
>> on her. You will quickly see what her entire life has been
>> about. This is from Wikipedia. Not all of it is flattering.
>> But it is truly fascinating:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
> F.B.I. Director Comey did not state that Hillary Clinton didn't break the

Ah ha. The old double negative. You did not say that YOU didn't
assassinate President Kennedy. Got any other tricks up your sleeve?

> law. He clearly established that classified material was mishandled and

Yeah, tell us something important. Classified material is mishandled
every day by everyone in government. Try putting them all in prison.

> that Hillary Clinton publicly lied about that fact. He also stated that

No, she didn't. The reclassified the material after the controversy came
out as a political favor to the Republicans.

> Hillary was too stupid to know that the law was broken and therefore,

So, the people who classified the material and sent it to her were too
stupid to know and she's supposed to know?

> decided against recommending prosecution.
>
> Hardly a glowing endorsement for a potential president.

We only have two choices, so you choose to vote for the Nazi.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

Ah, so everything must be a conspiracy with you? Paranoid, much?

[Anthony Marsh]

That law depends on the good will and compliance by many people, who in
the past have opposed releasing any documents. They have to be ordered to.

[BOZ]

I really hope that Trump doesn't attack Canada.

[mainframetech]

Well, of course I care...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 11:10:52 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:57:55 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 2:35:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 2:47:15 PM UTC-7, Robert Harris wrote:
> > > > John McAdams says she is. Never mind that both the FBI and
> > > > the justice department said she broke no laws. She must be,
> > > > because the haters and smear artists who flood the world with
> > > > accusations against all democrats running for President, say so.
> > >
> > > I was just asking myself the same question. I had been thinking, Yes, but
> > > I think it's just the opposition drumbeat, which has been going on some 25
> > > years or so. However, she does seem to be in the pocket of Goldman Sachs
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > dcw
> >
> >
> >
> > In their pocket or just getting as much money as she can?
>
> Which is pretty much the definition of being in their pocket. You don't
> think they gave her all that money because the think she is such an
> eloquent orator do you?
>
> > We would
> > need to know if any promises were made.
>
> People who give other people lots of money want something in return.
>

The operative word there is "want". Hillary is not one to be "in the
pocket" of anyone. She might imply agreement with something, but she
won't do what someone wants unless it's to her advantage. The key for her
is that as corrupt as you may decided she is, she has proven along the way
that she looks out for her constituents and tries to fulfill her promises
in spire of her hunger for money.

> > But most folks forget that we
> > have a watchdog in Bernie Sanders, who will be watching Clinton every day,
> > and will no doubt sound off if she goes too far over the line.
>
> Oh, that'll stop her. Crazy Bernie guarding the hen house.
>

"Crazy"? Apparently you haven't been following he successes. He has
done what few politicians have done, and built a coalition of people
wanting something better than the system we have currently. He can count
on millions of people to do as he asks, which includes pressuring
politicians in the unmovable congress that only represents itself.

> > Who's
> > going to watch Trump will his impossible $30 trillion plans?
> >
>
> If Hillary doesn't get elected, that would free up Crazy Bernie.

And what has caused you to pretend your Donald the Trumpet and label
Bernie as crazy? Has he been too successful? Insult seems to be your
mode when someone is successful. I know about that.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/1/2016 11:10 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:57:55 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 2:35:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 2:47:15 PM UTC-7, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>> John McAdams says she is. Never mind that both the FBI and
>>>> the justice department said she broke no laws. She must be,
>>>> because the haters and smear artists who flood the world with
>>>> accusations against all democrats running for President, say so.
>>>
>>> I was just asking myself the same question. I had been thinking, Yes, but
>>> I think it's just the opposition drumbeat, which has been going on some 25
>>> years or so. However, she does seem to be in the pocket of Goldman Sachs
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> dcw
>>
>>
>>
>> In their pocket or just getting as much money as she can?
>
> Which is pretty much the definition of being in their pocket. You don't
> think they gave her all that money because the think she is such an
> eloquent orator do you?
>

I see that you don't understand how corruption works in Washington. The
money does not go into pockets. The big companies make campaign
contributions to get their favorites elected. Then when they get elected
the companies tell them how they want them to vote.

>> We would
>> need to know if any promises were made.
>
> People who give other people lots of money want something in return.

They may not know exactly what at the time and it may change over time.

[bpete1969]

As usual Marsh, you're wrong from your very first statement. There is no
double negative. And again as usual, you're wrong on your second point.
Hillary lied about having classified material in her email. No one said
anything about post mailing classification. And again you're wrong on your
third point, not everyone mishandles classified information and some that
have, have been prosecuted.

Finally, I am not voting for Trump so that makes you wrong on all count.

Nothing has changed I see.

[Anthony Marsh]

Did you pass English? No, you dropped out of school. Did not . . .
didn't is a double negative.

> Hillary lied about having classified material in her email. No one said

No, she didn't.

> anything about post mailing classification. And again you're wrong on your

WFT are you talking about?

> third point, not everyone mishandles classified information and some that
> have, have been prosecuted.
>

Most people mishandle classified material without even knowing it.

> Finally, I am not voting for Trump so that makes you wrong on all count.
>

So, you're not voting?
Because you don't believe in Democracy?

[claviger]

On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 10:03:52 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 8/3/2016 12:10 PM, bpete1969 wrote:
>
> > Hillary lied about having classified material in her email. No one said
>
> No, she didn't.

The FBI says she did but they are not going to prosecute because she is
running for President and will probably win. If so she will be the most
corrupt candidate ever elected but that's OK because she is the First
Female. Gender politics is way more important than national defense.

https://thehornnews.com/obamas-secret-pardon-clinton/

[bpete1969]

Read the sentence Marsh.

There isn't a double negative.

[Jason Burke]

Seriously!?!
You expect Tony to admit a mistake???

[Anthony Marsh]

Did not - Didn't.

[slats]

I'm going to assume this was a rhetorical question, like "Was JFK a
philanderer?"

[mainframetech]

Ridiculous! Comey of the FBI is a Republican and has a very clean
reputation as an honest leader by both parties. He gave the reasons for
not recommending indictment for Hillary to the nation, and the news media
looked back at other cases and found that he was honest about that.

Better you check out Politifact on Donald Trump and see what his
reputation is for lying. It's worse than Hillary's. Put "politifact
trump lies" into Google and click the first item listed and the first page
will give a list of the lies (or truths) that Trump has told and that they
have researched.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 3:24:33 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 11:10:52 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:57:55 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 2:35:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 2:47:15 PM UTC-7, Robert Harris wrote:
> > > > > John McAdams says she is. Never mind that both the FBI and
> > > > > the justice department said she broke no laws. She must be,
> > > > > because the haters and smear artists who flood the world with
> > > > > accusations against all democrats running for President, say so.
> > > >
> > > > I was just asking myself the same question. I had been thinking, Yes, but
> > > > I think it's just the opposition drumbeat, which has been going on some 25
> > > > years or so. However, she does seem to be in the pocket of Goldman Sachs
> > > > etc.
> > > >
> > > > dcw
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In their pocket or just getting as much money as she can?
> >
> > Which is pretty much the definition of being in their pocket. You don't
> > think they gave her all that money because the think she is such an
> > eloquent orator do you?
> >
> > > We would
> > > need to know if any promises were made.
> >
> > People who give other people lots of money want something in return.
> >
>
>
> The operative word there is "want". Hillary is not one to be "in the
> pocket" of anyone. She might imply agreement with something, but she
> won't do what someone wants unless it's to her advantage.

It's to her advantage to have these companies shower her for cash while at
the same time pretending she is the champion of the poor.

> The key for her
> is that as corrupt as you may decided she is, she has proven along the way
> that she looks out for her constituents and tries to fulfill her promises
> in spire of her hunger for money.
>

Yes, she has convinced a lot of people of that. Not that it was hard to
do. They really wanted to believe her. Hillary wants only to get elected
and she'll pander to as many folks as she can to reach that goal. It's not
as if she actually cares about those people.

>
>
> > > But most folks forget that we
> > > have a watchdog in Bernie Sanders, who will be watching Clinton every day,
> > > and will no doubt sound off if she goes too far over the line.
> >
> > Oh, that'll stop her. Crazy Bernie guarding the hen house.
> >
>
>
> "Crazy"? Apparently you haven't been following he successes. He has
> done what few politicians have done, and built a coalition of people
> wanting something better than the system we have currently.

I want something better than the system we have but Crazy Bernie was the
last guy I would choose to bring that about.

> He can count
> on millions of people to do as he asks, which includes pressuring
> politicians in the unmovable congress that only represents itself.
>

You think politicians care about Bernie's supporters. Congressman only
care about pleasing the voters in their district. If they represent a
conservative district they'll keep the coservatives happy and if they
represent a liberal district they'll keep the liberals happy. It's how
most of them get re-elected year after year. Very few of them are in
competitive districts.

>
>
> > > Who's
> > > going to watch Trump will his impossible $30 trillion plans?
> > >
> >
> > If Hillary doesn't get elected, that would free up Crazy Bernie.
>
>
> And what has caused you to pretend your Donald the Trumpet and label
> Bernie as crazy?

Where did you get the idea he was mine?

> Has he been too successful? Insult seems to be your
> mode when someone is successful. I know about that.
>

There is nothing about either Donald or Hillary that appeals to me. I know
that our next president is going to be an asshole which has been the trend
in recent years.

[bpete1969]

Describing two different actions by two different individuals.

Hang it up marsh.

[claviger]

Of the two liars she is by far the beat and most professional because she
has the most experience as a professional liar, commonly referred to as a
Lawyer by most people. That's why she is going to win. Trump is a novice
compared to Hillary who has lied under oath so many times she's earned a
Black Belt status as a pro.

Trump needs to get up to speed on how to tell better lies if he has any
hope of competing with Hillary. She's a pro and he's just a beginner.
He thinks Americans like straight talk but he's wrong. Americans vote for
the best liar every time. That gives Hillary the edge in this election.
Americans love being lied to which guarantees Hillary as the next
President of the United Liars of America, the US Congress.

[mainframetech]

While that's true, she has proved for a good while that she will look to
support the people she's supposed to represent. That's why although I
know she's money hungry, that she still does her job.



> > The key for her
> > is that as corrupt as you may decide she is, she has proven along the way

> > that she looks out for her constituents and tries to fulfill her promises
> > in spire of her hunger for money.
> >
>
> Yes, she has convinced a lot of people of that. Not that it was hard to
> do. They really wanted to believe her. Hillary wants only to get elected
> and she'll pander to as many folks as she can to reach that goal. It's not
> as if she actually cares about those people.
>

I doubt too many politicians care much about people. Hillary remember,
made it possible for 8 million children to get health insurance. The
CHIPS program.

> >
> >
> > > > But most folks forget that we
> > > > have a watchdog in Bernie Sanders, who will be watching Clinton every day,
> > > > and will no doubt sound off if she goes too far over the line.
> > >
> > > Oh, that'll stop her. Crazy Bernie guarding the hen house.
> > >
> >
> >

> > "Crazy"? Apparently you haven't been following his successes. He has

> > done what few politicians have done, and built a coalition of people
> > wanting something better than the system we have currently.
>
> I want something better than the system we have but Crazy Bernie was the
> last guy I would choose to bring that about.
>

You don't count for much in comparison to the millions of followers
Bernie gathered, and he plans to use them further after the election.

> > He can count
> > on millions of people to do as he asks, which includes pressuring
> > politicians in the unmovable congress that only represents itself.
> >
>
> You think politicians care about Bernie's supporters. Congressman only
> care about pleasing the voters in their district. If they represent a
> conservative district they'll keep the coservatives happy and if they
> represent a liberal district they'll keep the liberals happy. It's how
> most of them get re-elected year after year. Very few of them are in
> competitive districts.
>

As a piece of news, Bernie has already told his followers about voting
in democrats over Republicans in the upcoming elections, and 'his people'
are young and ready to knock on doors and do all kinds of volunteer work
for Bernie.

>
> >
> >
> > > > Who's
> > > > going to watch Trump will his impossible $30 trillion plans?
> > > >
> > >
> > > If Hillary doesn't get elected, that would free up Crazy Bernie.
> >
> >
> > And what has caused you to pretend your Donald the Trumpet and label
> > Bernie as crazy?
>
> Where did you get the idea he was mine?
>

From your style that parallels his.

> > Has he been too successful? Insult seems to be your
> > mode when someone is successful. I know about that.
> >
>
> There is nothing about either Donald or Hillary that appeals to me. I know
> that our next president is going to be an asshole which has been the trend
> in recent years.

That depends on what kind of hatchet job is done on them.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

I know, you would have chosen Adolf Hitler.
But our constitution doesn't allow electing foreigners as President.

>> He can count
>> on millions of people to do as he asks, which includes pressuring
>> politicians in the unmovable congress that only represents itself.
>>
>
> You think politicians care about Bernie's supporters. Congressman only
> care about pleasing the voters in their district. If they represent a

You're talking about the House of Representatives. Bernie is a Senator.
He doesn't have a district.

> conservative district they'll keep the coservatives happy and if they
> represent a liberal district they'll keep the liberals happy. It's how
> most of them get re-elected year after year. Very few of them are in
> competitive districts.
>

Correct.

>
>>
>>
>>>> Who's
>>>> going to watch Trump will his impossible $30 trillion plans?
>>>>
>>>
>>> If Hillary doesn't get elected, that would free up Crazy Bernie.
>>
>>
>> And what has caused you to pretend your Donald the Trumpet and label
>> Bernie as crazy?
>
> Where did you get the idea he was mine?
>
>> Has he been too successful? Insult seems to be your
>> mode when someone is successful. I know about that.
>>
>
> There is nothing about either Donald or Hillary that appeals to me. I know
> that our next president is going to be an asshole which has been the trend
> in recent years.
>

Then vote Libertarian. Every vote for Johnston is a vote taken away from
Trump and therefore helps Hillary. If he really gets more than 5% of the
vote (now at 12%) Hillary can win with 43%? Do you happen to know someone
else who won with only 43% and why?

Ever notice how the Electoral map matches the Confederacy map?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/6/2016 4:10 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 8:08:41 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 8:56:40 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 10:03:52 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 8/3/2016 12:10 PM, bpete1969 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hillary lied about having classified material in her email. No one said
>>>>
>>>> No, she didn't.
>>>
>>> The FBI says she did but they are not going to prosecute because she is
>>> running for President and will probably win. If so she will be the most
>>> corrupt candidate ever elected but that's OK because she is the First
>>> Female. Gender politics is way more important than national defense.
>>>
>>> https://thehornnews.com/obamas-secret-pardon-clinton/
>>
>>
>>
>> Ridiculous! Comey of the FBI is a Republican and has a very clean
>> reputation as an honest leader by both parties. He gave the reasons for
>> not recommending indictment for Hillary to the nation, and the news media
>> looked back at other cases and found that he was honest about that.
>>
>> Better you check out Politifact on Donald Trump and see what his
>> reputation is for lying. It's worse than Hillary's. Put "politifact
>> trump lies" into Google and click the first item listed and the first page
>> will give a list of the lies (or truths) that Trump has told and that they
>> have researched.
>>
>> Chris
>
> Of the two liars she is by far the beat and most professional because she

She BEAT TRUMP in a lying contest?
You don't have a LIST of her lies. We have LISTS of Trump's lies.

> has the most experience as a professional liar, commonly referred to as a
> Lawyer by most people. That's why she is going to win. Trump is a novice

Wow, so Hillary Clinton is a lawyer. And you say that alone is enough to
prove that she is a liar. Thank God Trump is a NOT a lawyer so
everything he says must be the truth. Is that how your peabrain works?

> compared to Hillary who has lied under oath so many times she's earned a
> Black Belt status as a pro.
>
> Trump needs to get up to speed on how to tell better lies if he has any
> hope of competing with Hillary. She's a pro and he's just a beginner.
> He thinks Americans like straight talk but he's wrong. Americans vote for
> the best liar every time. That gives Hillary the edge in this election.

So that's how you explain George Bush's victory!

> Americans love being lied to which guarantees Hillary as the next
> President of the United Liars of America, the US Congress.
>

Just a memo here, the title is not President of the Congress. That would
be the Vice-President's job.

[Anthony Marsh]

I hung up on you a long time ago.

[mainframetech]

Put "politifact trump lies" into Google and click on the first in the
list that comes back. Look on the first page of the site and se the list
of truths and lies told by trump. The lies outweigh the truth by far.
Try the same thing with Hillary Clinton and you get less lies.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

I make typos all the time. Everyone does.

[bigdog]

That's the con job the Democrats have been selling to the nation's poor
for over a century now. Isn't it amazing that after the New Deal, the Fair
Deal, the Great Society, and all the other giveaway programs we still have
more people living in poverty than ever before. It's a giant shell game.
Government can't lift people out of poverty. All government can do is
sustain poverty and the Dems need lots of poor people to keep voting them
into office. But the po' folks haven't figured that out so they keep
electing Dems thinking things will change. And they never do.

>
>
> > > The key for her
> > > is that as corrupt as you may decide she is, she has proven along the way
> > > that she looks out for her constituents and tries to fulfill her promises
> > > in spire of her hunger for money.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, she has convinced a lot of people of that. Not that it was hard to
> > do. They really wanted to believe her. Hillary wants only to get elected
> > and she'll pander to as many folks as she can to reach that goal. It's not
> > as if she actually cares about those people.
> >
>
>
> I doubt too many politicians care much about people. Hillary remember,
> made it possible for 8 million children to get health insurance. The
> CHIPS program.

What the hell did she have to do with the CHIPs program. She was first
lady when it was passed by a Republican Congress. The federal CHIPs
program wasn't her creation. It was modeled after the Pennsylvania CHIPs
program. The healthcare program she tried to peddle was soundly rejected
by Congress. But I'm sure she won't let inconvenient facts like that get
in the way of her taking credit for it.

>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > But most folks forget that we
> > > > > have a watchdog in Bernie Sanders, who will be watching Clinton every day,
> > > > > and will no doubt sound off if she goes too far over the line.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, that'll stop her. Crazy Bernie guarding the hen house.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Crazy"? Apparently you haven't been following his successes. He has
> > > done what few politicians have done, and built a coalition of people
> > > wanting something better than the system we have currently.
> >
> > I want something better than the system we have but Crazy Bernie was the
> > last guy I would choose to bring that about.
> >
>
>
>
> You don't count for much in comparison to the millions of followers
> Bernie gathered, and he plans to use them further after the election.
>

"Use them" is a good description of the way Dems treat their constituents.

>
>
> > > He can count
> > > on millions of people to do as he asks, which includes pressuring
> > > politicians in the unmovable congress that only represents itself.
> > >
> >
> > You think politicians care about Bernie's supporters. Congressman only
> > care about pleasing the voters in their district. If they represent a
> > conservative district they'll keep the coservatives happy and if they
> > represent a liberal district they'll keep the liberals happy. It's how
> > most of them get re-elected year after year. Very few of them are in
> > competitive districts.
> >
>
>
> As a piece of news, Bernie has already told his followers about voting
> in democrats over Republicans in the upcoming elections,

Gee, why didn't anyone think of that before. <chuckle>

> and 'his people'
> are young and ready to knock on doors and do all kinds of volunteer work
> for Bernie.
>

As James Carvelle, an astute political strategist once observed, "Show me
a candidate who depends on the youth vote, and I'll show you a loser."

http://articles.philly.com/2008-10-09/news/24991832_1_youth-vote-civic-learning-and-engagement-young-voters

>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Who's
> > > > > going to watch Trump will his impossible $30 trillion plans?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If Hillary doesn't get elected, that would free up Crazy Bernie.
> > >
> > >
> > > And what has caused you to pretend your Donald the Trumpet and label
> > > Bernie as crazy?
> >
> > Where did you get the idea he was mine?
> >
>
>
> From your style that parallels his.
>

Oh, it was my style. It wasn't anything I actually wrote.

>
>
> > > Has he been too successful? Insult seems to be your
> > > mode when someone is successful. I know about that.
> > >
> >
> > There is nothing about either Donald or Hillary that appeals to me. I know
> > that our next president is going to be an asshole which has been the trend
> > in recent years.
>
>
>
> That depends on what kind of hatchet job is done on them.
>

The only way our next President will not be an asshole is if somehow Gary
Johnson were to pull off the miracle. I find it mind boggling that so many
Republicans who refuse to support Trump aren't turning to Johnson as an
alternative. The reason is that Republicans and Democrats both like the
monopoly they have on the American political system and they don't want to
see a viable third party emerge, so they will hold their noses and support
Hillary. They would rather see a Democrat win than a Libertarian or a
Green.

[bpete1969]

Apparently you have hang ups over most of the people that frequent this
site.

Sitting around taking pot shots at people may be your hobby but it doesn't
make you correct and it certainly doesn't back up your claims.

You're a tired repeat of grumpy old men.

[Anthony Marsh]

Only the Nazis and the Alterationists.

> Sitting around taking pot shots at people may be your hobby but it doesn't
> make you correct and it certainly doesn't back up your claims.
>

They pop up like WackaMoles.

[claviger]

Phineas T Bluster?

[claviger]

Is Hillary "corrupt"?

Some people say she is just an old fashioned politician for sale to the
highest bidder, while her admirers believe she is just a sympathetic
person who wants to be all things to all people.

Another opinion: "No, she's just an amoeba, a creature that is constantly
changing shape."

The native Americans have legends about the coyote shapeshifter.

"Coyote is greedy, vain, foolish, cunning and also occasionally displays a
degree of power."

"The general view of Coyote in folk belief is negative and related to
witchcraft. Witches are believed to be able to adopt the form of a
coyote. A Navajo saying holds that if Coyote crosses your path, turn back
and do not continue your journey. The coyote is an omen of an unfortunate
event or thing in your path or in the near future."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_(Navajo_mythology)

[mainframetech]

What a shame, you're living under a blanket where you don't hear what
goes on. Take note that democrats tried to raise the minimum wage for
everyone and the Republicans in congress stopped it dead. There has been
NO increase to the income of the middle and lower income people for many
years, but prices keep going up to keep the wealthy happy. Why do you
think there is such unrest among the lower incomes? Individual states
here and there have raised the minimum in their states because they know
that's part of keeping the economy strong. If people don't have enough
money to feed their family, the government has to do it, and that's going
to weaken the economy and reduce the taxes to be collected.


All this bullshit of lowering taxes to boost the economy is a scam of
the wealthy and the corporations and it only benefits the wealthy. That
tax break was tired in something called 'the Bush tax breaks for the
wealthy' during the Bush term. It did NOT help the economy although it
was a huge tax break. The wealthy just put the benefits in the bank and
smiled. When they wanted to expand something, or build something, they
sent it overseas where the labor was cheaper.

It benefits the economy for the lower income people to have more money,
because they will go out and spend it on goods and services and the
economy gets a boost and the taxes pay off as a percent of the money that
people are getting. Naturally, the Trumpet has announced that he wants to
give a big tax break to the wealthy to boost the economy!! So the economy
will lose again and the people along with it.

> > > > The key for her
> > > > is that as corrupt as you may decide she is, she has proven along the way
> > > > that she looks out for her constituents and tries to fulfill her promises
> > > > in spire of her hunger for money.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, she has convinced a lot of people of that. Not that it was hard to
> > > do. They really wanted to believe her. Hillary wants only to get elected
> > > and she'll pander to as many folks as she can to reach that goal. It's not
> > > as if she actually cares about those people.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I doubt too many politicians care much about people. Hillary remember,
> > made it possible for 8 million children to get health insurance. The
> > CHIPS program.
>
> What the hell did she have to do with the CHIPs program. She was first
> lady when it was passed by a Republican Congress. The federal CHIPs
> program wasn't her creation. It was modeled after the Pennsylvania CHIPs
> program. The healthcare program she tried to peddle was soundly rejected
> by Congress. But I'm sure she won't let inconvenient facts like that get
> in the way of her taking credit for it.
>

Sorry, it's called the SCHIP program. Here a FactCheck:

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/giving-hillary-credit-for-schip/

> > > > > > But most folks forget that we
> > > > > > have a watchdog in Bernie Sanders, who will be watching Clinton every day,
> > > > > > and will no doubt sound off if she goes too far over the line.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, that'll stop her. Crazy Bernie guarding the hen house.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Crazy"? Apparently you haven't been following his successes. He has
> > > > done what few politicians have done, and built a coalition of people
> > > > wanting something better than the system we have currently.
> > >
> > > I want something better than the system we have but Crazy Bernie was the
> > > last guy I would choose to bring that about.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > You don't count for much in comparison to the millions of followers
> > Bernie gathered, and he plans to use them further after the election.
> >
>
> "Use them" is a good description of the way Dems treat their constituents.
>

Oh crap. Using them for their own benefit is the reason. Think it
through.

>
> >
> >
> > > > He can count
> > > > on millions of people to do as he asks, which includes pressuring
> > > > politicians in the unmovable congress that only represents itself.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You think politicians care about Bernie's supporters. Congressman only
> > > care about pleasing the voters in their district. If they represent a
> > > conservative district they'll keep the coservatives happy and if they
> > > represent a liberal district they'll keep the liberals happy. It's how
> > > most of them get re-elected year after year. Very few of them are in
> > > competitive districts.
> > >
> >
> >
> > As a piece of news, Bernie has already told his followers about voting
> > in democrats over Republicans in the upcoming elections,
>
> Gee, why didn't anyone think of that before. <chuckle>
>

See my previous comment. Politicians will be nervous when Bernie's
people get involved in their elections. They are enthusiastic and raring
to go. They can change an election quickly. The politicians better think
twice about Bernie's people and not listen to you.

So you think the Independent Party isn't a "viable third party"?

Chris

[claviger]

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 10:53:15 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 11:32:31 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
> All this bullshit of lowering taxes to boost the economy is a scam of
> the wealthy and the corporations and it only benefits the wealthy.

It worked great for President Kennedy and President Reagan! JFK was the
first President to use this "scam" and it jumpstarted the US economy. RR
did the same with even greater success in the 1980s. JFK pioneered the
concept and Reagan used it to expand the US economy.

The State of New York is doing an advertising campaign enticing companies
to relocate in The Empire State and receive a lower tax rate as a reward.
Basically expanding their "empire" with a strategy of lower taxes. With
expansion of more companies New York can spread the tax burden which
allows those companies to be more competitive in pricing their goods and
services.

The truth is companies don't pay taxes, they collect taxes for the
government. If companies paid taxes they would soon go out of business.
All taxes are paid by the end user: the Consumer.

JFK understood this reality and so did Reagan. The very reason why they
cut taxes to stimulate more purchasing power, which revs up the economy.
With more business growth there is more demand for employees.


"Every dollar released from taxation that is spared or invested will help
create a new job and a new salary." President John F Kennedy

" an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough
jobs or enough profits." John F Kennedy

As Ronald Reagan said, "A rising tide lifts all boats."

[Anthony Marsh]

Except that some prices are dramatically lower. Like gasoline and street
drugs.
To keep the poor content.

> think there is such unrest among the lower incomes? Individual states
> here and there have raised the minimum in their states because they know
> that's part of keeping the economy strong. If people don't have enough
> money to feed their family, the government has to do it, and that's going
> to weaken the economy and reduce the taxes to be collected.
>

The money has to come from somewhere. The Republicans do not want to
bake a bigger pie. They just want more of the existing pie for
themselves and let the poor eat pizza.

>
> All this bullshit of lowering taxes to boost the economy is a scam of
> the wealthy and the corporations and it only benefits the wealthy. That

Yeah, but part of the theory would work if they were honest.

> tax break was tired in something called 'the Bush tax breaks for the
> wealthy' during the Bush term. It did NOT help the economy although it
> was a huge tax break. The wealthy just put the benefits in the bank and
> smiled. When they wanted to expand something, or build something, they
> sent it overseas where the labor was cheaper.
>

And stashed it in illegal offshore accounts.

> It benefits the economy for the lower income people to have more money,
> because they will go out and spend it on goods and services and the

No, they will waste it. On drugs and food.

> economy gets a boost and the taxes pay off as a percent of the money that
> people are getting. Naturally, the Trumpet has announced that he wants to
> give a big tax break to the wealthy to boost the economy!! So the economy
> will lose again and the people along with it.
>

To his own class. It's called class warfare.

>
>
>>>>> The key for her
>>>>> is that as corrupt as you may decide she is, she has proven along the way
>>>>> that she looks out for her constituents and tries to fulfill her promises
>>>>> in spire of her hunger for money.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, she has convinced a lot of people of that. Not that it was hard to
>>>> do. They really wanted to believe her. Hillary wants only to get elected
>>>> and she'll pander to as many folks as she can to reach that goal. It's not
>>>> as if she actually cares about those people.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt too many politicians care much about people. Hillary remember,
>>> made it possible for 8 million children to get health insurance. The
>>> CHIPS program.
>>
>> What the hell did she have to do with the CHIPs program. She was first
>> lady when it was passed by a Republican Congress. The federal CHIPs
>> program wasn't her creation. It was modeled after the Pennsylvania CHIPs
>> program. The healthcare program she tried to peddle was soundly rejected
>> by Congress. But I'm sure she won't let inconvenient facts like that get
>> in the way of her taking credit for it.
>>
>
>
> Sorry, it's called the SCHIP program. Here a FactCheck:
>
> http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/giving-hillary-credit-for-schip/
>
>

Please, don't hit them with facts. How cruel!

What Independent Party?
Whatever happened to the Green Party?

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/10/2016 10:00 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 10:53:15 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 11:32:31 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>
>> All this bullshit of lowering taxes to boost the economy is a scam of
>> the wealthy and the corporations and it only benefits the wealthy.
>
> It worked great for President Kennedy and President Reagan! JFK was the

You don't dare tell the truth about Kennedy and Reagan.
You want to go back to a 91% tax rate? Never tell the truth.

> first President to use this "scam" and it jumpstarted the US economy. RR

Ah, ever hear of other things like Defense Spending and the Space Race?
Eisenhower didn't start the Space Race. And he didn't increase Defense
Spending as much as JFK did.

> did the same with even greater success in the 1980s.

So you liked when RR and Bush raised taxes,

JFK pioneered the
> concept and Reagan used it to expand the US economy.
>

Not exactly.

> The State of New York is doing an advertising campaign enticing companies
> to relocate in The Empire State and receive a lower tax rate as a reward.

Sure, and some people fall for that con game. 5% lower taxes does not
offset 10% higher wages and cost of living in NY. And don't even add in
the Mafia tax.

> Basically expanding their "empire" with a strategy of lower taxes. With
> expansion of more companies New York can spread the tax burden which
> allows those companies to be more competitive in pricing their goods and
> services.
>

Sounds good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice.

> The truth is companies don't pay taxes, they collect taxes for the
> government. If companies paid taxes they would soon go out of business.
> All taxes are paid by the end user: the Consumer.
>

Not exactly. You could try the same trick for employees.

> JFK understood this reality and so did Reagan. The very reason why they
> cut taxes to stimulate more purchasing power, which revs up the economy.
> With more business growth there is more demand for employees.
>

Sounds good. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does.
Largely due to corruption and the rich not actually paying their taxes.

>
> "Every dollar released from taxation that is spared or invested will help
> create a new job and a new salary." President John F Kennedy
>

That was the goal.

> " an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough
> jobs or enough profits." John F Kennedy
>

True.

> As Ronald Reagan said, "A rising tide lifts all boats."
>

Wishful thinking.

>

[John Paul Jones]

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 2:47:15 PM UTC-7, Robert Harris wrote:
> John McAdams says she is. Never mind that both the FBI and
> the justice department said she broke no laws. She must be,
> because the haters and smear artists who flood the world with
> accusations against all democrats running for President, say so.
>

> Instead of believing these trashers, why not get the actual
> verifiable facts?
>
> To understand this allegedly evil woman, read any VALID bio
> on her. You will quickly see what her entire life has been
> about. This is from Wikipedia. Not all of it is flattering.
> But it is truly fascinating:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
>
>
>
> Robert Harris

Before today's release of the emails one could say it was inconclusive.

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:00:50 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 10:53:15 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 11:32:31 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> >
> > All this bullshit of lowering taxes to boost the economy is a scam of
> > the wealthy and the corporations and it only benefits the wealthy.
>
> It worked great for President Kennedy and President Reagan! JFK was the
> first President to use this "scam" and it jumpstarted the US economy. RR
> did the same with even greater success in the 1980s. JFK pioneered the
> concept and Reagan used it to expand the US economy.
>

Reagan was one of the worst presidents for taxing the people, you've been
suckered again!
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jun/25/gerry-connolly/rep-gerry-connolly-says-reagan-raised-taxes-during/

> The State of New York is doing an advertising campaign enticing companies
> to relocate in The Empire State and receive a lower tax rate as a reward.
> Basically expanding their "empire" with a strategy of lower taxes. With
> expansion of more companies New York can spread the tax burden which
> allows those companies to be more competitive in pricing their goods and
> services.
>

The NY tax plan is for a period of time from when a company comes to
NY. After that period, they go onto the normal taxing. It's an
'introductory' gimmick.

> The truth is companies don't pay taxes, they collect taxes for the
> government. If companies paid taxes they would soon go out of business.
> All taxes are paid by the end user: the Consumer.
>

Using a clever line won't change the facts. Companies collect taxes
from their employees, but they also pay taxes annually or more often out
of their income.

> JFK understood this reality and so did Reagan. The very reason why they
> cut taxes to stimulate more purchasing power, which revs up the economy.
> With more business growth there is more demand for employees.
>

Se above. Reagan raised taxes after he got caught needing money. And
you can learn from the more recent 'Bush tax cuts for the wealthy' which
preceded the biggest recession since the depression. Here's what it did:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/tax_cuts_for_the_middle-class.html

>
> "Every dollar released from taxation that is spared or invested will help
> create a new job and a new salary." President John F Kennedy
>
> " an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough
> jobs or enough profits." John F Kennedy
>
> As Ronald Reagan said, "A rising tide lifts all boats."

Sayings won't pay the bills. When the wealthy get money, they often
invest it for their own profit in stocks, etc. If they use it for
expanding business, they do it overseas. But if the middle and lower
income people get money, they spend it(they have to) on food and goods and
services, which aids the economy. The phony gimmick of the large tax
break for the wealthy so they'll start companies and hire people is false,
it's been proven that it doesn't work.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Not sure what you mean. You mean HER e-mails of someone else's e-mails?
How about your e-mails?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/11/2016 11:29 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:00:50 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 10:53:15 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 11:32:31 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>>
>>> All this bullshit of lowering taxes to boost the economy is a scam of
>>> the wealthy and the corporations and it only benefits the wealthy.
>>
>> It worked great for President Kennedy and President Reagan! JFK was the
>> first President to use this "scam" and it jumpstarted the US economy. RR
>> did the same with even greater success in the 1980s. JFK pioneered the
>> concept and Reagan used it to expand the US economy.
>>
>
>
> Reagan was one of the worst presidents for taxing the people, you've been
> suckered again!
> http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jun/25/gerry-connolly/rep-gerry-connolly-says-reagan-raised-taxes-during/
>
>
>> The State of New York is doing an advertising campaign enticing companies
>> to relocate in The Empire State and receive a lower tax rate as a reward.
>> Basically expanding their "empire" with a strategy of lower taxes. With
>> expansion of more companies New York can spread the tax burden which
>> allows those companies to be more competitive in pricing their goods and
>> services.
>>
>
>
> The NY tax plan is for a period of time from when a company comes to
> NY. After that period, they go onto the normal taxing. It's an
> 'introductory' gimmick.
>

Nothing wrong with that. The same as the cable companies. $20 dollars
for the first month then 20 more dollars more every month after that.
until you're up to $500 per month.

>
>> The truth is companies don't pay taxes, they collect taxes for the
>> government. If companies paid taxes they would soon go out of business.
>> All taxes are paid by the end user: the Consumer.
>>
>
>
> Using a clever line won't change the facts. Companies collect taxes
> from their employees, but they also pay taxes annually or more often out
> of their income.
>
>
>
>> JFK understood this reality and so did Reagan. The very reason why they
>> cut taxes to stimulate more purchasing power, which revs up the economy.
>> With more business growth there is more demand for employees.
>>
>
>
> Se above. Reagan raised taxes after he got caught needing money. And

After he couldn't balance his budget from giving huge tax breaks to his
richest friends.

> you can learn from the more recent 'Bush tax cuts for the wealthy' which
> preceded the biggest recession since the depression. Here's what it did:
>
> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/tax_cuts_for_the_middle-class.html
>
>

Trickle down econoomics. Which means rich people trickle down on the poor.

>>
>> "Every dollar released from taxation that is spared or invested will help
>> create a new job and a new salary." President John F Kennedy
>>
>> " an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough
>> jobs or enough profits." John F Kennedy
>>
>> As Ronald Reagan said, "A rising tide lifts all boats."
>
>
>
> Sayings won't pay the bills. When the wealthy get money, they often
> invest it for their own profit in stocks, etc. If they use it for

They invest it in stocks and overseas companies to avoid having to pay
US taxes.

> expanding business, they do it overseas. But if the middle and lower
> income people get money, they spend it(they have to) on food and goods and

That's the problem. they only buy food and drugs. They can't afford
yachts. I have food stamps, but I can't afford a car because they don't
allow me to have more than $2000 in the bank.

[bigdog]

Employers have a good idea what a particular worker is worth to a company
and if you require that employer to pay more for that worker than the
value that worker brings to the company, the employer will simply lay off
the worker. If the employer chooses to pay the higher wage, that cost gets
passed on to the consumers, and the result is everything becomes more
expensive which means those same people whose wages were raised now have
to pay higher prices which means they will be no better off than they were
before.

> There has been
> NO increase to the income of the middle and lower income people for many
> years, but prices keep going up to keep the wealthy happy.

Like everything else, labor costs are subject to the rule of supply and
demand. Jobs for which there is a high demand and low supply are paying
quite well, like welders for example. There is an abundant supply of
unskilled workers which is why those jobs don't pay well at all.

> Why do you
> think there is such unrest among the lower incomes? Individual states
> here and there have raised the minimum in their states because they know
> that's part of keeping the economy strong. If people don't have enough
> money to feed their family, the government has to do it, and that's going
> to weaken the economy and reduce the taxes to be collected.
>

Governments choose to feed the poor. It isn't a requirement. Government
can't give anyone anything it doesn't first take from somebody else. If
you want to help the working poor, government should be drastically cut
along with taxes.

Up until 1900, the government spent about $500 (inflation adjusted) on
every person in this country. It was able to get by with no income tax.
Then progressivism took over. An income tax was instituted which
originally was only paid by the highest earners. After over a century of
ever growing government and ever increasing taxes, the government now
spends about $20,000 per person and that figure continues to climb. In
order for government to provide all these services it must first take
money from people in order to pay for it. It's like buys a gift for
someone and then charging it to their credit card.

>
> All this bullshit of lowering taxes to boost the economy is a scam of
> the wealthy and the corporations and it only benefits the wealthy.

Reagan did it and the economy roared for most of the 1980s and 1990s.

The con job is that when taxes are lowered that only the wealthy benefit.
Everybody who pays taxes benefits from tax cuts.

> That
> tax break was tired in something called 'the Bush tax breaks for the
> wealthy' during the Bush term.

The tax breaks were for everybody who pays taxes.

> It did NOT help the economy although it
> was a huge tax break. The wealthy just put the benefits in the bank and
> smiled. When they wanted to expand something, or build something, they
> sent it overseas where the labor was cheaper.
>

People in government never figure out that people in the private sector
are going to act in their own self interest. They think that when they
change the rules the private sector will keep doing what they were doing
before and the people who changed the rules will get the result they want.
Instead people in private sector adjust to the new rules and those rules
don't result in the desired outcome. The primary reason companies move
overseas is because US corporate tax rates are the highest in the
industrial world. If you want these companies to stay in the use,
corporate tax rates need to be lowered.

> It benefits the economy for the lower income people to have more money,
> because they will go out and spend it on goods and services and the
> economy gets a boost and the taxes pay off as a percent of the money that
> people are getting. Naturally, the Trumpet has announced that he wants to
> give a big tax break to the wealthy to boost the economy!! So the economy
> will lose again and the people along with it.
>

I'll leave it to others to speak for Trump.

>
>
> > > > > The key for her
> > > > > is that as corrupt as you may decide she is, she has proven along the way
> > > > > that she looks out for her constituents and tries to fulfill her promises
> > > > > in spire of her hunger for money.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, she has convinced a lot of people of that. Not that it was hard to
> > > > do. They really wanted to believe her. Hillary wants only to get elected
> > > > and she'll pander to as many folks as she can to reach that goal. It's not
> > > > as if she actually cares about those people.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I doubt too many politicians care much about people. Hillary remember,
> > > made it possible for 8 million children to get health insurance. The
> > > CHIPS program.
> >
> > What the hell did she have to do with the CHIPs program. She was first
> > lady when it was passed by a Republican Congress. The federal CHIPs
> > program wasn't her creation. It was modeled after the Pennsylvania CHIPs
> > program. The healthcare program she tried to peddle was soundly rejected
> > by Congress. But I'm sure she won't let inconvenient facts like that get
> > in the way of her taking credit for it.
> >
>
>
> Sorry, it's called the SCHIP program. Here a FactCheck:
>
> http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/giving-hillary-credit-for-schip/
>

When legislation gets passed, it is common to throw credit all around and
lots of people get included in the photo-op when the bill is signed. Even
this cite acknowledged Hillary's role was minor. As NYT correspondent Adam
Clymer wrote: "On balance, I would say of course Kennedy and Hatch deserve
MOST OF THE CREDIT(emphasis mine), but Hillary helped by making sure the
Administration stuck with the $24 billion in [the Senate-House]
conference. She didn’t write the legislation but she played a
significant role in getting it passed."

Signficant role? As first lady? Right! <chuckle>

>
>
> > > > > > > But most folks forget that we
> > > > > > > have a watchdog in Bernie Sanders, who will be watching Clinton every day,
> > > > > > > and will no doubt sound off if she goes too far over the line.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, that'll stop her. Crazy Bernie guarding the hen house.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Crazy"? Apparently you haven't been following his successes. He has
> > > > > done what few politicians have done, and built a coalition of people
> > > > > wanting something better than the system we have currently.
> > > >
> > > > I want something better than the system we have but Crazy Bernie was the
> > > > last guy I would choose to bring that about.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You don't count for much in comparison to the millions of followers
> > > Bernie gathered, and he plans to use them further after the election.
> > >
> >
> > "Use them" is a good description of the way Dems treat their constituents.
> >
>
>
>
> Oh crap. Using them for their own benefit is the reason. Think it
> through.
>

Yes, the Dems use poor people to get themselves elected and reelected
while at the same time making sure the poor stay poor so that they will
keep electing and reelecting them.

>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > He can count
> > > > > on millions of people to do as he asks, which includes pressuring
> > > > > politicians in the unmovable congress that only represents itself.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You think politicians care about Bernie's supporters. Congressman only
> > > > care about pleasing the voters in their district. If they represent a
> > > > conservative district they'll keep the coservatives happy and if they
> > > > represent a liberal district they'll keep the liberals happy. It's how
> > > > most of them get re-elected year after year. Very few of them are in
> > > > competitive districts.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As a piece of news, Bernie has already told his followers about voting
> > > in democrats over Republicans in the upcoming elections,
> >
> > Gee, why didn't anyone think of that before. <chuckle>
> >
>
>
> See my previous comment. Politicians will be nervous when Bernie's
> people get involved in their elections. They are enthusiastic and raring
> to go. They can change an election quickly. The politicians better think
> twice about Bernie's people and not listen to you.
>

Young people simply don't turn out on election day in large enough numbers
to swing elections.

If by viable you mean can it get a candidate elected president, the answer
is no. There are states that have a history of electing third party
candidates in statewide races but those states are the exception, not the
rule. Jesse Ventura got elected governor of Minnesota but that was an
anomaly. It wasn't the start of a movement.

[claviger]

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 10:29:32 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:00:50 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 10:53:15 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 11:32:31 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > >
> > > All this bullshit of lowering taxes to boost the economy is a scam of
> > > the wealthy and the corporations and it only benefits the wealthy.
> > It worked great for President Kennedy and President Reagan! JFK was the
> > first President to use this "scam" and it jumpstarted the US economy. RR
> > did the same with even greater success in the 1980s. JFK pioneered the
> > concept and Reagan used it to expand the US economy.
> Reagan was one of the worst presidents for taxing the people, you've been
> suckered again!
> http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jun/25/gerry-connolly/rep-gerry-connolly-says-reagan-raised-taxes-during/

Thanks for the info which proves two things: RR cut rates for a majority
of American taxpayers and looked for ways to close tax loopholes. The
vast majority of taxpayers benefitted and the economy took off in the
right direction.

> > The State of New York is doing an advertising campaign enticing companies
> > to relocate in The Empire State and receive a lower tax rate as a reward.
> > Basically expanding their "empire" with a strategy of lower taxes. With
> > expansion of more companies New York can spread the tax burden which
> > allows those companies to be more competitive in pricing their goods and
> > services.
> The NY tax plan is for a period of time from when a company comes to
> NY. After that period, they go onto the normal taxing. It's an
> 'introductory' gimmick.

So this is just a Liberal bait-and-switch gimmick? Lure in the suckers
then sock it to them later?

> > The truth is companies don't pay taxes, they collect taxes for the
> > government. If companies paid taxes they would soon go out of business.
> > All taxes are paid by the end user: the Consumer.
> Using a clever line won't change the facts. Companies collect taxes
> from their employees, but they also pay taxes annually or more often out
> of their income.

The only way you will ever understand the REALITY of how the US Economy
works is go into business for yourself. Any business entity has to pay
rent, utilities, salaries, furniture, computers, COGS, cost of goods &
services, delivery costs to customers, fuel, vehicles, repairs &
maintenance, utilities, insurance, lawsuits, compliance with regulations,
City taxes, County taxes, School District taxes, State taxes, Federal
excise taxes, local Sales taxes, and Federal Income taxes, if there is any
Income at the end of the year.

Where does this Business Entity get the money to pay all these Costs and
Taxes? From their clients and customers, The Consumers! The End User
pays for EVERYTHING. That is what the word INCOME means. Incoming
Revenue to pay for all these Costs of Doing Business, and Taxes are a
significant category of the COST of Doing Business.

If you don't believe me then give it a try. The INFLOW of Revenue must
exceed the OUTFLOW of Expenses+Taxes for a Company to stay alive.

Not enough Inflows the business loses money. If Inflows equal Outflows
there is no Income Tax, but the business stagnates. If the Inflows exceed
Outflows the company can grow, expand, and hire more employees.

So get a grasp on this reality: INFLOWS pay for EVERYTHING.

Where do INFLOWS come from? The Clients, Customers, Consumers. THEY pay
for EVERYTHING!!!

If Taxes go up and the Business Entity is at breakeven, they cannot absorb
the Tax Increase and pass it on to the Consumers. So a Tax Increase on
Business is really a pass through Tax Increase on Consumers. There is no
other way to do it and stay viable as a company.

President Kennedy and President Reagan understood this Reality. Under
their leadership the US Economy thrived. They understood Cutting Taxes
energized the Economy and Raising Taxes stifles the Economy. When a
Business wants to sell more they offer discounts, to hopefully increase
sales enough to pay for the discount or reward Customers for doing
business with them. So discounts activate demand. Raising Taxes can
offset this strategy and negate the positive influence of Discounts. At
that point the Business community must raise prices to stay viable, ofter
reducing the workforce to help pay for new taxes.

President Kennedy grew up in a successful family business and understood
all of the above. His father was a very good financier and entrepreneur.
The political objective of JFK was full employment and he knew cutting
taxes was the best way to achieve that goal and spread the wealth.
Reagan learned from JFK how to successfully stimulate and sustain growth
in the US economy.

> > JFK understood this reality and so did Reagan. The very reason why they
> > cut taxes to stimulate more purchasing power, which revs up the economy.
> > With more business growth there is more demand for employees.
> Se above. Reagan raised taxes after he got caught needing money. And
> you can learn from the more recent 'Bush tax cuts for the wealthy' which
> preceded the biggest recession since the depression. Here's what it did:
> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/tax_cuts_for_the_middle-class.html

Presidents Kennedy & Reagan knew what to do. I trust their judgement and
positive results prove they were right. If you castigate Reagan for
closing some tax loopholes then you agree raising any taxes has a negative
affect of the Economy. Hillary wants to raise taxes so based on your
arguments above I assume you are not voting for her. Good decision.

> > "Every dollar released from taxation that is spared or invested will help
> > create a new job and a new salary." President John F Kennedy
> >
> > " an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough
> > jobs or enough profits." John F Kennedy
> >
> > As Ronald Reagan said, "A rising tide lifts all boats."
>
> Sayings won't pay the bills. When the wealthy get money, they often
> invest it for their own profit in stocks, etc.

Which stimulates the Stock Market where most retirement funds earn their
money.

> If they use it for expanding business, they do it overseas.

The US Business community is forced to compete in the World Market by US
Government policy and agreements, therefore must take advantage of every
opportunity. If labor unions in other countries want jobs and are willing
to outbid US unions for a lower cost of Labor, then that's part of the
equation. Certain regions of the US understand this reality and work with
foreign companies who want to establish manufacturing plants in the US,
thus creating jobs for American workers.

> But if the middle and lower income people get money, they spend it (they have to)

> on food and goods and services, which aids the economy.

So they shop at Walmart and Cosco who offer a lot of low cost products
Made in China, India, South America, and now Vietnam. This is all part of
US Foreign Policy. Americans have the right to avoid shopping at Walmart
and Cosco if they chose to buy American, or at least buy only Made in USA
products at those stores. Not just them. Many food products at Grocery
Stores are imported from foreign countries. Ever had Chilean grapes,
Mexican beer, French wine, Irish cheese, Canadian bacon, etc.?

> The phony gimmick of the large tax break for the wealthy so they'll start
> companies and hire people is false, it's been proven that it doesn't work.
> Chris

You look at it as "the wealthy" rather than simply an American company
hiring American workers. Therein lies your flawed thinking. You would
rather shop at Walmart and buy imported products cheap, thus making some
foreign company wealthy. How does that help American workers?

As one observer said, "Socialism is the Politics of Envy." It is one of
the Seven Deadly Sins:
Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, Pride.

"Bertrand Russell said that Envy was one of the most potent causes of
unhappiness, bringing sorrow to committers of envy whilst giving them the
urge to inflict pain upon others."

Bertrand Russell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

No law says Americans must buy foreign made food and products, it is a choice.
If every American would buy USA it would help the US Economy
tremendously, but then you would complain about all the Americans it made
wealthy.

In every country in the world you have the right to be poor. What made
the USA different is you have the right to be successful and wealthy.
The reason why so many people want to immigrate to "the Land of
Opportunity" where you have the right to compete and fail. If you succeed
with better ideas then you should have the right to enjoy that success.

[mainframetech]

So simple it leaves out all the important facts. For years the
government raised the minimum wage as prices rose, and they rose together.
It's an automatic thing that it will happen in a society. However, the
corporations and the wealthy have a powerful tool, and it's called money,
and it can become campaign funds in a second. Congress answers to its
boss, the holy dollar, and they vote that way, meaning they kill any
minimum wage increase when they are told. That really does benefit many
corporations by keeping labor costs lower. Labor is the single highest
cost for corporations, and explains why they go overseas, if they can.
Yes, if an employee has value, they can pay them whatever they please, but
the lowest level of worker is still needed and is getting the minimum
wage. Raising it is costly and greed usually wins out and they have
stopped the increase in congress.

> > There has been
> > NO increase to the income of the middle and lower income people for many
> > years, but prices keep going up to keep the wealthy happy.
>
> Like everything else, labor costs are subject to the rule of supply and
> demand. Jobs for which there is a high demand and low supply are paying
> quite well, like welders for example. There is an abundant supply of
> unskilled workers which is why those jobs don't pay well at all.
>

Often prices are at whatever level they can get away with, mainly
through marketing, which is a method to convince people they need or want
an item more than they thought. That is creating a demand artificially,
and may do it for products that are in large supply or not.

> > Why do you
> > think there is such unrest among the lower incomes? Individual states
> > here and there have raised the minimum in their states because they know
> > that's part of keeping the economy strong. If people don't have enough
> > money to feed their family, the government has to do it, and that's going
> > to weaken the economy and reduce the taxes to be collected.
> >
>
> Governments choose to feed the poor. It isn't a requirement. Government
> can't give anyone anything it doesn't first take from somebody else. If
> you want to help the working poor, government should be drastically cut
> along with taxes.
>

WRONG! Governments don't decide to feed the poor. They react to the
need for the people to ant to feed the poor. Government is only a tool
for the people (or it's supposed to be) and does what they ant. Compare
to a small community that will put together a market basket or Christmas
present program for kids, and it makes life better for those less
fortunate. But across the whole country that can't be guaranteed that it
will happen, so the government does it across all geographic lines and
everyone's poor are taken care of as people want they to be. If the
people didn't care about the poor, the government wouldn't bother with
them. They do what keeps them in their jobs.

> Up until 1900, the government spent about $500 (inflation adjusted) on
> every person in this country. It was able to get by with no income tax.
> Then progressivism took over. An income tax was instituted which
> originally was only paid by the highest earners. After over a century of
> ever growing government and ever increasing taxes, the government now
> spends about $20,000 per person and that figure continues to climb. In
> order for government to provide all these services it must first take
> money from people in order to pay for it. It's like buys a gift for
> someone and then charging it to their credit card.
>

If people didn't want the poor to get help from the government (their
tool), you can be sure the government wouldn't bother with them. If the
government stopped helping the poor, there would be a large stink raised
and they would go back to doing it.

> >
> > All this bullshit of lowering taxes to boost the economy is a scam of
> > the wealthy and the corporations and it only benefits the wealthy.
>
> Reagan did it and the economy roared for most of the 1980s and 1990s.
>

I have big news for you (as usual). Reagan realized that he needed
money and did more raising of taxes than most other presidents!! Here:

""Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and
ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him
to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph
Thorndike.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax
increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said."

From: http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/


And we mustn't forget the failed experiment with the "Bush tax cuts for
the wealthy" which preceeded the largest recession since the depression.
It had to be repealed.

> The con job is that when taxes are lowered that only the wealthy benefit.
> Everybody who pays taxes benefits from tax cuts.
>

It might seem that way, and the wealthy have sold it that way for
years, but a 5% cut may mean $100 to a poor person, and millions to a
wealthy person.

And that means that only $100 will be spent into the economy, and the
millions will probably be invested for personal profit or start a business
overseas so that a foreign country will get the benefit.

> > That
> > tax break was tired in something called 'the Bush tax breaks for the
> > wealthy' during the Bush term.
>
> The tax breaks were for everybody who pays taxes.
>

Oh, they always say that, but look at the chart:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/the_bush_tax_cuts_in_one_chart.html

$52 for the poor, and $104,000 for the wealthy. So what matters is how
much of that cut gets spent into the economy, and the poor person will do
it, but not the wealthy person.

> > It did NOT help the economy although it
> > was a huge tax break. The wealthy just put the benefits in the bank and
> > smiled. When they wanted to expand something, or build something, they
> > sent it overseas where the labor was cheaper.
> >
>
> People in government never figure out that people in the private sector
> are going to act in their own self interest. They think that when they
> change the rules the private sector will keep doing what they were doing
> before and the people who changed the rules will get the result they want.
> Instead people in private sector adjust to the new rules and those rules
> don't result in the desired outcome. The primary reason companies move
> overseas is because US corporate tax rates are the highest in the
> industrial world. If you want these companies to stay in the use,
> corporate tax rates need to be lowered.
>

I have more news for you. The rules only change to benefit the wealthy
and the corporations. They are the ones that pay in 'campaign funds' and
get what they want from congress. That's how the banks got relieved of
many safeguard regulations and then proceeded to gamble with the client's
money and blow the whole economy, which incidentally they got millions of
bonus checks for. Only when the economy tanked because of the lack of
regulations did they let some regulation come back in. And we're still
not as safe as we might be in that area.

> > It benefits the economy for the lower income people to have more money,
> > because they will go out and spend it on goods and services and the
> > economy gets a boost and the taxes pay off as a percent of the money that
> > people are getting. Naturally, the Trumpet has announced that he wants to
> > give a big tax break to the wealthy to boost the economy!! So the economy
> > will lose again and the people along with it.
> >
>
> I'll leave it to others to speak for Trump.
>

sadly, some do. They don't do their research because they like what
they hear and never care if it's true or not. Put in "politifact trump
lies" into Google and click on the first in the resultant list. That's
the breakdown of what they have answered of trump's sayings. It's mostly
lies when it's checked out.

Sorry, Hillary is not one to sit around and do nothing. Always moving
on something. And the word was "significant" and you come out with 'her
role was minor'. Can you read?

> >
> >
> > > > > > > > But most folks forget that we
> > > > > > > > have a watchdog in Bernie Sanders, who will be watching Clinton every day,
> > > > > > > > and will no doubt sound off if she goes too far over the line.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh, that'll stop her. Crazy Bernie guarding the hen house.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Crazy"? Apparently you haven't been following his successes. He has
> > > > > > done what few politicians have done, and built a coalition of people
> > > > > > wanting something better than the system we have currently.
> > > > >
> > > > > I want something better than the system we have but Crazy Bernie was the
> > > > > last guy I would choose to bring that about.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You don't count for much in comparison to the millions of followers
> > > > Bernie gathered, and he plans to use them further after the election.
> > > >
> > >
> > > "Use them" is a good description of the way Dems treat their constituents.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh crap. Using them for their own benefit is the reason. Think it
> > through.
> >
>
> Yes, the Dems use poor people to get themselves elected and reelected
> while at the same time making sure the poor stay poor so that they will
> keep electing and reelecting them.
>

The poor have gotten far more help from the democrats than the
republicans, who do what the corporations tell them to do. We have become
a more civilized society because of the democrats.

> > > > > > He can count
> > > > > > on millions of people to do as he asks, which includes pressuring
> > > > > > politicians in the unmovable congress that only represents itself.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You think politicians care about Bernie's supporters. Congressman only
> > > > > care about pleasing the voters in their district. If they represent a
> > > > > conservative district they'll keep the coservatives happy and if they
> > > > > represent a liberal district they'll keep the liberals happy. It's how
> > > > > most of them get re-elected year after year. Very few of them are in
> > > > > competitive districts.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As a piece of news, Bernie has already told his followers about voting
> > > > in democrats over Republicans in the upcoming elections,
> > >
> > > Gee, why didn't anyone think of that before. <chuckle>
> > >
> >
> >
> > See my previous comment. Politicians will be nervous when Bernie's
> > people get involved in their elections. They are enthusiastic and raring
> > to go. They can change an election quickly. The politicians better think
> > twice about Bernie's people and not listen to you.
> >
>
> Young people simply don't turn out on election day in large enough numbers
> to swing elections.
>

Ah, tell that to Bill Clinton and Obama. They turned out in droves.
And Bernie can get many of them out for Hillary, which he had promised he
will do.

The Independent party has elected a governor, and he was asked to be
president, but he declined. But it's a good start.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 9:32:11 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 10:29:32 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:00:50 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 10:53:15 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 11:32:31 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > >
> > > > All this bullshit of lowering taxes to boost the economy is a scam of
> > > > the wealthy and the corporations and it only benefits the wealthy.
> > > It worked great for President Kennedy and President Reagan! JFK was the
> > > first President to use this "scam" and it jumpstarted the US economy. RR
> > > did the same with even greater success in the 1980s. JFK pioneered the
> > > concept and Reagan used it to expand the US economy.
> > Reagan was one of the worst presidents for taxing the people, you've been
> > suckered again!
> > http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jun/25/gerry-connolly/rep-gerry-connolly-says-reagan-raised-taxes-during/
>
> Thanks for the info which proves two things: RR cut rates for a majority
> of American taxpayers and looked for ways to close tax loopholes. The
> vast majority of taxpayers benefitted and the economy took off in the
> right direction.
>

I have more news for you. The "majority of taxpayers" were not affected by "loopholes" which usually service the wealthy and the corporations.

>
> > > The State of New York is doing an advertising campaign enticing companies
> > > to relocate in The Empire State and receive a lower tax rate as a reward.
> > > Basically expanding their "empire" with a strategy of lower taxes. With
> > > expansion of more companies New York can spread the tax burden which
> > > allows those companies to be more competitive in pricing their goods and
> > > services.

> > The NY tax plan is for a period of time from when a company comes to
> > NY. After that period, they go onto the normal taxing. It's an
> > 'introductory' gimmick.
>
> So this is just a Liberal bait-and-switch gimmick? Lure in the suckers
> then sock it to them later?
>

The companies that come to NY know perfectly well that they will get larger taxes at some point, but it's worth it to have the breathing room offered by NY. Most corporations have lawyers that look at these contracts before anyone signs or makes a move.

> > > The truth is companies don't pay taxes, they collect taxes for the
> > > government. If companies paid taxes they would soon go out of business.
> > > All taxes are paid by the end user: the Consumer.

> > Using a clever line won't change the facts. Companies collect taxes
> > from their employees, but they also pay taxes annually or more often out
> > of their income.
>
> The only way you will ever understand the REALITY of how the US Economy
> works is go into business for yourself. Any business entity has to pay
> rent, utilities, salaries, furniture, computers, COGS, cost of goods &
> services, delivery costs to customers, fuel, vehicles, repairs &
> maintenance, utilities, insurance, lawsuits, compliance with regulations,
> City taxes, County taxes, School District taxes, State taxes, Federal
> excise taxes, local Sales taxes, and Federal Income taxes, if there is any
> Income at the end of the year.
>

Completely false. I worked as an independent consultant for a number of years and had very few of those items to deal with. But I, like all companies, claimed as many items of 'cost of doing business' as possible.

> Where does this Business Entity get the money to pay all these Costs and
> Taxes? From their clients and customers, The Consumers! The End User
> pays for EVERYTHING. That is what the word INCOME means. Incoming
> Revenue to pay for all these Costs of Doing Business, and Taxes are a
> significant category of the COST of Doing Business.
>

Of course, but many companies also show a net profit at the end of each year, and they are taxed based on that amount. what's your point?

> If you don't believe me then give it a try. The INFLOW of Revenue must
> exceed the OUTFLOW of Expenses+Taxes for a Company to stay alive.
>

My god. Get a grip. I've been in business for many years, both independently and working for public and private companies as an executive. Teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

> Not enough Inflows the business loses money. If Inflows equal Outflows
> there is no Income Tax, but the business stagnates. If the Inflows exceed
> Outflows the company can grow, expand, and hire more employees.
>
> So get a grasp on this reality: INFLOWS pay for EVERYTHING.
>
> Where do INFLOWS come from? The Clients, Customers, Consumers. THEY pay
> for EVERYTHING!!!
>

While that all sounds nice, companies have to be careful about raising prices to cover expenses or they may price their goods too high and lose income to the competition. You seem to have forgotten that. Competition is a factor.

> If Taxes go up and the Business Entity is at breakeven, they cannot absorb
> the Tax Increase and pass it on to the Consumers. So a Tax Increase on
> Business is really a pass through Tax Increase on Consumers. There is no
> other way to do it and stay viable as a company.
>

You seem to have forgotten yet another method used by many large corporations to solve your little problem. They pay off lobbyists who spread money around and fill up campaign fund coffers and get loopholes put into the tax code to give the company 'relief' from the terrible burden. In some instances, subsidies are given to the company as a startup that never get halted, like the oil industry with their annual 4 Billion dollars subsidies.



No matter how you slice it, we, the society, will pay the freight on anything we do. It's the nature of the universe. If you want something, you must expend some effort or resource to get it, or keep it. If you want air, you must expend energy in breathing it.

> President Kennedy and President Reagan understood this Reality. Under
> their leadership the US Economy thrived. They understood Cutting Taxes
> energized the Economy and Raising Taxes stifles the Economy. When a
> Business wants to sell more they offer discounts, to hopefully increase
> sales enough to pay for the discount or reward Customers for doing
> business with them. So discounts activate demand. Raising Taxes can
> offset this strategy and negate the positive influence of Discounts. At
> that point the Business community must raise prices to stay viable, ofter
> reducing the workforce to help pay for new taxes.
>

Here's some info on the Reagan term:

"Reagan inherited a federal budget of $599 billion in revenue, $678 billion in spending, and a deficit of $79 billion. He left office with a federal budget of $909 billion in revenue, a little less than $1.1 trillion in spending, and a deficit of $155 billion."

From:
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/01/ronald-reagan-policy-political-failure



If you’re looking for a good bureaucracy slasher, try Bill Clinton. In his eight years, the size of the executive-branch workforce dropped more than 10 percent, from 2.9 million to 2.6 million. Plus, Clinton has got a better “overcoming adversity” story than anyone was able to concoct for Reagan. Reagan’s life, like his disposition, was overwhelmingly sunny. He grew up middle-class in the Midwest, enjoyed relatively quick success in Hollywood, moved into politics, and triumphed there too. Clinton had a Southern Gothic upbringing—he famously had to stop his stepfather from beating his mother. Nothing that dramatic on Reagan’s résumé.

In his book A Simple Government, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (who won the door prize in the 2008 election: his own TV show) praised Reagan’s mastery of the economy and the federal budget: “When President Reagan cut the top [income tax] rate from 70% to 28%, revenues went from $517 billion in 1980 to over a trillion in 1990. When the Reagan tax cuts took effect in 1983, real growth (not just inflationary growth) jumped 7.5% in 1983 and 5.5% in 1984 after no growth in 1981 and 1982. Our GDP grew by a third during Reagan’s two terms.”

Well, yes and no (but mostly no). Reagan wasn’t president for 10 years (it just seemed that way). Inflation alone in Reagan’s eight years would have raised the value of $599 billion of revenue to $780 billion, even if the real economy had flatlined. It’s true that the G.D.P. grew by a third during Reagan’s two terms. In the two terms that followed (George Bush and Clinton I), it rose by nearly as much, and in Clinton’s last term it soared.

The notion that Reagan “had overcome a childhood of modest means and adversity” is Ryan’s way of paying obeisance while avoiding the facts. Huckabee’s strategy for accomplishing the same thing is to confuse the issue with random statistics that don’t even match those of the Government Accountability Office. Texas governor Rick Perry tries a third approach. He concedes that Reagan deserves part of the blame for repeated Republican failures to live up to their promises. Nevertheless, he maintains in his recent book, Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington, that Reagan “inspired a generation of Americans—including me—to remember the rugged individualism and self-determination that made this country great.” In what way, exactly, did Reagan demonstrate “rugged individualism” (except by having his picture taken on a horse)? Paul Ryan says that “we loved President Reagan … because he was one of us.” Ryan never says exactly who “us” is. But if words have meaning at all, it sounds like the opposite of rugged individualism.


But didn’t Reagan save us from Communism? We can argue about that (I’ll take the “no” side). But he passed up all sorts of military opportunities to which his successors of both parties have succumbed. The only war he started was the quickie war in Grenada. In that sense, the Reagan administration was a golden age of peace.

If it’s Hillary Clinton versus Rand Paul in 2016, it will be a Democratic hawk versus a Republican dove—a complete reversal of the natural order of things since World War II. Paul stands accused of trying to distance himself from some of the nuttier views of his father, the Libertarian Godfather, Ron Paul. However, Rand let Ron write the foreword to his recent book, Government Bullies, a collection of horror stories about loutish behavior by government agencies. Like many journalists, I find Rand Paul oddly appealing. It’s mainly because he’s something new in the tired stew of the 2016 campaign so far. But it’s also partly that he can’t hide his frustration—a trait that he shares with his father (and that is characteristic of libertarians in general), commonly exhibited when what he and they regard as obviously sensible opinions and proposals are challenged.

I’d bet that both Pauls, Ron and Rand, hold Ronald Reagan in contempt for having squandered a historic opportunity to do all sorts of unattractive libertarian things. But rules are rules: the first two words in Rand Paul’s book are “Ronald Reagan.” Right after the foreword by his dad.

Sorry, I can't read that much Republican bullshit at one sitting, so I skipped down to here. All that talk merely means that you are among the suckers that bit on the Republican line. There are far more 'average people' in the lower and middle income brackets that for the wealthy to gat what they want, they have to get votes for their candidates. They have to have reasons for people to cling to the wealthy people's capes, and so we have the NRA and gun rights, and issue that is a joke, since no one would dare take away anyone's guns, and then they have the talk of folks being independent, which often come out as being able to pay for your own costs, which makes insurance companies happy.

Other than the above, there are also constantly scare tactics gong on that say that you have much reason to be scared, and we'll make you safe. In today's environment, that's impossible, no matter what Trump and lackeys say. Then we have anger, when people know that their representatives are ignoring them and feeding themselves money by the bucket full at the taxpayer's expense. By jumping up and down and looking angry, Trump says what every 'average person' would like to say, but no one would listen to. It's good to hear someone say I'M GOING TO FIX IT FOR YOU! Which he won't. The wealthy need voters because they are in the minority.

Chris

[bigdog]

That's a good thing. Unless you want Big Macs to cost $10.

>
>
> > > There has been
> > > NO increase to the income of the middle and lower income people for many
> > > years, but prices keep going up to keep the wealthy happy.
> >
> > Like everything else, labor costs are subject to the rule of supply and
> > demand. Jobs for which there is a high demand and low supply are paying
> > quite well, like welders for example. There is an abundant supply of
> > unskilled workers which is why those jobs don't pay well at all.
> >
>
>
> Often prices are at whatever level they can get away with,

You mean companies actually want to maximize their profite margins? That's
shocking!!!

> mainly
> through marketing, which is a method to convince people they need or want
> an item more than they thought.

You mean companies actually want to maximize their sales? That's
shocking!!!

> That is creating a demand artificially,
> and may do it for products that are in large supply or not.
>

You mean companies want to reduce inventory? That's shocking!!!

>
> > > Why do you
> > > think there is such unrest among the lower incomes? Individual states
> > > here and there have raised the minimum in their states because they know
> > > that's part of keeping the economy strong. If people don't have enough
> > > money to feed their family, the government has to do it, and that's going
> > > to weaken the economy and reduce the taxes to be collected.
> > >
> >
> > Governments choose to feed the poor. It isn't a requirement. Government
> > can't give anyone anything it doesn't first take from somebody else. If
> > you want to help the working poor, government should be drastically cut
> > along with taxes.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Governments don't decide to feed the poor. They react to the
> need for the people to ant to feed the poor. Government is only a tool
> for the people (or it's supposed to be) and does what they ant.

IOW it takes things from the rightful owners and gives it to be people two
whom it does not belong.

> Compare
> to a small community that will put together a market basket or Christmas
> present program for kids, and it makes life better for those less
> fortunate.

That's called private charity and it is voluntary. Liberals think that if
government doesn't do something it won't get done.

> But across the whole country that can't be guaranteed that it
> will happen, so the government does it across all geographic lines and
> everyone's poor are taken care of as people want they to be.

Before welfare and food stamps, people weren't starving to death. They had
to get off the asses and earn their keep. The number of people who are
truly unable to do that are quite small and could easily be taken care of
by private charities.

> If the
> people didn't care about the poor, the government wouldn't bother with
> them. They do what keeps them in their jobs.
>

The only reason government cares is because those in power want to buy
votes with their giveaway programs.

>
>
> > Up until 1900, the government spent about $500 (inflation adjusted) on
> > every person in this country. It was able to get by with no income tax.
> > Then progressivism took over. An income tax was instituted which
> > originally was only paid by the highest earners. After over a century of
> > ever growing government and ever increasing taxes, the government now
> > spends about $20,000 per person and that figure continues to climb. In
> > order for government to provide all these services it must first take
> > money from people in order to pay for it. It's like buys a gift for
> > someone and then charging it to their credit card.
> >
>
>
> If people didn't want the poor to get help from the government (their
> tool), you can be sure the government wouldn't bother with them. If the
> government stopped helping the poor, there would be a large stink raised
> and they would go back to doing it.
>

The problem is there are more people living off the government tit than
not. It isn't just welfare recipients either. Everyone has their handout.
They think if government is doling something out it's free. They are too
stupid to know they are forced to pay for those "freebies" through higher
and higher taxes. They can't figure out that if government wasn't handing
out all those goodies it wouldn't need to take as much of people's
earnings.

>
> > >
> > > All this bullshit of lowering taxes to boost the economy is a scam of
> > > the wealthy and the corporations and it only benefits the wealthy.
> >
> > Reagan did it and the economy roared for most of the 1980s and 1990s.
> >
>
>
> I have big news for you (as usual). Reagan realized that he needed
> money and did more raising of taxes than most other presidents!! Here:
>
> ""Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and
> ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him
> to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph
> Thorndike.
>
> Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax
> increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said."
>
> From: http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/
>

To his dying day Reagan said it was his biggest mistake and he was right.
It was supposed to be part of a deal in which Congress would cut spending
but of course that never happened. For every additional $1 the government
brought in, it spent and additional $1.25. Yeah, Reagan fucked up. He
trusted Tip O'Neill.

>
> And we mustn't forget the failed experiment with the "Bush tax cuts for
> the wealthy" which preceeded the largest recession since the depression.
> It had to be repealed.
>

Name one tax cut Bush enacted which only applied to the wealthy. Can't do
it? Didn't think so.

>
>
>
> > The con job is that when taxes are lowered that only the wealthy benefit.
> > Everybody who pays taxes benefits from tax cuts.
> >
>
>
> It might seem that way, and the wealthy have sold it that way for
> years, but a 5% cut may mean $100 to a poor person, and millions to a
> wealthy person.
>

It works the same way when taxes are raised. The wealthy bear the brunt of
the tax increases while it means the poor only pay slightly higher taxes.
Liberals want the wealthy to pay the lion's share of tax increases but
think tax cuts should be a fixed amount. It's another income
redistribution scheme.

> And that means that only $100 will be spent into the economy, and the
> millions will probably be invested for personal profit or start a business
> overseas so that a foreign country will get the benefit.
>

So you think the poor in other countries are less deserving than our poor.
That's another think I love about altruism. Liberals think it should stop
at the borders. If they were really concerned about people in general they
should be happy that wealth is being spread around the world. But of
course the poor in other countries don't vote in our elections so the
liberal politicians don't give a fuck about them. The liberal attitude
towards the poor in other countries is "Fuck 'em and feed 'em beans".

Did you know that anyone is the US who makes $33,000 per annum is a one
perecenter worldwide.

>
>
> > > That
> > > tax break was tired in something called 'the Bush tax breaks for the
> > > wealthy' during the Bush term.
> >
> > The tax breaks were for everybody who pays taxes.
> >
>
>
> Oh, they always say that, but look at the chart:
>
> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/the_bush_tax_cuts_in_one_chart.html
>
> $52 for the poor, and $104,000 for the wealthy. So what matters is how
> much of that cut gets spent into the economy, and the poor person will do
> it, but not the wealthy person.
>

The reason the wealthy get the greatest benefit from tax cuts is because
they are already paying most of the taxes. It's basic arithmetic. The kind
you should have learned by 4th grade. The myth that the liberals have
perpetuated is that the wealthy are some how getting a free ride. The top
1% earn 19# of the income in this country but pay 35% of the taxes. In
fact that pay more in taxes than the bottom 90% combined. They wealthy are
paying more than their fair share already.

>
>
> > > It did NOT help the economy although it
> > > was a huge tax break. The wealthy just put the benefits in the bank and
> > > smiled. When they wanted to expand something, or build something, they
> > > sent it overseas where the labor was cheaper.
> > >
> >
> > People in government never figure out that people in the private sector
> > are going to act in their own self interest. They think that when they
> > change the rules the private sector will keep doing what they were doing
> > before and the people who changed the rules will get the result they want.
> > Instead people in private sector adjust to the new rules and those rules
> > don't result in the desired outcome. The primary reason companies move
> > overseas is because US corporate tax rates are the highest in the
> > industrial world. If you want these companies to stay in the use,
> > corporate tax rates need to be lowered.
> >
>
>
>
> I have more news for you. The rules only change to benefit the wealthy
> and the corporations.

That's the myth the liberals have sold to the American people.

> They are the ones that pay in 'campaign funds' and
> get what they want from congress. That's how the banks got relieved of
> many safeguard regulations and then proceeded to gamble with the client's
> money and blow the whole economy, which incidentally they got millions of
> bonus checks for. Only when the economy tanked because of the lack of
> regulations did they let some regulation come back in. And we're still
> not as safe as we might be in that area.
>

The reason the banking system got in trouble in this country is because
Dodd-Frank pressured them into making loans to people who otherwise would
not have qualified. Many banks realized this and wanted these "assets" off
the books so they bundled them and sold the paper. Investment houses that
speculated on these toxic assets got left holding the bag when the real
estate bubble burst and real estate became worth less than the mortgages
these companies were holding. People with underwater mortgages simply
walked away from them and these companies were left holding the bag.

>
>
> > > It benefits the economy for the lower income people to have more money,
> > > because they will go out and spend it on goods and services and the
> > > economy gets a boost and the taxes pay off as a percent of the money that
> > > people are getting. Naturally, the Trumpet has announced that he wants to
> > > give a big tax break to the wealthy to boost the economy!! So the economy
> > > will lose again and the people along with it.
> > >
> >
> > I'll leave it to others to speak for Trump.
> >
>
>
> sadly, some do. They don't do their research because they like what
> they hear and never care if it's true or not. Put in "politifact trump
> lies" into Google and click on the first in the resultant list. That's
> the breakdown of what they have answered of trump's sayings. It's mostly
> lies when it's checked out.
>

I'm sure I'd get similar result's if I type in "Hillary lies".

Kind of like a snake in the grass.

> And the word was "significant" and you come out with 'her
> role was minor'. Can you read?
>

That was the word given assigned by a pro-Hillary "journalist". The Boston
Globe and been much less kind to her.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > > But most folks forget that we
> > > > > > > > > have a watchdog in Bernie Sanders, who will be watching Clinton every day,
> > > > > > > > > and will no doubt sound off if she goes too far over the line.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Oh, that'll stop her. Crazy Bernie guarding the hen house.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Crazy"? Apparently you haven't been following his successes. He has
> > > > > > > done what few politicians have done, and built a coalition of people
> > > > > > > wanting something better than the system we have currently.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I want something better than the system we have but Crazy Bernie was the
> > > > > > last guy I would choose to bring that about.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't count for much in comparison to the millions of followers
> > > > > Bernie gathered, and he plans to use them further after the election.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Use them" is a good description of the way Dems treat their constituents.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh crap. Using them for their own benefit is the reason. Think it
> > > through.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, the Dems use poor people to get themselves elected and reelected
> > while at the same time making sure the poor stay poor so that they will
> > keep electing and reelecting them.
> >
>
>
> The poor have gotten far more help from the democrats than the
> republicans, who do what the corporations tell them to do.

Then why do the poor stay poor?

> We have become
> a more civilized society because of the democrats.
>

<chuckle>. Oh wait. You were serious.

>
>
> > > > > > > He can count
> > > > > > > on millions of people to do as he asks, which includes pressuring
> > > > > > > politicians in the unmovable congress that only represents itself.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You think politicians care about Bernie's supporters. Congressman only
> > > > > > care about pleasing the voters in their district. If they represent a
> > > > > > conservative district they'll keep the coservatives happy and if they
> > > > > > represent a liberal district they'll keep the liberals happy. It's how
> > > > > > most of them get re-elected year after year. Very few of them are in
> > > > > > competitive districts.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As a piece of news, Bernie has already told his followers about voting
> > > > > in democrats over Republicans in the upcoming elections,
> > > >
> > > > Gee, why didn't anyone think of that before. <chuckle>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > See my previous comment. Politicians will be nervous when Bernie's
> > > people get involved in their elections. They are enthusiastic and raring
> > > to go. They can change an election quickly. The politicians better think
> > > twice about Bernie's people and not listen to you.
> > >
> >
> > Young people simply don't turn out on election day in large enough numbers
> > to swing elections.
> >
>
>
> Ah, tell that to Bill Clinton and Obama. They turned out in droves.

No they didn't. As a percentage of the people who actually turn out, they
remain fairly constant which much lower than the percentage of them that
are eligible to vote. I'll repeat what James Carvelle said about the youth
vote.

"Show me a candidate who depends on the youth vote, and I'll show you a
loser."

It is true that young people tend to be more liberal. The problem for the
Dems is they don't stay young. As they get older they become more
conservative. While they are young, they don't turn out to vote as much as
their older counterparts. Too busy playing Pokémon to get to the
polls.

> And Bernie can get many of them out for Hillary, which he had promised he
> will do.
>

Politicians promise lots of things they can't deliver.

That's all it is. It's going nowhere. I wish it weren't so, Voters have
been sold on the idea if they don't vote for a Republican or a Democrat
they are wasting their vote. Ross Perot drew enough votes to effect the
race between the major parties but didn't win a single state. You have to
go all the way back to 1968 to find a third party candidate who won any
states when George Wallace won 4 deep south states. Given the revolting
choices offered by the major parties, I could see Gary Johnson getting as
much as 20% of the vote but I'd be shocked if he wins any states. It's all
about the electoral college.

[Anthony Marsh]

And thanks to the richest like the Koch brothers they now have Citizen's
United.

> boss, the holy dollar, and they vote that way, meaning they kill any
> minimum wage increase when they are told. That really does benefit many
> corporations by keeping labor costs lower. Labor is the single highest
> cost for corporations, and explains why they go overseas, if they can.
> Yes, if an employee has value, they can pay them whatever they please, but
> the lowest level of worker is still needed and is getting the minimum
> wage. Raising it is costly and greed usually wins out and they have
> stopped the increase in congress.
>

Why pay fair wages when you can use slavery?

You forget another factor. Certain people get very rich feeding the poor.
We waste about 40% of our food. Some of that is on purpose. The huge
corporations don't care as long as they have sold it. If they can't sell
it, they give it away and take a tax write-off.

>
>
>> Up until 1900, the government spent about $500 (inflation adjusted) on
>> every person in this country. It was able to get by with no income tax.
>> Then progressivism took over. An income tax was instituted which
>> originally was only paid by the highest earners. After over a century of
>> ever growing government and ever increasing taxes, the government now
>> spends about $20,000 per person and that figure continues to climb. In
>> order for government to provide all these services it must first take
>> money from people in order to pay for it. It's like buys a gift for
>> someone and then charging it to their credit card.
>>
>
>
> If people didn't want the poor to get help from the government (their
> tool), you can be sure the government wouldn't bother with them. If the
> government stopped helping the poor, there would be a large stink raised
> and they would go back to doing it.
>

Many wealthy people already help the poor. Some are actually religious.

>
>
>>>
>>> All this bullshit of lowering taxes to boost the economy is a scam of
>>> the wealthy and the corporations and it only benefits the wealthy.
>>
>> Reagan did it and the economy roared for most of the 1980s and 1990s.
>>
>
>
> I have big news for you (as usual). Reagan realized that he needed
> money and did more raising of taxes than most other presidents!! Here:
>
> ""Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and
> ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him
> to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph
> Thorndike.
>
> Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax
> increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said."
>
> From: http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/
>
>
> And we mustn't forget the failed experiment with the "Bush tax cuts for
> the wealthy" which preceeded the largest recession since the depression.
> It had to be repealed.
>

Timing. He also had 2 wars going on which he didn't pay for.

>
>
>
>> The con job is that when taxes are lowered that only the wealthy benefit.
>> Everybody who pays taxes benefits from tax cuts.
>>
>
>
> It might seem that way, and the wealthy have sold it that way for
> years, but a 5% cut may mean $100 to a poor person, and millions to a
> wealthy person.
>

Where do you get your numbers? i am so poor that I don't pay any income
tax. But almost everyone has to pay sales tax.

> And that means that only $100 will be spent into the economy, and the
> millions will probably be invested for personal profit or start a business
> overseas so that a foreign country will get the benefit.
>
>
>
>>> That
>>> tax break was tired in something called 'the Bush tax breaks for the
>>> wealthy' during the Bush term.
>>
>> The tax breaks were for everybody who pays taxes.
>>
>
>
> Oh, they always say that, but look at the chart:
>
> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/the_bush_tax_cuts_in_one_chart.html
>
> $52 for the poor, and $104,000 for the wealthy. So what matters is how
> much of that cut gets spent into the economy, and the poor person will do
> it, but not the wealthy person.
>

But the poor can not buy a new yacht, the rich can.
I can't buy a car, but Jay Leno can buy 500 cars.

[Anthony Marsh]

What businesses did they run? The US Senate? The film business?
You try to bullshit your way through every argument.

> their leadership the US Economy thrived. They understood Cutting Taxes
> energized the Economy and Raising Taxes stifles the Economy. When a
> Business wants to sell more they offer discounts, to hopefully increase
> sales enough to pay for the discount or reward Customers for doing
> business with them. So discounts activate demand. Raising Taxes can
> offset this strategy and negate the positive influence of Discounts. At
> that point the Business community must raise prices to stay viable, ofter
> reducing the workforce to help pay for new taxes.
>
> President Kennedy grew up in a successful family business and understood

Grew up in? Not own. Not run.

> all of the above. His father was a very good financier and entrepreneur.

His father was a crook. That's all JFK learned about business.

> The political objective of JFK was full employment and he knew cutting

Full employment is not even possible. There will always be some
unemployment. You attack Obama for dropping unemployment down to 1.4% and
praise George Bush for raising it to 9.9%. You don't care about
employment. You only care about political purity.

> taxes was the best way to achieve that goal and spread the wealth.
> Reagan learned from JFK how to successfully stimulate and sustain growth
> in the US economy.
>

Not exactly.

>
>>> JFK understood this reality and so did Reagan. The very reason why they
>>> cut taxes to stimulate more purchasing power, which revs up the economy.
>>> With more business growth there is more demand for employees.
>> Se above. Reagan raised taxes after he got caught needing money. And
>> you can learn from the more recent 'Bush tax cuts for the wealthy' which
>> preceded the biggest recession since the depression. Here's what it did:
>> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/tax_cuts_for_the_middle-class.html
>
> Presidents Kennedy & Reagan knew what to do. I trust their judgement and

No. YOu hate JFK. That's why you're here. TO defame his memory.
You like Reagan because he raised taxes.

> positive results prove they were right. If you castigate Reagan for
> closing some tax loopholes then you agree raising any taxes has a negative

What do you have against rich people actually paying their fair share?

> affect of the Economy. Hillary wants to raise taxes so based on your

Only on the super rich. You want to protect them because they pay you
more.

> arguments above I assume you are not voting for her. Good decision.
>
>>> "Every dollar released from taxation that is spared or invested will help
>>> create a new job and a new salary." President John F Kennedy
>>>
>>> " an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough
>>> jobs or enough profits." John F Kennedy
>>>
>>> As Ronald Reagan said, "A rising tide lifts all boats."
>>
>> Sayings won't pay the bills. When the wealthy get money, they often
>> invest it for their own profit in stocks, etc.
>
> Which stimulates the Stock Market where most retirement funds earn their
> money.

Where retirement funds are stolen by Wall Street criminals.

>
>> If they use it for expanding business, they do it overseas.
>
> The US Business community is forced to compete in the World Market by US
> Government policy and agreements, therefore must take advantage of every

No.

> opportunity. If labor unions in other countries want jobs and are willing

Labor unions? WTF are you talking about? Slaves don't have labor unions.

> to outbid US unions for a lower cost of Labor, then that's part of the
> equation. Certain regions of the US understand this reality and work with
> foreign companies who want to establish manufacturing plants in the US,
> thus creating jobs for American workers.
>

Nope.

>> But if the middle and lower income people get money, they spend it (they have to)
>> on food and goods and services, which aids the economy.
>
> So they shop at Walmart and Cosco who offer a lot of low cost products
> Made in China, India, South America, and now Vietnam. This is all part of
> US Foreign Policy. Americans have the right to avoid shopping at Walmart
> and Cosco if they chose to buy American, or at least buy only Made in USA

That's what I do and even when I try to buy American, the criminals cheat.

> products at those stores. Not just them. Many food products at Grocery
> Stores are imported from foreign countries. Ever had Chilean grapes,
> Mexican beer, French wine, Irish cheese, Canadian bacon, etc.?
>

Ever heard of Farmer's Markets? You can drive out and see them in
operation.

>> The phony gimmick of the large tax break for the wealthy so they'll start
>> companies and hire people is false, it's been proven that it doesn't work.
>> Chris
>
> You look at it as "the wealthy" rather than simply an American company

Big Business. I tried to buy Al's smartphone, but Big Business would not
let him use their networks.

> hiring American workers. Therein lies your flawed thinking. You would
> rather shop at Walmart and buy imported products cheap, thus making some
> foreign company wealthy. How does that help American workers?
>

No. I refuse. Boycott Walmart.

> As one observer said, "Socialism is the Politics of Envy." It is one of
> the Seven Deadly Sins:
> Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, Pride.
>
> "Bertrand Russell said that Envy was one of the most potent causes of
> unhappiness, bringing sorrow to committers of envy whilst giving them the
> urge to inflict pain upon others."
>
> Bertrand Russell
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell
>
> No law says Americans must buy foreign made food and products, it is a choice.

Wrong. There are such laws. You must buy from the lowest bidder.

> If every American would buy USA it would help the US Economy
> tremendously, but then you would complain about all the Americans it made
> wealthy.
>

It's almost impossible, because the huge corporations cheat.
Made in America may simply mean Packaged in America.

> In every country in the world you have the right to be poor. What made
> the USA different is you have the right to be successful and wealthy.

Ok, so your history books tell you that no other country has ever been
successful and wealthy?

I always wondered where you got your kooky ideas.

> The reason why so many people want to immigrate to "the Land of
> Opportunity" where you have the right to compete and fail. If you succeed
> with better ideas then you should have the right to enjoy that success.
>
>

So, you think the US is the ONLY country that people emigrate to?

[bigdog]

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 8:01:28 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> If you’re looking for a good bureaucracy slasher, try Bill Clinton. In his eight years, the size of the executive-branch workforce dropped more than 10 percent, from 2.9 million to 2.6 million. Plus, Clinton has got a better “overcoming adversity” story than anyone was able to concoct for Reagan. Reagan’s life, like his disposition, was overwhelmingly sunny. He grew up middle-class in the Midwest, enjoyed relatively quick success in Hollywood, moved into politics, and triumphed there too. Clinton had a Southern Gothic upbringing—he famously had to stop his stepfather from beating his mother. Nothing that dramatic on Reagan’s résumé.
>

Oh stop it. Ronald Reagan's father was a drunk. You make it sound as if he
was Ward Cleaver.

[claviger]

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 7:01:28 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 9:32:11 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 10:29:32 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:00:50 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 10:53:15 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 11:32:31 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > All this bullshit of lowering taxes to boost the economy is a scam of
> > > > > the wealthy and the corporations and it only benefits the wealthy.
> > > > It worked great for President Kennedy and President Reagan! JFK was the
> > > > first President to use this "scam" and it jumpstarted the US economy. RR
> > > > did the same with even greater success in the 1980s. JFK pioneered the
> > > > concept and Reagan used it to expand the US economy.
> > > Reagan was one of the worst presidents for taxing the people, you've been
> > > suckered again!
> > > http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jun/25/gerry-connolly/rep-gerry-connolly-says-reagan-raised-taxes-during/
> >
> > Thanks for the info which proves two things: RR cut rates for a majority
> > of American taxpayers and looked for ways to close tax loopholes. The
> > vast majority of taxpayers benefitted and the economy took off in the
> > right direction.
>
> I have more news for you. The "majority of taxpayers" were not affected by
> "loopholes" which usually service the wealthy and the corporations.

Exactly! JFK and RR cut taxes for the Middle Class and RR closed
loopholes for the Rich. What's wrong with that?

> > > > The State of New York is doing an advertising campaign enticing companies
> > > > to relocate in The Empire State and receive a lower tax rate as a reward.
> > > > Basically expanding their "empire" with a strategy of lower taxes. With
> > > > expansion of more companies New York can spread the tax burden which
> > > > allows those companies to be more competitive in pricing their goods and
> > > > services.
> > > The NY tax plan is for a period of time from when a company comes to
> > > NY. After that period, they go onto the normal taxing. It's an
> > > 'introductory' gimmick.
> > So this is just a Liberal bait-and-switch gimmick? Lure in the suckers
> > then sock it to them later?
> The companies that come to NY know perfectly well that they will get larger
> taxes at some point, but it's worth it to have the breathing room offered by NY.
> Most corporations have lawyers that look at these contracts before anyone signs
> or makes a move.

New York State has a reputation for Liberal politics toward the Business
community so any company that relocates should be very cautious. Maybe
some are smart enough to game the system. Stay long enough to get the tax
breaks then relocate when the discount runs out. At that point sell to an
affiliated company who gets to recycle the tax break, then bail when that
discount runs out. Other than this kind of scheme, why would anyone trust
the State of New York with their history of Liberal attitude toward all
Business companies large and small, and high tax rates for the employees
of those companies? The aggregate of all NY State taxes must be
considered along with County Taxes as well to see if this is a good idea
for the Company and its employees, or just a pig-in-a-poke.

> > > > The truth is companies don't pay taxes, they collect taxes for the
> > > > government. If companies paid taxes they would soon go out of business.
> > > > All taxes are paid by the end user: the Consumer.
> > > Using a clever line won't change the facts. Companies collect taxes
> > > from their employees, but they also pay taxes annually or more often out
> > > of their income.
> > The only way you will ever understand the REALITY of how the US Economy
> > works is go into business for yourself. Any business entity has to pay
> > rent, utilities, salaries, furniture, computers, COGS, cost of goods &
> > services, delivery costs to customers, fuel, vehicles, repairs &
> > maintenance, utilities, insurance, lawsuits, compliance with regulations,
> > City taxes, County taxes, School District taxes, State taxes, Federal
> > excise taxes, local Sales taxes, and Federal Income taxes, if there is any
> > Income at the end of the year.
> Completely false. I worked as an independent consultant for a number of years
> and had very few of those items to deal with. But I, like all companies, claimed as
> many items of 'cost of doing business' as possible.

Oh you mean there's a Cost of Doing Business? How perceptive of you!
Since you said "completely false" how did this business client of yours
avoid rent/lease+property tax, utilities (no bathrooms or electric bill),
no furniture (desks/chairs/filing cabinets), no insurance, City Taxes,
County Taxes, School District taxes, or Federal Income Tax??? Did they
not report any Federal withholding taxes on payroll?! What kind of
company was it, a massage parlor?

Maybe a meal on wheels truck? Wail a minute! Were you advising Robert
Groden with his office on the mall (card table + folding chair) in Dealey
Plaza? He already pays no overhead to City of Dallas so he must be one of
your clients.

> > Where does this Business Entity get the money to pay all these Costs and
> > Taxes? From their clients and customers, The Consumers! The End User
> > pays for EVERYTHING. That is what the word INCOME means. Incoming
> > Revenue to pay for all these Costs of Doing Business, and Taxes are a
> > significant category of the COST of Doing Business.
> Of course, but many companies also show a net profit at the end of each year,
> and they are taxed based on that amount. what's your point?

Gosh, I thought companies were supposed to make a profit so they can grow,
hire more employees, enrich the economy, and help support the Federal
Government. Silly me.

> > If you don't believe me then give it a try. The INFLOW of Revenue must
> > exceed the OUTFLOW of Expenses+Taxes for a Company to stay alive.
> My god. Get a grip. I've been in business for many years, both independently and
> working for public and private companies as an executive. Teach your grandmother
> to suck eggs.

Is that your specialty, teaching companies how to avoid all these basic
costs of doing business and grandmothers how to suck eggs? Any of those
companies still in business or being sued by the County, State, and IRS?
At least some of the grannies are getting plenty of protein.

> > Not enough Inflows the business loses money. If Inflows equal Outflows
> > there is no Income Tax, but the business stagnates. If the Inflows exceed
> > Outflows the company can grow, expand, and hire more employees.
> > So get a grasp on this reality: INFLOWS pay for EVERYTHING.
> > Where do INFLOWS come from? The Clients, Customers, Consumers. THEY pay
> > for EVERYTHING!!!
> While that all sounds nice, companies have to be careful about raising prices
> to cover expenses or they may price their goods too high and lose income to the
> competition. You seem to have forgotten that. Competition is a factor.

Brilliant deduction. So if they don't raise prices to cover the CODB,
start losing money and go bankrupt, all these ex-employees will be looking
for jobs in competition with recent college graduates. I know of a small
company where the owner dropped employee health insurance to try and stay
in business. He thought the employees would appreciate his efforts to
keep them employed with a salary. You can imagine how that impacted
employee morale. As a result they started stealing him blind and he had
to fire all of them.

> > If Taxes go up and the Business Entity is at breakeven, they cannot absorb
> > the Tax Increase and pass it on to the Consumers. So a Tax Increase on
> > Business is really a pass through Tax Increase on Consumers. There is no
> > other way to do it and stay viable as a company.
> You seem to have forgotten yet another method used by many large corporations
> to solve your little problem. They pay off lobbyists who spread money around and fill
> up campaign fund coffers and get loopholes put into the tax code to give the company
> 'relief' from the terrible burden.

The loopholes RR tried to close?

> In some instances, subsidies are given to the company as a startup that never get
> halted, like the oil industry with their annual 4 Billion dollars subsidies.

What about the Middle Class and Medium & Small businesses? JFK and RR
made sure they got tax cuts too. The current occupant of the White House
approved a waiver for a number of corporations in the State of California
so they did not have to participate in the Affordable Health Care Act at
the request of Nancy Pelosi. They came to see her as a group to explain
they could afford to keep paying high property taxes to the State of
California or new taxes for the AHCA, but not both. They would be forced
to relocate to another state with much lower property tax to pay for the
new health care debacle that Pelosi actually said in front of a live TV
camera, "We have to pass it to find out what's in it." The Corporations
in California did find out and threatened to move. Pelosi to the rescue,
they all were exempted. The Middle & Small businesses in California were
not exempted.

> No matter how you slice it, we, the society, will pay the freight on anything we do.
> It's the nature of the universe. If you want something, you must expend some effort
> or resource to get it, or keep it. If you want air, you must expend energy in breathing it.

What a profound statement. Let's talk government mandated Minimum Wage.
Do you know the classic definition of Inflation? Your meandering response
above makes me doubt you took Economics in College. Perhaps you were an
Art Major? That's OK the world needs Art Majors, but not as a business
advisors.

The classic definition goes like this: $1.00 an hour of pay = S1.00 of
productivity. If the Hourly Wage goes to $2.00 and there is a $2.00
increase in productivity, there is no Inflation.

However, If the $2.00 hour of salary does NOT increase productivity by
$1.00 an hour, then the lost $1.00 becomes Inflation added to the Economic
Equation. Every time Wages go up with no increase in Productivity the
inflation factor continues to Inflate, which devalues the currency
resulting in a loss of buying power.

What happened in the US was continuing Inflation that made US products the
highest priced in the World Economy. Japan first took advantage of this
situation and starting selling less expensive well made cars in the USA.
China followed with all kinds of cheaper everyday products and has become
the 300 pound economic gorilla in the living room. To maintain this
advantage they also devalued their currency, which infuriated the world
community including the US. What did the US Government do about it?
They bitched and moaned but did nothing.

When the Government mandates a Minimum Wage that is called Socialism and
creates a false economy. If employees are overpaid for their economic
contribution to national productivity the only option companies have is
lay off enough workers to compensate for the economic imbalance and/or
automate to increase productivity of remaining employees.

Here is the problem Liberals don't understand. That old fashion
calculator on the desk doesn't know how to tell a lie. Must have been
invented by George Washington after the cherry tree incident.
Mathematically it will tell the truth every time. It's just a simple
little machine, not a politician. In fact politicians hate these silly
little machines that tell truth to the American people every darn time.
Maybe they should be banned from every house and office in America.

> > President Kennedy and President Reagan understood this Reality. Under
> > their leadership the US Economy thrived. They understood Cutting Taxes
> > energized the Economy and Raising Taxes stifles the Economy. When a
> > Business wants to sell more they offer discounts, to hopefully increase
> > sales enough to pay for the discount or reward Customers for doing
> > business with them. So discounts activate demand. Raising Taxes can
> > offset this strategy and negate the positive influence of Discounts. At
> > that point the Business community must raise prices to stay viable, ofter
> > reducing the workforce to help pay for new taxes.
> Here's some info on the Reagan term:
>
> "Reagan inherited a federal budget of $599 billion in revenue, $678 billion in spending, and a deficit of $79 billion. He left office with a federal budget of $909 billion in revenue, a little less than $1.1 trillion in spending, and a deficit of $155 billion."
> From:
> http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/01/ronald-reagan-policy-political-failure

Not exactly a neutral source of interpretation. One big hole in your
argument is Presidents don't have the authority to write tax law. They
can make suggestions but only Congress can do that. All tax spending must
start in the House of Representatives. Guess who RR had to deal with as
Speaker of the House? Yep, Tip O'Neal of Taxachusetts, who was fond of
saying every year "the President's budget is DOA in the House," to use an
ER analogy. So the Budget was a brawl every time and RR believed in
compromise.

The basic problem today is the US Congress is run by lunatics. Somehow
the Republicans and Democrats have crossbred merging into Republicrats &
Demopublicans. The voters clearly understand this morphing has happened
which explains the Trump/Sanders phenomenon in the Primaries.

Hopefully some of these US political parties below can come together in a
coalition one day to represent 20% of the electorate. If they do they
will become the swing party to be reckoned with and decide the election.
Tiny little Israel has an amazing 17 political parties. If they can do it
so can we. One thing that came through loud and clear is a growing number
of voters are tired of business as usual and they are in a surly mood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States#Minor_political_parties

Ronald Reagan was not a Republican. The GOP blue bloods never accepted
him. RR was a Conservative Democrat who realized his party had lurched to
left and not interested in what a Populist like him had to say. So he
took the same message over to the Republicans but they were not thrilled
with him either.

RR's message appealed to The Middle Class and Blue Collar workers who
became Reagan Democrats and voted for him with enthusiasm for two historic
terms in office. They loved the guy and all the grumbling from the GOP
and slurs from Libocrats meant nothing to his admirers. In fact they
enjoyed the frustrated pettiness of his detractors and delighted in his
calm demeanor at W H Press conferences as media lilliputians asked him
insolent questions. He brushed them off like stinkbugs at a picnic and
his fans loved it.

JFK and RR were both Irish Americans who believed in the same message:

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your
country."


Reagan's Salute To JFK | The American Spectator
http://spectator.org/56736_nuclear-option-return-founders/

> There are far more 'average people' in the lower and middle income brackets that for
> the wealthy to gat what they want, they have to get votes for their candidates. They
> have to have reasons for people to cling to the wealthy people's capes, and so we
> have the NRA and gun rights, and issue that is a joke, since no one would dare take
> away anyone's guns, and then they have the talk of folks being independent, which
> often come out as being able to pay for your own costs, which makes insurance
> companies happy.
>
> Other than the above, there are also constantly scare tactics gong on that say that
> you have much reason to be scared, and we'll make you safe. In today's environment,
> that's impossible, no matter what Trump and lackeys say. Then we have anger, when
> people know that their representatives are ignoring them and feeding themselves money
> by the bucket full at the taxpayer's expense. By jumping up and down and looking angry,
> Trump says what every 'average person' would like to say, but no one would listen to. It's
> good to hear someone say I'M GOING TO FIX IT FOR YOU! Which he won't. The wealthy
> need voters because they are in the minority.
>
> Chris

Thanks for the stream-of-consciousness walk through the Daffydil garden in
your mind. Maybe Hillary won't be so terrible. At this point the
election is hers to lose. She is utterly devoid of ethics which might not
be all bad. Like any good Liberal she is for sale to the highest bidder.

If Trump wins it will be an exciting time in American history. Can he
undo all the damage both political parties have done? Maybe he's the only
one who can. Does he really want the job or is his subconscious trying to
toss the hot potato back to Hillary?

We shall see.

[mainframetech]

You don't seem to understand. They will cost $10 whether you like it or
not. In time all money systems will inflate, it's a natural result.
prices rise and wages are supposed to rise at the same time keeping the
ratio even. But greed got into it and stopped the rise of wages, and so
you will have prices going up and no equal wage increase. In time if this
problem continues, there will be rioting in the streets over costs, and
the government will not be able to take in enough taxes to pay for itself,
which will make for more borrowing, same as it is now, until the creditors
stop lending for fear that they can't be paid back.

> >
> >
> > > > There has been
> > > > NO increase to the income of the middle and lower income people for many
> > > > years, but prices keep going up to keep the wealthy happy.
> > >
> > > Like everything else, labor costs are subject to the rule of supply and
> > > demand. Jobs for which there is a high demand and low supply are paying
> > > quite well, like welders for example. There is an abundant supply of
> > > unskilled workers which is why those jobs don't pay well at all.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Often prices are at whatever level they can get away with,
>
> You mean companies actually want to maximize their profite margins? That's
> shocking!!!
>

Just call it what it is, greed. The only thing that holds down greed
is competition, which corporations have found ways to get past. Like
price fixing, etc.

> > mainly
> > through marketing, which is a method to convince people they need or want
> > an item more than they thought.
>
> You mean companies actually want to maximize their sales? That's
> shocking!!!
>

I have no complaint with marketing, as long as people know that it's
happening. Why do you sound like we should stop the capitalist system?
The system is fine, it's the greed that's not being controlled.

> > That is creating a demand artificially,
> > and may do it for products that are in large supply or not.
> >
>
> You mean companies want to reduce inventory? That's shocking!!!
>

I said nothing about reducing inventory. Think a little.

> >
> > > > Why do you
> > > > think there is such unrest among the lower incomes? Individual states
> > > > here and there have raised the minimum in their states because they know
> > > > that's part of keeping the economy strong. If people don't have enough
> > > > money to feed their family, the government has to do it, and that's going
> > > > to weaken the economy and reduce the taxes to be collected.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Governments choose to feed the poor. It isn't a requirement. Government
> > > can't give anyone anything it doesn't first take from somebody else. If
> > > you want to help the working poor, government should be drastically cut
> > > along with taxes.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Governments don't decide to feed the poor. They react to the

> > need for the people to want to feed the poor. Government is only a tool
> > for the people (or it's supposed to be) and does what they want.

>
> IOW it takes things from the rightful owners and gives it to be people two
> whom it does not belong.
>

There are many theories about money and the distribution of it, which
theory are you espousing? If a people want to fed their starving poor,
they have that right to do just that, and if the majority wishes to do it
with money taken from those that have plenty, so be it. Haven't you heard
of 'eminent domain'? The government (really us, the people) take whatever
they need and maybe pay some amount to the owner, usually not what it was
worth. That rule has benefited the wealthy for many years.

> > Compare
> > to a small community that will put together a market basket or Christmas
> > present program for kids, and it makes life better for those less
> > fortunate.
>
> That's called private charity and it is voluntary. Liberals think that if
> government doesn't do something it won't get done.
>

There are many people, especially nowadays where you can go through
whole towns where they don't have a policy to feed the hungry. In fact,
in some areas no one has enough to feed others, and they can hardly feed
themselves. It is necessary for a country as vast as ours to have a handy
middleman that does these things that the majority of people want. Last I
heard, the majority rules here. And the government does it as ordered.
If you're unhappy with the dirty rotten liberals who are the majority,
convince the 1% to go away and buy an island and live there and make your
own rules, like "Atlas Shrugged".

> > But across the whole country that can't be guaranteed that it
> > will happen, so the government does it across all geographic lines and

> > everyone's poor are taken care of as people want them to be.

>
> Before welfare and food stamps, people weren't starving to death. They had
> to get off the asses and earn their keep. The number of people who are
> truly unable to do that are quite small and could easily be taken care of
> by private charities.
>

I've heard that phony excuse for years and the 1% need a phony excuse
to cover up that their greed wants not on penny to go to anyone but
themse3lves. I've seen poverty, and I've seen the real situations and I
know that whatever programs are out there, there are few people that are
featherbedding and living free. Most people want to earn their way, and
are embarrassed to take food stamps and welfare. However, there are
Workfare programs in many states and that cut down on the lazy folks.
You can't complain on the one hand that illegal immigrants are taking all
the jobs, and then turn around and say that many people are just too lazy
to go out and get a job.

> > If the
> > people didn't care about the poor, the government wouldn't bother with
> > them. They do what keeps them in their jobs.
> >
>
> The only reason government cares is because those in power want to buy
> votes with their giveaway programs.
>

You might want to rethink that. The only reason that politicians care
is that they have been blitzed by their constituents to do something about
the homeless and the poor and hungry. Otherwise they wouldn't bother.
They do as much as necessary to keep their jobs.

> >
> >
> > > Up until 1900, the government spent about $500 (inflation adjusted) on
> > > every person in this country. It was able to get by with no income tax.
> > > Then progressivism took over. An income tax was instituted which
> > > originally was only paid by the highest earners. After over a century of
> > > ever growing government and ever increasing taxes, the government now
> > > spends about $20,000 per person and that figure continues to climb. In
> > > order for government to provide all these services it must first take
> > > money from people in order to pay for it. It's like buys a gift for
> > > someone and then charging it to their credit card.
> > >
> >
> >
> > If people didn't want the poor to get help from the government (their
> > tool), you can be sure the government wouldn't bother with them. If the
> > government stopped helping the poor, there would be a large stink raised
> > and they would go back to doing it.
> >
>
> The problem is there are more people living off the government tit than
> not. It isn't just welfare recipients either. Everyone has their handout.
> They think if government is doling something out it's free. They are too
> stupid to know they are forced to pay for those "freebies" through higher
> and higher taxes. They can't figure out that if government wasn't handing
> out all those goodies it wouldn't need to take as much of people's
> earnings.
>

Amazing how you think you know the mind of the homeless and the poverty
stricken. You'll blame nothing on the drying up of decent paying jobs and
the minimum wage increase, and blame it on the poor working folks. When
Obama tried to get a bill passed that would repair the infrastructure, the
roads and so forth, which would put thousands to work, the Republicans
killed it, and so killed the jobs and made some more homeless people for
you to complain about.

> >
> > > >
> > > > All this bullshit of lowering taxes to boost the economy is a scam of
> > > > the wealthy and the corporations and it only benefits the wealthy.
> > >
> > > Reagan did it and the economy roared for most of the 1980s and 1990s.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I have big news for you (as usual). Reagan realized that he needed
> > money and did more raising of taxes than most other presidents!! Here:
> >
> > ""Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and
> > ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him
> > to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph
> > Thorndike.
> >
> > Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax
> > increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said."
> >
> > From: http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/
> >
>
> To his dying day Reagan said it was his biggest mistake and he was right.
> It was supposed to be part of a deal in which Congress would cut spending
> but of course that never happened. For every additional $1 the government
> brought in, it spent and additional $1.25. Yeah, Reagan fucked up. He
> trusted Tip O'Neill.
>

You expect a politician to tell you the truth when it was his own fault
when something went wrong? The Republicans used the phrase that Reagan
coined: "it doesn't matter, it's only the deficit".

> >
> > And we mustn't forget the failed experiment with the "Bush tax cuts for
> > the wealthy" which preceeded the largest recession since the depression.
> > It had to be repealed.
> >
>
> Name one tax cut Bush enacted which only applied to the wealthy. Can't do
> it? Didn't think so.
>

I didn't ay there was one\, however the 'Bush tax cuts for the wealthy'
wee mainly for the wealthy, who were the real beneficiaries. I repeat the
chart that shows the Bush tax cuts and their effect on people:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/08/GR2010081106717-thumb-454x592-23659.gif

The Republican side of the chart is what Bush put into effect. Note
the effect on the lower income person vs. the wealthy.

> >
> >
> >
> > > The con job is that when taxes are lowered that only the wealthy benefit.
> > > Everybody who pays taxes benefits from tax cuts.
> > >
> >
> >
> > It might seem that way, and the wealthy have sold it that way for
> > years, but a 5% cut may mean $100 to a poor person, and millions to a
> > wealthy person.
> >
>
> It works the same way when taxes are raised. The wealthy bear the brunt of
> the tax increases while it means the poor only pay slightly higher taxes.
> Liberals want the wealthy to pay the lion's share of tax increases but
> think tax cuts should be a fixed amount. It's another income
> redistribution scheme.
>

Again you forget that a loss of a million dollars to a wealthy person
means almost nothing as relates to their survival, and even their ability
to have fun. But to a low or middle income person, the loss of $10,000
may mean the family doesn't eat right for months or similar direct losses.

> > And that means that only $100 will be spent into the economy, and the
> > millions will probably be invested for personal profit or start a business
> > overseas so that a foreign country will get the benefit.
> >
>
> So you think the poor in other countries are less deserving than our poor.
> That's another think I love about altruism. Liberals think it should stop
> at the borders. If they were really concerned about people in general they
> should be happy that wealth is being spread around the world. But of
> course the poor in other countries don't vote in our elections so the
> liberal politicians don't give a fuck about them. The liberal attitude
> towards the poor in other countries is "Fuck 'em and feed 'em beans".
>

You're getting ridiculous again. Get a grip. Poor and hungry people
everywhere need food and our Earth can produce enough for everyone many
times over right now. Greed of course, keeps that from becoming a
reality. And your silly comment is ignored since I feel as I've just
said. But the money being spent around the world by the Wealthy Americans
is not going to fed the hungry, it's going to those that run the overseas
companies and are themselves part of the 1% or heading that way. The
American Wealthy don't think for one moment about the starving in India,
they think like you. 'If you're starving, get a job and don't bother me'.

Enough. I've dealt out enough wisdom that will be ignored.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

That is not true. You are engaging in class warfare.

> you should have learned by 4th grade. The myth that the liberals have
> perpetuated is that the wealthy are some how getting a free ride. The top

The rich ar getting breaks and not paying their taxes. Like Donald
Trump. Crooks.

> 1% earn 19# of the income in this country but pay 35% of the taxes. In
> fact that pay more in taxes than the bottom 90% combined. They wealthy are
> paying more than their fair share already.
>

so you want to go back to the 91% tax rate.

[claviger]

http://spectator.org/56713_reagans-salute-jfk/

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 11:13:34 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 7:01:28 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 9:32:11 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 10:29:32 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:00:50 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 10:53:15 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 11:32:31 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All this bullshit of lowering taxes to boost the economy is a scam of
> > > > > > the wealthy and the corporations and it only benefits the wealthy.
> > > > > It worked great for President Kennedy and President Reagan! JFK was the
> > > > > first President to use this "scam" and it jumpstarted the US economy. RR
> > > > > did the same with even greater success in the 1980s. JFK pioneered the
> > > > > concept and Reagan used it to expand the US economy.
> > > > Reagan was one of the worst presidents for taxing the people, you've been
> > > > suckered again!
> > > > http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jun/25/gerry-connolly/rep-gerry-connolly-says-reagan-raised-taxes-during/
> > >
> > > Thanks for the info which proves two things: RR cut rates for a majority
> > > of American taxpayers and looked for ways to close tax loopholes. The
> > > vast majority of taxpayers benefitted and the economy took off in the
> > > right direction.
> >
> > I have more news for you. The "majority of taxpayers" were not affected by
> > "loopholes" which usually service the wealthy and the corporations.
>
> Exactly! JFK and RR cut taxes for the Middle Class and RR closed
> loopholes for the Rich. What's wrong with that?
>

It won't help you to keep trying to relate Reagan to Clinton.
Clinton left office with a balanced budget and no deficit, which was not
the case for Reagan the 'big spender'.

"The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that
Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly
claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively
on upper-income taxpayers."

That sounds like an ego statement. As if you were the sole owner of
the truth and were teaching everyone. Try toning it down a little and
realize that others here also are aware of many things including the wrong
use of some words.

> > > > > The truth is companies don't pay taxes, they collect taxes for the
> > > > > government. If companies paid taxes they would soon go out of business.
> > > > > All taxes are paid by the end user: the Consumer.
> > > > Using a clever line won't change the facts. Companies collect taxes
> > > > from their employees, but they also pay taxes annually or more often out
> > > > of their income.
> > > The only way you will ever understand the REALITY of how the US Economy
> > > works is go into business for yourself. Any business entity has to pay
> > > rent, utilities, salaries, furniture, computers, COGS, cost of goods &
> > > services, delivery costs to customers, fuel, vehicles, repairs &
> > > maintenance, utilities, insurance, lawsuits, compliance with regulations,
> > > City taxes, County taxes, School District taxes, State taxes, Federal
> > > excise taxes, local Sales taxes, and Federal Income taxes, if there is any
> > > Income at the end of the year.
> > Completely false. I worked as an independent consultant for a number of years
> > and had very few of those items to deal with. But I, like all companies, claimed as
> > many items of 'cost of doing business' as possible.
>
> Oh you mean there's a Cost of Doing Business? How perceptive of you!
> Since you said "completely false" how did this business client of yours
> avoid rent/lease+property tax, utilities (no bathrooms or electric bill),
> no furniture (desks/chairs/filing cabinets), no insurance, City Taxes,
> County Taxes, School District taxes, or Federal Income Tax??? Did they
> not report any Federal withholding taxes on payroll?! What kind of
> company was it, a massage parlor?
>

My clients varied, but MY company didn't have most of those problems
that other companies had, since I was sole proprietor and sole owner.

> Maybe a meal on wheels truck? Wail a minute! Were you advising Robert
> Groden with his office on the mall (card table + folding chair) in Dealey
> Plaza? He already pays no overhead to City of Dallas so he must be one of
> your clients.
>

I think we're done. You just turned into Bud and OHLeeRedux, and I
don't have much time for them, since they're not really here to discuss
the JFK case, only to try to dump on others. Seeya.

Chris

[bigdog]

The free market does a good job of determining the value of labor. It's
based on supply and demand. Athletes and entertainers are paid millions
because there is a demand for their services and very few people who can
perform those services adequately. On the other hand if there are 10 jobs
available and 100 people available to fill them, the employer isn't going
to need to pay them a whole lot. All 100 might be willing to do the job at
$10 an hour. If the employer only offers to pay $5 an hour, maybe he only
5 of those people would be willing to take the job. Since the employer
needs 10 people he has to raise the pay for those jobs. Maybe at $7 10
people are willing to take the job but that doesn't allow him to much
choice as to who to hire so he offers $8 and gets 25 people interested and
he gets to choose the 10 best people from those 25 so that's the starting
wage. After a year, he is real happy with the work that 6 of those people
are doing so he raises their pay to $9 an hour because he wants them to
stay. Two of those people get offers from another company to work for $10
and hour so he had to decide if he wants to match that offer to keep those
two people. Two other people are only doing satisfactory work so they get
no raise at all. Two others are doing unsatisfactory work so he fires them
and hires two new people at $8 and hour. That's how the free market
determines the value of labor.

> In time if this
> problem continues, there will be rioting in the streets over costs, and
> the government will not be able to take in enough taxes to pay for itself,

The government can't pay for itself now. That's why we are $17 trillion in debt and rising.

> which will make for more borrowing, same as it is now, until the creditors
> stop lending for fear that they can't be paid back.
>

That is inevitable. It is only a matter of time before we become Greece.
You can only kick the can down the road so far before you reach a dead
end.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > There has been
> > > > > NO increase to the income of the middle and lower income people for many
> > > > > years, but prices keep going up to keep the wealthy happy.
> > > >
> > > > Like everything else, labor costs are subject to the rule of supply and
> > > > demand. Jobs for which there is a high demand and low supply are paying
> > > > quite well, like welders for example. There is an abundant supply of
> > > > unskilled workers which is why those jobs don't pay well at all.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Often prices are at whatever level they can get away with,
> >
> > You mean companies actually want to maximize their profite margins? That's
> > shocking!!!
> >
>
>
>
> Just call it what it is, greed. The only thing that holds down greed
> is competition, which corporations have found ways to get past. Like
> price fixing, etc.
>

So if Wendy's, Burger King, and MacDonald's all go into collusion and
decide to charge $50 for a hamburger, do you think they will sell a lot of
hamburgers?

>
>
> > > mainly
> > > through marketing, which is a method to convince people they need or want
> > > an item more than they thought.
> >
> > You mean companies actually want to maximize their sales? That's
> > shocking!!!
> >
>
>
> I have no complaint with marketing, as long as people know that it's
> happening. Why do you sound like we should stop the capitalist system?
> The system is fine, it's the greed that's not being controlled.
>

Greed doesn't need to be controlled.

>
>
> > > That is creating a demand artificially,
> > > and may do it for products that are in large supply or not.
> > >
> >
> > You mean companies want to reduce inventory? That's shocking!!!
> >
>
>
> I said nothing about reducing inventory. Think a little.
>

You said companies artificially create demand for products that are in
large supply. That means they have an inventory of these products and
creating demand is a way of reducing the inventory.

>
>
> > >
> > > > > Why do you
> > > > > think there is such unrest among the lower incomes? Individual states
> > > > > here and there have raised the minimum in their states because they know
> > > > > that's part of keeping the economy strong. If people don't have enough
> > > > > money to feed their family, the government has to do it, and that's going
> > > > > to weaken the economy and reduce the taxes to be collected.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Governments choose to feed the poor. It isn't a requirement. Government
> > > > can't give anyone anything it doesn't first take from somebody else. If
> > > > you want to help the working poor, government should be drastically cut
> > > > along with taxes.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! Governments don't decide to feed the poor. They react to the
> > > need for the people to want to feed the poor. Government is only a tool
> > > for the people (or it's supposed to be) and does what they want.
> >
> > IOW it takes things from the rightful owners and gives it to be people two
> > whom it does not belong.
> >
>
>
> There are many theories about money and the distribution of it, which
> theory are you espousing? If a people want to fed their starving poor,
> they have that right to do just that, and if the majority wishes to do it
> with money taken from those that have plenty, so be it.

Majority rules in a gang rape too but that doesn't make it right.

> Haven't you heard
> of 'eminent domain'? The government (really us, the people) take whatever
> they need and maybe pay some amount to the owner, usually not what it was
> worth. That rule has benefited the wealthy for many years.
>

Legalized theft.

>
>
> > > Compare
> > > to a small community that will put together a market basket or Christmas
> > > present program for kids, and it makes life better for those less
> > > fortunate.
> >
> > That's called private charity and it is voluntary. Liberals think that if
> > government doesn't do something it won't get done.
> >
>
>
> There are many people, especially nowadays where you can go through
> whole towns where they don't have a policy to feed the hungry. In fact,
> in some areas no one has enough to feed others, and they can hardly feed
> themselves. It is necessary for a country as vast as ours to have a handy
> middleman that does these things that the majority of people want. Last I
> heard, the majority rules here.

Yup. Just like in a gang rape.

> And the government does it as ordered.
> If you're unhappy with the dirty rotten liberals who are the majority,

Where did you get the idea liberals are a majority. They are a minority
but they have formed a coalition with cowardly conservatives who don't
have to guts to say no to all these government programs.

> convince the 1% to go away and buy an island and live there and make your
> own rules, like "Atlas Shrugged".
>

Most Americans are in the 1% worldwide.

>
>
> > > But across the whole country that can't be guaranteed that it
> > > will happen, so the government does it across all geographic lines and
> > > everyone's poor are taken care of as people want them to be.
> >
> > Before welfare and food stamps, people weren't starving to death. They had
> > to get off the asses and earn their keep. The number of people who are
> > truly unable to do that are quite small and could easily be taken care of
> > by private charities.
> >
>
>
> I've heard that phony excuse for years and the 1% need a phony excuse
> to cover up that their greed wants not on penny to go to anyone but
> themse3lves. I've seen poverty, and I've seen the real situations and I
> know that whatever programs are out there, there are few people that are
> featherbedding and living free. Most people want to earn their way, and
> are embarrassed to take food stamps and welfare.

When I was young I worked at a supermarket. I didn't see anybody come
through the checkout lines looking like they were embarrassed to be paying
with food stamps. Some of them would ask for carryout service and I would
help them load their groceries into nicer cars than I was driving.

> However, there are
> Workfare programs in many states and that cut down on the lazy folks.
> You can't complain on the one hand that illegal immigrants are taking all
> the jobs, and then turn around and say that many people are just too lazy
> to go out and get a job.
>

Who's complaining?

>
>
> > > If the
> > > people didn't care about the poor, the government wouldn't bother with
> > > them. They do what keeps them in their jobs.
> > >
> >
> > The only reason government cares is because those in power want to buy
> > votes with their giveaway programs.
> >
>
>
> You might want to rethink that. The only reason that politicians care
> is that they have been blitzed by their constituents to do something about
> the homeless and the poor and hungry. Otherwise they wouldn't bother.
> They do as much as necessary to keep their jobs.
>

Really? You think the average American is lobbying their elected officials
to spend more money on the poor? Most Americans only get fired up when
somebody wants to gore their ox.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Up until 1900, the government spent about $500 (inflation adjusted) on
> > > > every person in this country. It was able to get by with no income tax.
> > > > Then progressivism took over. An income tax was instituted which
> > > > originally was only paid by the highest earners. After over a century of
> > > > ever growing government and ever increasing taxes, the government now
> > > > spends about $20,000 per person and that figure continues to climb. In
> > > > order for government to provide all these services it must first take
> > > > money from people in order to pay for it. It's like buys a gift for
> > > > someone and then charging it to their credit card.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If people didn't want the poor to get help from the government (their
> > > tool), you can be sure the government wouldn't bother with them. If the
> > > government stopped helping the poor, there would be a large stink raised
> > > and they would go back to doing it.
> > >
> >
> > The problem is there are more people living off the government tit than
> > not. It isn't just welfare recipients either. Everyone has their handout.
> > They think if government is doling something out it's free. They are too
> > stupid to know they are forced to pay for those "freebies" through higher
> > and higher taxes. They can't figure out that if government wasn't handing
> > out all those goodies it wouldn't need to take as much of people's
> > earnings.
> >
>
>
> Amazing how you think you know the mind of the homeless and the poverty
> stricken.

I don't pretend to know what's in their minds nor do I care.

> You'll blame nothing on the drying up of decent paying jobs and
> the minimum wage increase, and blame it on the poor working folks. When
> Obama tried to get a bill passed that would repair the infrastructure, the
> roads and so forth, which would put thousands to work, the Republicans
> killed it, and so killed the jobs and made some more homeless people for
> you to complain about.
>

I don't know the particulars of the Obama bill but I'd be willing to bet
blindly that it contained a lot more than just infrastructure repair. The
US Constitution laid out the things the Federal government was empowered
to do. The rest is left up to the state and local governments.

>
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > All this bullshit of lowering taxes to boost the economy is a scam of
> > > > > the wealthy and the corporations and it only benefits the wealthy.
> > > >
> > > > Reagan did it and the economy roared for most of the 1980s and 1990s.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have big news for you (as usual). Reagan realized that he needed
> > > money and did more raising of taxes than most other presidents!! Here:
> > >
> > > ""Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and
> > > ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him
> > > to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph
> > > Thorndike.
> > >
> > > Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax
> > > increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said."
> > >
> > > From: http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/
> > >
> >
> > To his dying day Reagan said it was his biggest mistake and he was right.
> > It was supposed to be part of a deal in which Congress would cut spending
> > but of course that never happened. For every additional $1 the government
> > brought in, it spent and additional $1.25. Yeah, Reagan fucked up. He
> > trusted Tip O'Neill.
> >
>
>
> You expect a politician to tell you the truth when it was his own fault
> when something went wrong? The Republicans used the phrase that Reagan
> coined: "it doesn't matter, it's only the deficit".
>

Cite Reagan saying that.

>
>
> > >
> > > And we mustn't forget the failed experiment with the "Bush tax cuts for
> > > the wealthy" which preceeded the largest recession since the depression.
> > > It had to be repealed.
> > >
> >
> > Name one tax cut Bush enacted which only applied to the wealthy. Can't do
> > it? Didn't think so.
> >
>
>
> I didn't ay there was one\, however the 'Bush tax cuts for the wealthy'
> wee mainly for the wealthy, who were the real beneficiaries.

Because they pay most of the taxes. Of course they will get more benefit
from a tax cut.

> I repeat the
> chart that shows the Bush tax cuts and their effect on people:
>
> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/08/GR2010081106717-thumb-454x592-23659.gif
>
> The Republican side of the chart is what Bush put into effect. Note
> the effect on the lower income person vs. the wealthy.
>

When taxes are raised the wealthy bear most of the burden. It stands to
reason they should get most of the benefit from a tax cut.

>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > The con job is that when taxes are lowered that only the wealthy benefit.
> > > > Everybody who pays taxes benefits from tax cuts.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It might seem that way, and the wealthy have sold it that way for
> > > years, but a 5% cut may mean $100 to a poor person, and millions to a
> > > wealthy person.
> > >
> >
> > It works the same way when taxes are raised. The wealthy bear the brunt of
> > the tax increases while it means the poor only pay slightly higher taxes.
> > Liberals want the wealthy to pay the lion's share of tax increases but
> > think tax cuts should be a fixed amount. It's another income
> > redistribution scheme.
> >
>
>
> Again you forget that a loss of a million dollars to a wealthy person
> means almost nothing as relates to their survival, and even their ability
> to have fun.

What does survival have to do with it? You think it's OK to take something
from people just because they can survive without it?

> But to a low or middle income person, the loss of $10,000
> may mean the family doesn't eat right for months or similar direct losses.
>

When did the low or middle income people get their taxes raised by $10,000?

>
>
> > > And that means that only $100 will be spent into the economy, and the
> > > millions will probably be invested for personal profit or start a business
> > > overseas so that a foreign country will get the benefit.
> > >
> >
> > So you think the poor in other countries are less deserving than our poor.
> > That's another think I love about altruism. Liberals think it should stop
> > at the borders. If they were really concerned about people in general they
> > should be happy that wealth is being spread around the world. But of
> > course the poor in other countries don't vote in our elections so the
> > liberal politicians don't give a fuck about them. The liberal attitude
> > towards the poor in other countries is "Fuck 'em and feed 'em beans".
> >
>
>
> You're getting ridiculous again. Get a grip. Poor and hungry people
> everywhere need food and our Earth can produce enough for everyone many
> times over right now.

So why aren't our poor who are much better off than the poor in other
countries willing to do with less to help those people out.

> Greed of course, keeps that from becoming a
> reality.

You think out poor are greedy.

> And your silly comment is ignored since I feel as I've just
> said.

IOW you don't have an answer. You think the wealth in this country should
be distributed more equitably but if we applied that same philosophy to
the entire world, most Americans including our poor would have to do with
a lot less. But of course that isn't going to happen.

> But the money being spent around the world by the Wealthy Americans
> is not going to fed the hungry, it's going to those that run the overseas
> companies and are themselves part of the 1% or heading that way.

I would be willing to bet you are part of the 1%.

> The
> American Wealthy don't think for one moment about the starving in India,
> they think like you.

When's the last time you did something for the starving in India?

> 'If you're starving, get a job and don't bother me'.
>
> Enough. I've dealt out enough wisdom that will be ignored.
>

You are right about the second part of that statement.

[claviger]

Where did you get that idea? Socialism 101 in your freshman year? The
only successful Socialist systems in history were operated by Mussolini
and Hitler. Both the Italian model and German model were functional and
highly efficient because they had a dictator to make everyone show up for
work. If you didn't have a job they would find you one and send a truck
to pick you up. "No thanks, I feel like staying home today" is not an
option. They would physically put you on the truck and go to the most
undesirable worksite in town. That would motivate everyone to go find any
job to avoid the truck coming to your house 6 days a week. In Russia 7
days a week because they were atheist. If all the good jobs are taken too
bad, still gotta work if you want to eat. Unions were run by the central
government and strikes were not an option. There is an old saying in
Italy, "The last time the trains ever ran on time was under Mussolini."

He and Hitler put everyone to work and rebuilt their economies earning the
admiration of people around the world. It was a highly structured and
disciplined system. No competition because there was only one
corporation, The Government. Every citizen was an employee whether they
wanted to or not. In Italy and Germany socialism reached its full
economic potential.

Not so in the third experiment gone horribly wrong to the East.
Socialism was an unmitigated disaster under Lenin and Stalin. They
starved millions of Russians to get the population down to a manageable
number. Russia went from a net exporter of wheat to Europe under the
Tsar, to not being able to feed its own population under Communism.

Since the end of WWII Europe has become a laboratory for Socialist
experiments, called he EU. All of them failing in one way or another
except Germany, who keeps lending them money hoping they learned a lesson.
Not gonna happen under the current system.

The problem is two countries where Socialism actually worked produced two
Megalomaniacs who started a World War trying to enforce their preferred socialist
models on the rest of Europe.

Today the only place where Socialism has the appearance of working is
Scandinavia and Canada. Here's the problem in using "the Nordic Model".
Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland are not countries with a diverse
population. They are basically tribes, not nations. Currently they are
allowing Middle Eastern refugees into their country and building new
apartments to house them. Seems very noble and humanitarian.

Evidently they are not paying attention to the harsh realities learned
from the European experience: "No good deed goes unpunished." In
Scandinavia their world is getting ready to change and never be the same.
No longer will they be one culture and one mind, the secret of their
success until now. They won't be able "to put the genie back in the
bottle" again. Peace, tranquility, and national unity might be a thing of
the past.

Canada seems to somehow get by with what they do, but is no economic
powerhouse. In talking to Canadians I get mixed opinions about their
version of socialism. Some like it just fine and others simply tolerate
it because they were born there. Many Canadians move to South America
because its too expensive to retire in Canada. In fact Canadians started
the trend to expat communities all over the southern part of the Western
Hemisphere.

Socialism is basically a fraud. It stifles initiative and punishes risk
takers, entrepreneurs, anyone who thinks outside the box. It is a "Rob
Peter to Pay Paul" situation and always will be.

As Churchill once said: "Socialism is the politics of Envy" which sums up
the problem.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Profits are like vitamins to the economy. Taxes are like cholesterol. The Minimum Wage Law is a hybrid salary+tax imposed on the employer. The tax portion does not enhance the service nor create value in the product, but does make a significant contribution to inflation. In the case of McDonald's, BurgerKing, Wendy's, Domino's, KFC, etc, blue collar and low income people are by far the majority of their customers. They bear the burden of paying for the new Minimum Wage imposed on the employer.

If higher prices slow down consumer demand then some employees will be laid off. At that point the new MW was a pennywise/pound-foolish result for them. That doesn't count the other ways employers adjust like cheaper ingredients, that some customers notice and stop eating there as often. The collective effect of all these factors may cause a slowdown in volume requiring employees to work fewer hours. Some employees need to work overtime. That might be the first thing to go away. So there are subtle factors caused by a hike in the Minimum Wage that can end up costing employees of these franchise operations.







“Socialists regard taxation as good in itself and as tending to level our society….Everything possible is done discourage and stigmatize the inventor. The Chancellor speaks in slighting terms of profit earners….What a lot of contempt he put into it—”profit earners.” There was an old Gladstonian expression: ‘Let the money fructify in the pockets of the people.’ That is regarded as a monstrous device of a decadent capitalist system.”

This moreover puts us in mind of that dictum concerning property asserted by the Father of the American Constitution, James Madison, when he said, in the Tenth Federalist, that “the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property is the first object of government.” One might add that according to Madison, the U.S. Constitution is intended to provide equal protection to unequal abilities. This is just as surely what Abraham Lincoln meant when in 1864 he wrote to the Workingmen’s Association of New York that “Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; it is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.”

[Anthony Marsh]

No, silly. Money does not always inflate. Remember the Great Depression?
We won't get a Social Security increase next year if the Republicans win
because gas prices are so low that there is no inflation. Instead, all
that money will go directly to the Koch brothers.

> prices rise and wages are supposed to rise at the same time keeping the
> ratio even. But greed got into it and stopped the rise of wages, and so

Who said SUPPOSED TO? What are you, a Communist? Not here in the US.

> you will have prices going up and no equal wage increase. In time if this

Ever hear of a Living Wage?

> problem continues, there will be rioting in the streets over costs, and

Not US streets. Maybe Brazil when they get the bill for the Olympics.

> the government will not be able to take in enough taxes to pay for itself,
> which will make for more borrowing, same as it is now, until the creditors
> stop lending for fear that they can't be paid back.
>

Why borrow when you can just invade other countries and steal all their
stuff?

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> There has been
>>>>> NO increase to the income of the middle and lower income people for many
>>>>> years, but prices keep going up to keep the wealthy happy.
>>>>
>>>> Like everything else, labor costs are subject to the rule of supply and
>>>> demand. Jobs for which there is a high demand and low supply are paying
>>>> quite well, like welders for example. There is an abundant supply of
>>>> unskilled workers which is why those jobs don't pay well at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Often prices are at whatever level they can get away with,
>>
>> You mean companies actually want to maximize their profite margins? That's
>> shocking!!!
>>
>
>
>
> Just call it what it is, greed. The only thing that holds down greed
> is competition, which corporations have found ways to get past. Like
> price fixing, etc.
>

I think Jesus had something to say about greed. And also about taxes.
But the self-styled religious nut here who is just a Nazi forgets what
Jesus actually said.

Hillary remembers.

[Bud]

Do you expect praise for poor thinking and bad ideas?

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, Ronald Reagan was originally a Democrat.

[mainframetech]

What is wrong with you? Who the hell is talking about socialism? I'm
talking about economies which need certain things to survive and stay in
good health. One of those things is they need to keep the rise in prices
even with the rise in wages. We can talk about socialism later.

> to pick you up. "No thanks, I feel like staying home today" is not an
> option. They would physically put you on the truck and go to the most
> undesirable worksite in town. That would motivate everyone to go find any
> job to avoid the truck coming to your house 6 days a week. In Russia 7
> days a week because they were atheist. If all the good jobs are taken too
> bad, still gotta work if you want to eat. Unions were run by the central
> government and strikes were not an option. There is an old saying in
> Italy, "The last time the trains ever ran on time was under Mussolini."
>
> He and Hitler put everyone to work and rebuilt their economies earning the
> admiration of people around the world. It was a highly structured and
> disciplined system. No competition because there was only one
> corporation, The Government. Every citizen was an employee whether they
> wanted to or not. In Italy and Germany socialism reached its full
> economic potential.
>

Sounds more like a dictatorship. The sort of thing that many
Republicans want. 'Do like I say, not like I do'. Hitler and Stalin were
dictators, and though Hitler used the term national socialism, it was a
cover for a dictatorship, it was NOT socialism. In socialism the people
decided what happens with resources and labor, but Hitler and Mussolini
didn't let the people decided anything. THEY decided what happened.

[mainframetech]

Aside from being as wrong as your silly JFK tales, that's the simplest
version of the reason for wage levels I've seen with many factors just
left out.

First, the same thing applies to labor costs as to product sales. By
proper marketing, you can create a demand for an item (or a worker) that
wasn't there before. It's an artificial demand, and does not depend so
much on the supply. Second, there is a factor that occurs in politics
more than elsewhere, but it will also happen elsewhere too. The price of
a job goes up so that the person hiring can share in the employee's income
for giving that employer the job. The salary is inflated to give a bigger
benefit to the 2 colluding persons.

> > In time if this
> > problem continues, there will be rioting in the streets over costs, and
> > the government will not be able to take in enough taxes to pay for itself,
>
> The government can't pay for itself now. That's why we are $17 trillion in debt and rising.
>

See ahead where I point that out. You jumped in too quickly again.

> > which will make for more borrowing, same as it is now, until the creditors
> > stop lending for fear that they can't be paid back.
> >
>
> That is inevitable. It is only a matter of time before we become Greece.
> You can only kick the can down the road so far before you reach a dead
> end.
>

Or we could do what Lincoln and Jefferson wanted, which was to stay
away from borrowing anything because you don't let someone else make your
money for you the way the Fed does. I'm under the impression that there
are a few European investors that are making fortunes from our borrowing.
They sit on various boards held deeply down in the owners of banks and
such with names hidden.

> > > > > > There has been
> > > > > > NO increase to the income of the middle and lower income people for many
> > > > > > years, but prices keep going up to keep the wealthy happy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Like everything else, labor costs are subject to the rule of supply and
> > > > > demand. Jobs for which there is a high demand and low supply are paying
> > > > > quite well, like welders for example. There is an abundant supply of
> > > > > unskilled workers which is why those jobs don't pay well at all.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Often prices are at whatever level they can get away with,
> > >
> > > You mean companies actually want to maximize their profite margins? That's
> > > shocking!!!
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Just call it what it is, greed. The only thing that holds down greed
> > is competition, which corporations have found ways to get past. Like
> > price fixing, etc.
> >
>
> So if Wendy's, Burger King, and MacDonald's all go into collusion and
> decide to charge $50 for a hamburger, do you think they will sell a lot of
> hamburgers?
>

Only if they are the only ones in the hamburger market, though they
would be pricing themselves away from the lower income people. Take for
an example the recent buy out of a drug company where the new owner raised
the price of the drug to a fantastic level. It was the only drug for a
certain disease, AIDS I think, and so they supposedly had the patients
over a barrel, or their insurance companies. In that case the public got
on to the scam and raised hell, and all kinds of departments of government
got involved and soon the price was lowered back to a more reasonable
point.

> > > > mainly
> > > > through marketing, which is a method to convince people they need or want
> > > > an item more than they thought.
> > >
> > > You mean companies actually want to maximize their sales? That's
> > > shocking!!!
> > >
> >
> >
> > I have no complaint with marketing, as long as people know that it's
> > happening. Why do you sound like we should stop the capitalist system?
> > The system is fine, it's the greed that's not being controlled.
> >
>
> Greed doesn't need to be controlled.
>

WRONG! Greed always goes too far and those that submit to it will
begin to bend the rules, and then just plain break them, and with enough
money, cover it up for a while. The systems we work within depend on them
being equal to all. But greed makes some people go around the rules, and
then there is an unequal advantage which needs to be stopped and punished
to help avoid others going into the same mistake.

> >
> >
> > > > That is creating a demand artificially,
> > > > and may do it for products that are in large supply or not.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You mean companies want to reduce inventory? That's shocking!!!
> > >
> >
> >
> > I said nothing about reducing inventory. Think a little.
> >
>
> You said companies artificially create demand for products that are in
> large supply. That means they have an inventory of these products and
> creating demand is a way of reducing the inventory.
>

It's not necessary that a company have a large supply for them to
market their products. By creating a demand for a less available product,
the price can be raised higher.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > Why do you
> > > > > > think there is such unrest among the lower incomes? Individual states
> > > > > > here and there have raised the minimum in their states because they know
> > > > > > that's part of keeping the economy strong. If people don't have enough
> > > > > > money to feed their family, the government has to do it, and that's going
> > > > > > to weaken the economy and reduce the taxes to be collected.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Governments choose to feed the poor. It isn't a requirement. Government
> > > > > can't give anyone anything it doesn't first take from somebody else. If
> > > > > you want to help the working poor, government should be drastically cut
> > > > > along with taxes.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! Governments don't decide to feed the poor. They react to the
> > > > need for the people to want to feed the poor. Government is only a tool
> > > > for the people (or it's supposed to be) and does what they want.
> > >
> > > IOW it takes things from the rightful owners and gives it to be people two
> > > whom it does not belong.
> > >
> >
> >
> > There are many theories about money and the distribution of it, which

> > theory are you espousing? If a people want to feed their starving poor,

> > they have that right to do just that, and if the majority wishes to do it
> > with money taken from those that have plenty, so be it.
>
> Majority rules in a gang rape too but that doesn't make it right.
>

WRONG! In our society, the majority has decided that gang rape is wrong
and against the law. The society has many more people that don't agree
with rape than the few that do. Your example isn't formed properly.

> > Haven't you heard
> > of 'eminent domain'? The government (really us, the people) take whatever
> > they need and maybe pay some amount to the owner, usually not what it was
> > worth. That rule has benefited the wealthy for many years.
> >
>
> Legalized theft.
>

Yep. Whatcha gonna do about it? Get it on a referendum and get votes
to support it, then change the law. But you'll find that governments can
do whatever they want on their home territory. Although that has changed
somewhat with the UN involved. Now, some countries may get together and
attack and conquer another country doing something they don't like. At
least as far as the law in concerned. Then there are those that act
outside the law and just plain do what they want. Sooner or later, the
rest will gang up on them and straighten them out.

> > > > Compare
> > > > to a small community that will put together a market basket or Christmas
> > > > present program for kids, and it makes life better for those less
> > > > fortunate.
> > >
> > > That's called private charity and it is voluntary. Liberals think that if
> > > government doesn't do something it won't get done.
> > >
> >
> >
> > There are many people, especially nowadays where you can go through
> > whole towns where they don't have a policy to feed the hungry. In fact,
> > in some areas no one has enough to feed others, and they can hardly feed
> > themselves. It is necessary for a country as vast as ours to have a handy
> > middleman that does these things that the majority of people want. Last I
> > heard, the majority rules here.
>
> Yup. Just like in a gang rape.
>

Nope. See above. The majority is the society that has outlawed rape.
The minority are the ones trying to get away with it. You're actually
speaking of 'might makes right'. Which works in a closed society for the
bosses, but in time they will be overthrown if the majority doesn't like
the way things are going. So you're back to the majority again.

> > And the government does it as ordered.
> > If you're unhappy with the dirty rotten liberals who are the majority,
>
> Where did you get the idea liberals are a majority. They are a minority
> but they have formed a coalition with cowardly conservatives who don't
> have to guts to say no to all these government programs.
>
>
> > convince the 1% to go away and buy an island and live there and make your
> > own rules, like "Atlas Shrugged".
> >
>
> Most Americans are in the 1% worldwide.
>

Not really. You've just been sold a bill of goods by the wealthy using
the Republicans to get votes for themselves and their wealth, while
keeping as much of it as possible from being taken away. That's the base
reason for tax breaks up front when a Republican takes over a new
territory, like a governor. Then they begin tightening the belt
everywhere else to pay for the mistake.

> >
> >
> > > > But across the whole country that can't be guaranteed that it
> > > > will happen, so the government does it across all geographic lines and
> > > > everyone's poor are taken care of as people want them to be.
> > >
> > > Before welfare and food stamps, people weren't starving to death. They had
> > > to get off the asses and earn their keep. The number of people who are
> > > truly unable to do that are quite small and could easily be taken care of
> > > by private charities.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I've heard that phony excuse for years and the 1% need a phony excuse

> > to cover up that their greed wants not one penny to go to anyone but
> > themselves. I've seen poverty, and I've seen the real situations and I

> > know that whatever programs are out there, there are few people that are
> > featherbedding and living free. Most people want to earn their way, and
> > are embarrassed to take food stamps and welfare.
>
> When I was young I worked at a supermarket. I didn't see anybody come
> through the checkout lines looking like they were embarrassed to be paying
> with food stamps. Some of them would ask for carryout service and I would
> help them load their groceries into nicer cars than I was driving.
>

And so you will paint everyone with that brush, no matter that they
are honest people looking for work to pay for their families. here are 2
sisters that live near me and they both took unemployment (which is NOT
welfare) and they couldn't find work for the longest time. hey were at
the point of having to take welfare help when they both got temp
positions, and then one got a permanent job. They wanted no part of the
welfare and Medicaid that they were going to have to take. So you'll find
that there are plenty of people that want to earn their way on their own
and not be embarrassed by taking welfare.

> > However, there are
> > Workfare programs in many states and that cut down on the lazy folks.
> > You can't complain on the one hand that illegal immigrants are taking all
> > the jobs, and then turn around and say that many people are just too lazy
> > to go out and get a job.
> >
>
> Who's complaining?
>

Sounds like you are. Are you unhappy that illegal immigrants are
taking the jobs away from legitimate citizens?

> >
> >
> > > > If the
> > > > people didn't care about the poor, the government wouldn't bother with
> > > > them. They do what keeps them in their jobs.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The only reason government cares is because those in power want to buy
> > > votes with their giveaway programs.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You might want to rethink that. The only reason that politicians care
> > is that they have been blitzed by their constituents to do something about
> > the homeless and the poor and hungry. Otherwise they wouldn't bother.
> > They do as much as necessary to keep their jobs.
> >
>
> Really? You think the average American is lobbying their elected officials
> to spend more money on the poor? Most Americans only get fired up when
> somebody wants to gore their ox.
>

WRONG! I think that most people don't complain to their congress
person, knowing that it often won't help. But the congress persons know
the general attitudes and do things that fit those attitudes. Then they
go back to doing those things that make them money and influence.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Up until 1900, the government spent about $500 (inflation adjusted) on
> > > > > every person in this country. It was able to get by with no income tax.
> > > > > Then progressivism took over. An income tax was instituted which
> > > > > originally was only paid by the highest earners. After over a century of
> > > > > ever growing government and ever increasing taxes, the government now
> > > > > spends about $20,000 per person and that figure continues to climb. In
> > > > > order for government to provide all these services it must first take
> > > > > money from people in order to pay for it. It's like buys a gift for
> > > > > someone and then charging it to their credit card.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If people didn't want the poor to get help from the government (their
> > > > tool), you can be sure the government wouldn't bother with them. If the
> > > > government stopped helping the poor, there would be a large stink raised
> > > > and they would go back to doing it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The problem is there are more people living off the government tit than
> > > not. It isn't just welfare recipients either. Everyone has their handout.
> > > They think if government is doling something out it's free. They are too
> > > stupid to know they are forced to pay for those "freebies" through higher
> > > and higher taxes. They can't figure out that if government wasn't handing
> > > out all those goodies it wouldn't need to take as much of people's
> > > earnings.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Amazing how you think you know the mind of the homeless and the poverty
> > stricken.
>
> I don't pretend to know what's in their minds nor do I care.
>

Yep. I can tell that. Must be one of the 1%...:)

> > You'll blame nothing on the drying up of decent paying jobs and
> > the minimum wage increase, and blame it on the poor working folks. When
> > Obama tried to get a bill passed that would repair the infrastructure, the
> > roads and so forth, which would put thousands to work, the Republicans
> > killed it, and so killed the jobs and made some more homeless people for
> > you to complain about.
> >
>
> I don't know the particulars of the Obama bill but I'd be willing to bet
> blindly that it contained a lot more than just infrastructure repair. The
> US Constitution laid out the things the Federal government was empowered
> to do. The rest is left up to the state and local governments.
>

The Federal government was empowered to build roads and anything that
allowed for travel through the country. It was important for national
defense. But it also gave a fantastic boost to trade among the states and
that always lads to growth of the economy.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All this bullshit of lowering taxes to boost the economy is a scam of
> > > > > > the wealthy and the corporations and it only benefits the wealthy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reagan did it and the economy roared for most of the 1980s and 1990s.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have big news for you (as usual). Reagan realized that he needed
> > > > money and did more raising of taxes than most other presidents!! Here:
> > > >
> > > > ""Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and
> > > > ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him
> > > > to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph
> > > > Thorndike.
> > > >
> > > > Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax
> > > > increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said."
> > > >
> > > > From: http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/
> > > >
> > >
> > > To his dying day Reagan said it was his biggest mistake and he was right.
> > > It was supposed to be part of a deal in which Congress would cut spending
> > > but of course that never happened. For every additional $1 the government
> > > brought in, it spent and additional $1.25. Yeah, Reagan fucked up. He
> > > trusted Tip O'Neill.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You expect a politician to tell you the truth when it was his own fault
> > when something went wrong? The Republicans used the phrase that Reagan
> > coined: "it doesn't matter, it's only the deficit".
> >
>
> Cite Reagan saying that.
>

I didn't look very hard and I didn't find him saying that, but I found
that he would have said it:

""Reagan," Vice President Dick Cheney famously declared in 2002, "proved
deficits don't matter." Unless, that is, a Democrat is in the White House.
After all, while Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt and George W.
Bush doubled it again, each Republican was rewarded with a second term in
office. But as the Gallup polling data show, concern over the federal
deficit hasn't been this high since Democratic budget balancer Bill
Clinton was in office. All of which suggest the Republicans' born-again
disdain for deficits ranks among the greatest - and most successful -
political double-standards in recent memory."

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > And we mustn't forget the failed experiment with the "Bush tax cuts for
> > > > the wealthy" which preceeded the largest recession since the depression.
> > > > It had to be repealed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Name one tax cut Bush enacted which only applied to the wealthy. Can't do
> > > it? Didn't think so.
> > >
> >
> >

> > I didn't say there was one, however the 'Bush tax cuts for the wealthy'
> > were mainly for the wealthy, who were the real beneficiaries.

>
> Because they pay most of the taxes. Of course they will get more benefit
> from a tax cut.
>
> > I repeat the
> > chart that shows the Bush tax cuts and their effect on people:
> >
> > http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/08/GR2010081106717-thumb-454x592-23659.gif
> >
> > The Republican side of the chart is what Bush put into effect. Note
> > the effect on the lower income person vs. the wealthy.
> >
>
> When taxes are raised the wealthy bear most of the burden. It stands to
> reason they should get most of the benefit from a tax cut.
>

In these times, a tax cut damages the economy and doesn't help anything
but the wealthy. Therefore there should not be tax cuts for anyone at
this time.

> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The con job is that when taxes are lowered that only the wealthy benefit.
> > > > > Everybody who pays taxes benefits from tax cuts.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It might seem that way, and the wealthy have sold it that way for
> > > > years, but a 5% cut may mean $100 to a poor person, and millions to a
> > > > wealthy person.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It works the same way when taxes are raised. The wealthy bear the brunt of
> > > the tax increases while it means the poor only pay slightly higher taxes.
> > > Liberals want the wealthy to pay the lion's share of tax increases but
> > > think tax cuts should be a fixed amount. It's another income
> > > redistribution scheme.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Again you forget that a loss of a million dollars to a wealthy person
> > means almost nothing as relates to their survival, and even their ability
> > to have fun.
>
> What does survival have to do with it? You think it's OK to take something
> from people just because they can survive without it?
>

The majority can do what they want, and redistributing the wealth is
one of those things. The wealthy have often broken the rules with their
greed anyway, and they can stand it to contribute to the homeless and
hungry.

Enough for today. Seeya.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Hmm. Sounds like a Trump voter!

Chris

[Bud]

How things sound to you and reality are different once more.

[Anthony Marsh]

There's more to it than that. After WWI Hitler was out of work so he
became a spy for the Army and his assignment was to infiltrate Communist
parties and spy on them for the Army. One that he joined was called The
National Socialist German Workers' Party. He found that they were so
stupid that he could actually take it over and become their leader and
turn it into a Fascist party.

>> ???Socialists regard taxation as good in itself and as tending to level our society???.Everything possible is done discourage and stigmatize the inventor. The Chancellor speaks in slighting terms of profit earners???.What a lot of contempt he put into it??????profit earners.??? There was an old Gladstonian expression: ???Let the money fructify in the pockets of the people.??? That is regarded as a monstrous device of a decadent capitalist system.???
>>
>> This moreover puts us in mind of that dictum concerning property asserted by the Father of the American Constitution, James Madison, when he said, in the Tenth Federalist, that ???the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property is the first object of government.??? One might add that according to Madison, the U.S. Constitution is intended to provide equal protection to unequal abilities. This is just as surely what Abraham Lincoln meant when in 1864 he wrote to the Workingmen???s Association of New York that ???Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; it is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.???

[bigdog]

I tried to make it as simple as I could for you. I know how much
difficulty you have with logic.

> First, the same thing applies to labor costs as to product sales. By
> proper marketing, you can create a demand for an item (or a worker) that
> wasn't there before. It's an artificial demand, and does not depend so
> much on the supply. Second, there is a factor that occurs in politics
> more than elsewhere, but it will also happen elsewhere too. The price of
> a job goes up so that the person hiring can share in the employee's income
> for giving that employer the job. The salary is inflated to give a bigger
> benefit to the 2 colluding persons.
>

I was talking about the free market and you are talking about patronage.

>
>
> > > In time if this
> > > problem continues, there will be rioting in the streets over costs, and
> > > the government will not be able to take in enough taxes to pay for itself,
> >
> > The government can't pay for itself now. That's why we are $17 trillion in debt and rising.
> >
>
>
>
> See ahead where I point that out. You jumped in too quickly again.
>
>
>
> > > which will make for more borrowing, same as it is now, until the creditors
> > > stop lending for fear that they can't be paid back.
> > >
> >
> > That is inevitable. It is only a matter of time before we become Greece.
> > You can only kick the can down the road so far before you reach a dead
> > end.
> >
>
>
> Or we could do what Lincoln and Jefferson wanted, which was to stay
> away from borrowing anything because you don't let someone else make your
> money for you the way the Fed does.

Good luck selling that idea to your liberal friends.

> I'm under the impression that there
> are a few European investors that are making fortunes from our borrowing.
> They sit on various boards held deeply down in the owners of banks and
> such with names hidden.
>

You're under a lot of impressions. Most of them wrong.

>
>
> > > > > > > There has been
> > > > > > > NO increase to the income of the middle and lower income people for many
> > > > > > > years, but prices keep going up to keep the wealthy happy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Like everything else, labor costs are subject to the rule of supply and
> > > > > > demand. Jobs for which there is a high demand and low supply are paying
> > > > > > quite well, like welders for example. There is an abundant supply of
> > > > > > unskilled workers which is why those jobs don't pay well at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Often prices are at whatever level they can get away with,
> > > >
> > > > You mean companies actually want to maximize their profite margins? That's
> > > > shocking!!!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Just call it what it is, greed. The only thing that holds down greed
> > > is competition, which corporations have found ways to get past. Like
> > > price fixing, etc.
> > >
> >
> > So if Wendy's, Burger King, and MacDonald's all go into collusion and
> > decide to charge $50 for a hamburger, do you think they will sell a lot of
> > hamburgers?
> >
>
>
> Only if they are the only ones in the hamburger market,

No. People would just stop buying fast food hamburgers.

> though they
> would be pricing themselves away from the lower income people.

Do you think anybody is going to pay $50 for a hamburger? Maybe after four
years of Hillary, $50 hamburgers will seem like a bargain.

> Take for
> an example the recent buy out of a drug company where the new owner raised
> the price of the drug to a fantastic level. It was the only drug for a
> certain disease, AIDS I think, and so they supposedly had the patients
> over a barrel, or their insurance companies. In that case the public got
> on to the scam and raised hell, and all kinds of departments of government
> got involved and soon the price was lowered back to a more reasonable
> point.
>

Competition takes care of that sort of thing.

>
>
> > > > > mainly
> > > > > through marketing, which is a method to convince people they need or want
> > > > > an item more than they thought.
> > > >
> > > > You mean companies actually want to maximize their sales? That's
> > > > shocking!!!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have no complaint with marketing, as long as people know that it's
> > > happening. Why do you sound like we should stop the capitalist system?
> > > The system is fine, it's the greed that's not being controlled.
> > >
> >
> > Greed doesn't need to be controlled.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Greed always goes too far and those that submit to it will
> begin to bend the rules, and then just plain break them, and with enough
> money, cover it up for a while. The systems we work within depend on them
> being equal to all. But greed makes some people go around the rules, and
> then there is an unequal advantage which needs to be stopped and punished
> to help avoid others going into the same mistake.
>

You're ranting again.

>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > That is creating a demand artificially,
> > > > > and may do it for products that are in large supply or not.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You mean companies want to reduce inventory? That's shocking!!!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I said nothing about reducing inventory. Think a little.
> > >
> >
> > You said companies artificially create demand for products that are in
> > large supply. That means they have an inventory of these products and
> > creating demand is a way of reducing the inventory.
> >
>
>
> It's not necessary that a company have a large supply for them to
> market their products. By creating a demand for a less available product,
> the price can be raised higher.
>

Now you are changing the argument. Originally you were talking about
companies creating demand for products they have in large supply. Try to
stay focused.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Why do you
> > > > > > > think there is such unrest among the lower incomes? Individual states
> > > > > > > here and there have raised the minimum in their states because they know
> > > > > > > that's part of keeping the economy strong. If people don't have enough
> > > > > > > money to feed their family, the government has to do it, and that's going
> > > > > > > to weaken the economy and reduce the taxes to be collected.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Governments choose to feed the poor. It isn't a requirement. Government
> > > > > > can't give anyone anything it doesn't first take from somebody else. If
> > > > > > you want to help the working poor, government should be drastically cut
> > > > > > along with taxes.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! Governments don't decide to feed the poor. They react to the
> > > > > need for the people to want to feed the poor. Government is only a tool
> > > > > for the people (or it's supposed to be) and does what they want.
> > > >
> > > > IOW it takes things from the rightful owners and gives it to be people two
> > > > whom it does not belong.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There are many theories about money and the distribution of it, which
> > > theory are you espousing? If a people want to feed their starving poor,
> > > they have that right to do just that, and if the majority wishes to do it
> > > with money taken from those that have plenty, so be it.
> >
> > Majority rules in a gang rape too but that doesn't make it right.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! In our society, the majority has decided that gang rape is wrong
> and against the law. The society has many more people that don't agree
> with rape than the few that do. Your example isn't formed properly.
>

So if society decided gang rape isn't wrong that would make it OK?

>
>
> > > Haven't you heard
> > > of 'eminent domain'? The government (really us, the people) take whatever
> > > they need and maybe pay some amount to the owner, usually not what it was
> > > worth. That rule has benefited the wealthy for many years.
> > >
> >
> > Legalized theft.
> >
>
>
> Yep. Whatcha gonna do about it? Get it on a referendum and get votes
> to support it, then change the law. But you'll find that governments can
> do whatever they want on their home territory.

We have a Constitution which says what our government is allowed to do. Of
course they disregard it and do whatever the hell they want.

> Although that has changed
> somewhat with the UN involved. Now, some countries may get together and
> attack and conquer another country doing something they don't like. At
> least as far as the law in concerned. Then there are those that act
> outside the law and just plain do what they want. Sooner or later, the
> rest will gang up on them and straighten them out.
>

?????????????????????????????????/

>
>
> > > > > Compare
> > > > > to a small community that will put together a market basket or Christmas
> > > > > present program for kids, and it makes life better for those less
> > > > > fortunate.
> > > >
> > > > That's called private charity and it is voluntary. Liberals think that if
> > > > government doesn't do something it won't get done.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There are many people, especially nowadays where you can go through
> > > whole towns where they don't have a policy to feed the hungry. In fact,
> > > in some areas no one has enough to feed others, and they can hardly feed
> > > themselves. It is necessary for a country as vast as ours to have a handy
> > > middleman that does these things that the majority of people want. Last I
> > > heard, the majority rules here.
> >
> > Yup. Just like in a gang rape.
> >
>
>
> Nope. See above. The majority is the society that has outlawed rape.
> The minority are the ones trying to get away with it. You're actually
> speaking of 'might makes right'. Which works in a closed society for the
> bosses, but in time they will be overthrown if the majority doesn't like
> the way things are going. So you're back to the majority again.
>

We have a Constitution which guards us against the tyranny of the
majority. There are limits to what the majority is permitted to do.

>
>
> > > And the government does it as ordered.
> > > If you're unhappy with the dirty rotten liberals who are the majority,
> >
> > Where did you get the idea liberals are a majority. They are a minority
> > but they have formed a coalition with cowardly conservatives who don't
> > have to guts to say no to all these government programs.
> >
> >
> > > convince the 1% to go away and buy an island and live there and make your
> > > own rules, like "Atlas Shrugged".
> > >
> >
> > Most Americans are in the 1% worldwide.
> >
>
>
> Not really. You've just been sold a bill of goods by the wealthy using
> the Republicans to get votes for themselves and their wealth, while
> keeping as much of it as possible from being taken away. That's the base
> reason for tax breaks up front when a Republican takes over a new
> territory, like a governor. Then they begin tightening the belt
> everywhere else to pay for the mistake.

Where does the government tighten its belt?

And plenty who are happy to be living off the dole.

>
>
> > > However, there are
> > > Workfare programs in many states and that cut down on the lazy folks.
> > > You can't complain on the one hand that illegal immigrants are taking all
> > > the jobs, and then turn around and say that many people are just too lazy
> > > to go out and get a job.
> > >
> >
> > Who's complaining?
> >
>
>
> Sounds like you are. Are you unhappy that illegal immigrants are
> taking the jobs away from legitimate citizens?
>

I could give a shit.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > If the
> > > > > people didn't care about the poor, the government wouldn't bother with
> > > > > them. They do what keeps them in their jobs.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The only reason government cares is because those in power want to buy
> > > > votes with their giveaway programs.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You might want to rethink that. The only reason that politicians care
> > > is that they have been blitzed by their constituents to do something about
> > > the homeless and the poor and hungry. Otherwise they wouldn't bother.
> > > They do as much as necessary to keep their jobs.
> > >
> >
> > Really? You think the average American is lobbying their elected officials
> > to spend more money on the poor? Most Americans only get fired up when
> > somebody wants to gore their ox.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! I think that most people don't complain to their congress
> person, knowing that it often won't help. But the congress persons know
> the general attitudes and do things that fit those attitudes. Then they
> go back to doing those things that make them money and influence.
>

Congressman don't care about general attitudes. They care about attitudes
in their district.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Up until 1900, the government spent about $500 (inflation adjusted) on
> > > > > > every person in this country. It was able to get by with no income tax.
> > > > > > Then progressivism took over. An income tax was instituted which
> > > > > > originally was only paid by the highest earners. After over a century of
> > > > > > ever growing government and ever increasing taxes, the government now
> > > > > > spends about $20,000 per person and that figure continues to climb. In
> > > > > > order for government to provide all these services it must first take
> > > > > > money from people in order to pay for it. It's like buys a gift for
> > > > > > someone and then charging it to their credit card.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If people didn't want the poor to get help from the government (their
> > > > > tool), you can be sure the government wouldn't bother with them. If the
> > > > > government stopped helping the poor, there would be a large stink raised
> > > > > and they would go back to doing it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The problem is there are more people living off the government tit than
> > > > not. It isn't just welfare recipients either. Everyone has their handout.
> > > > They think if government is doling something out it's free. They are too
> > > > stupid to know they are forced to pay for those "freebies" through higher
> > > > and higher taxes. They can't figure out that if government wasn't handing
> > > > out all those goodies it wouldn't need to take as much of people's
> > > > earnings.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Amazing how you think you know the mind of the homeless and the poverty
> > > stricken.
> >
> > I don't pretend to know what's in their minds nor do I care.
> >
>
>
> Yep. I can tell that. Must be one of the 1%...:)
>

As I have already pointed out. You are probably a one percenter worldwide.

>
>
> > > You'll blame nothing on the drying up of decent paying jobs and
> > > the minimum wage increase, and blame it on the poor working folks. When
> > > Obama tried to get a bill passed that would repair the infrastructure, the
> > > roads and so forth, which would put thousands to work, the Republicans
> > > killed it, and so killed the jobs and made some more homeless people for
> > > you to complain about.
> > >
> >
> > I don't know the particulars of the Obama bill but I'd be willing to bet
> > blindly that it contained a lot more than just infrastructure repair. The
> > US Constitution laid out the things the Federal government was empowered
> > to do. The rest is left up to the state and local governments.
> >
>
>
> The Federal government was empowered to build roads and anything that
> allowed for travel through the country. It was important for national
> defense. But it also gave a fantastic boost to trade among the states and
> that always lads to growth of the economy.
>

The stimulus bill was supposed to be used to do a lot of the roadwork.
Instead most of it went to keeping jobs for Democrat constituencies like
teacher unions and other public employees. Those employees in turn paid
union dues which in turn got kicked back to the Democrat party in the form
of campaign contributions. It was nothing but a money laundering scheme
since it would have been illegal for the Democrats to simply cut a check
directly to themselves.

I asked you to cite Reagan, not Cheney.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And we mustn't forget the failed experiment with the "Bush tax cuts for
> > > > > the wealthy" which preceeded the largest recession since the depression.
> > > > > It had to be repealed.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Name one tax cut Bush enacted which only applied to the wealthy. Can't do
> > > > it? Didn't think so.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't say there was one, however the 'Bush tax cuts for the wealthy'
> > > were mainly for the wealthy, who were the real beneficiaries.
> >
> > Because they pay most of the taxes. Of course they will get more benefit
> > from a tax cut.
> >
> > > I repeat the
> > > chart that shows the Bush tax cuts and their effect on people:
> > >
> > > http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/08/GR2010081106717-thumb-454x592-23659.gif
> > >
> > > The Republican side of the chart is what Bush put into effect. Note
> > > the effect on the lower income person vs. the wealthy.
> > >
> >
> > When taxes are raised the wealthy bear most of the burden. It stands to
> > reason they should get most of the benefit from a tax cut.
> >
>
>
>
> In these times, a tax cut damages the economy and doesn't help anything
> but the wealthy. Therefore there should not be tax cuts for anyone at
> this time.

You've really drunk the Kool-Aid. Tax cuts benefit everyone who pays
taxes. Cite one tax cut that only benefited the wealthy.

>
>
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > The con job is that when taxes are lowered that only the wealthy benefit.
> > > > > > Everybody who pays taxes benefits from tax cuts.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It might seem that way, and the wealthy have sold it that way for
> > > > > years, but a 5% cut may mean $100 to a poor person, and millions to a
> > > > > wealthy person.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It works the same way when taxes are raised. The wealthy bear the brunt of
> > > > the tax increases while it means the poor only pay slightly higher taxes.
> > > > Liberals want the wealthy to pay the lion's share of tax increases but
> > > > think tax cuts should be a fixed amount. It's another income
> > > > redistribution scheme.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Again you forget that a loss of a million dollars to a wealthy person
> > > means almost nothing as relates to their survival, and even their ability
> > > to have fun.
> >
> > What does survival have to do with it? You think it's OK to take something
> > from people just because they can survive without it?
> >
>
>
> The majority can do what they want, and redistributing the wealth is
> one of those things.

Legalized theft.

> The wealthy have often broken the rules with their
> greed anyway, and they can stand it to contribute to the homeless and
> hungry.
>

If the wealthy have come buy their wealth illegally then prosecute them.

[claviger]

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 3:01:30 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 9:02:37 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>
> What is wrong with you? Who the hell is talking about socialism?

You are.

> I'm talking about economies which need certain things to survive and stay in
> good health.

Less Government in the economy and more Government in National Security
would be helpful. Less National Debt would help tremendously. Our
borders are simply imaginary lines. We pretend to be a Nation while in
reality we're backsliding to into a virtual territory in the process of
being colonized by the drug cartel.

> One of those things is they need to keep the rise in prices
> even with the rise in wages.

That is pure Socialism.

> We can talk about socialism later.

You already started the conversation with Government interference in wage
compensation that should be a function of supply & demand. There is no
Government guarantee for the Business Owner that consumers will support
the new price increases retailers will have to charge to comply with
Minimum Wage Law. To do what you suggest the Government would have to
pass another law that all customers must continue to consume a minimum
number of burgers at the local McDonalds and BurgerKing to support the
Minimum Wage increase for those employees. That's not going to happen so
the franchise owners are caught in a squeeze between higher cost of
payroll and flat or even declining demand for those bargain burgers that
aren't such a bargain any more.

Salaries are the largest component of any business Income Statement:

[ Revenue - Expenses = Profit ]

The Macro impact of a hike in Minimum Wage on the US Economy is lower Tax
Revenues to the Federal Government, an unintended consequence. Another
result can be a rise in unemployment claims. If employers are forced into
layoffs to offset new Government mandated salary increases those laid-off
employees may have no choice but to file claims. As more employers
collectively freeze hiring and/or cutbacks on staff there is no place for
those workers to get a job. Inflation further exacerbates these problems.

> > to pick you up. "No thanks, I feel like staying home today" is not an
> > option. They would physically put you on the truck and go to the most
> > undesirable worksite in town. That would motivate everyone to go find any
> > job to avoid the truck coming to your house 6 days a week. In Russia 7
> > days a week because they were atheist. If all the good jobs are taken too
> > bad, still gotta work if you want to eat. Unions were run by the central
> > government and strikes were not an option. There is an old saying in
> > Italy, "The last time the trains ever ran on time was under Mussolini."
> >
> > He and Hitler put everyone to work and rebuilt their economies earning the
> > admiration of people around the world. It was a highly structured and
> > disciplined system. No competition because there was only one
> > corporation, The Government. Every citizen was an employee whether they
> > wanted to or not. In Italy and Germany socialism reached its full
> > economic potential.
> Sounds more like a dictatorship.

Yes indeed, both quickly evolved into Socialist dictatorships. They had
to approve all major decisions for the economy, especially industrial
output and compensation for workers. The Government made Minimum Wage
decisions AND Maximum Wage decisions, either directly or indirectly.

> The sort of thing that many Republicans want. 'Do like I say, not like I do'.

I don't consider Dwight Eisenhower a dictator, in fact he was the first to
warn about influence of the military-industrial complex in Washington.
Barry Goldwater was the first true Conservative to run for President.
Until then the East Coast GOP was surprisingly Liberal and catered to the
influence of Big Corporations. Ronald Reagan came from a Middle Class
background and never lost that perspective. He was truly a Populist
President rather than traditional Republican, like George Bush who had
more of the ancien régime mentality. At no time did any Republican
President ever try to do an end-run around the US Congress with
Presidential Executive Orders on any major issues, such as immigration
reform.

> Hitler and Stalin were dictators, and though Hitler used the term national
> socialism, it was a cover for a dictatorship, it was NOT socialism.

Both Italy and Germany pioneered the concept of Socialism, where the
Government makes all decisions affecting the economic system in that
country. Socialists ignore the free market and manipulate the economy for
political motives, rather than commonsense. In fact Socialist governments
redefine what commonsense is.

Socialists especially despise the "bourgeoisie" we refer to as the Middle
Class. Called "borghese" in Italian and "bürgerlich" in German.
Russians call it "burzhuazija", often referred to as "meshchane".

The Cultural Front: Power and Culture in Revolutionary Russia
By Sheila Fitzpatrick

Meshchanstvo
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Meshchanstvo

The wealthy get onboard Socialism with no problem. The Middle Class don't
like it or trust it, the reason Stalin wiped out the Middle Class of
Russia and Poland. The fact is Socialism is and always has been
comfortable with Leftwing Dictators.

> In socialism the people decided what happens with resources and labor,

History proves that is a myth. The only time Socialism ever worked was
under Dictators. Not always a bad thing, Marshall Tito was a successful
leader who brought peace and prosperity to Yugoslavia. Spaniards now have
a better appreciation for the safety and security of the Franco
régimen. The most ambitious experimental laboratory in the history
of Socialism is the EU. All but one is a mess. Why would the US want to
go in that direction? Can't we learn from their mistakes? How dumb have
we become to get excited about a guy like Bernie Sanders? How can he
ignore all the bad news coming form the EU and Venezuela? Why would he
want to put the USA through the same ordeal?

> but Hitler and Mussolini didn't let the people decided anything.
> THEY decided what happened.

Correct. Socialists like the electoral process one time. Mussolini and
Hitler only ran in one election then declared themselves il Duce and der
Führer. Castro only stood for election one time. Fidel can claim he
saved Cuba a lot of money through the years not wasting money on
elections. So did the Ortega brothers in Nicaragua.

Hugo Chavez was a big admirer of Castro and tried to copy him in
Venezuela. He had the same attitude, "It's obvious the people love me, so
why do we need another election?!" Socialists think elections are waste
of time. They're going to be fixed anyway so why bother?

Look what Chavez+Socialism has done to Venezuela. The whole country is
now restricted to 4 hours a day of electricity usage. How do you run an
economy on that? What do the hospitals do? Crime is now rampant in
Caracas, the most beautiful city I've ever seen. Magnificent office
buildings. Empresas Polar is a world class brewery but strikes have shut
down all their facilities. What a hell of a situation, no electricity and
no beer!

Someone said Polar is considering moving to another country. I was down
there several years ago and got to see much of the landscape, from the
beautiful valley of Caracas, to the desert around Barquisimeto, to the
coast of Maracaibo. A beautiful country with beautiful people. Muy
amable! They don't deserve what's happening to them.

Hugo Chavez made too many promises he couldn't keep. Instead of enhancing
the economy to create more jobs, he broke the country with socialist
giveaway programs. Chavez failed to maintain the PDVSA refineries which
have now become a problem. Exporting oil is the biggest part of their
economy so they need to get those refineries up to speed as soon as
possible.

Venezuela is one more tragic example of Socialism run amok. Muy triste.

[Anthony Marsh]

There is no such thing as a FREE Market. I thought you were talking
about Crony capitalism. Patronage is part of that.

Or creating a demand before they even make the product and then they
can't make enough so they go out of business and the Chinese make twice
as much for half the price.

Not always.

We paid for that dole.

So, you don't know how to read graphs? You prefer Bush's 9.9%
unemployment rate to Obama's 4.75 rate.

>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All this bullshit of lowering taxes to boost the economy is a scam of
>>>>>>>> the wealthy and the corporations and it only benefits the wealthy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reagan did it and the economy roared for most of the 1980s and 1990s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have big news for you (as usual). Reagan realized that he needed
>>>>>> money and did more raising of taxes than most other presidents!! Here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ""Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and
>>>>>> ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him
>>>>>> to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph
>>>>>> Thorndike.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax
>>>>>> increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To his dying day Reagan said it was his biggest mistake and he was right.
>>>>> It was supposed to be part of a deal in which Congress would cut spending
>>>>> but of course that never happened. For every additional $1 the government
>>>>> brought in, it spent and additional $1.25. Yeah, Reagan fucked up. He
>>>>> trusted Tip O'Neill.
>>>>>

He made a secret deal with Tip and Boston got a lot of slush money for
The Big Dig.
They didn't even care where 4% of the money went which they called
waste. Thousands of pounds of steel rusting away unused.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 11:29:05 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 3:01:30 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 9:02:37 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> >
> > What is wrong with you? Who the hell is talking about socialism?
>
> You are.
>
> > I'm talking about economies which need certain things to survive and stay in
> > good health.
>
> Less Government in the economy and more Government in National Security
> would be helpful. Less National Debt would help tremendously. Our
> borders are simply imaginary lines. We pretend to be a Nation while in
> reality we're backsliding to into a virtual territory in the process of
> being colonized by the drug cartel.
>

I can se that arguing with a Republican about the damage they've done to
our economy while serving their wealthy masters won't get me anywhere.
You go ahead and spout the whole litany of reasons why there should be
Republicans on the Earth.

Chris

[claviger]

I'm not a Republican. I'm a Conservative. There's a difference. I used
to vote for conservative Democrats but they're all gone. JFK and RR were
conservative Democrats and proud of it. LBJ was to the Left of JFK and
his record proves it. If this election were not so critical I would vote
for a third party. The elected Republicans are holding hands with
Democrats under the table and the voting public knows it. That explains
the Trump phenomenon. It's a revolt against apathetic Republicans in the
US Congress.

Trump was not my first choice, Dr Ben Carson was with Carly Fiorina as VP.
If that were the Republican ticket Hillary wouldn't stand a chance.
Herman Cain would have been a Conservative Moses who would lead us out of
the economic desert we find ourselves in, but evidently he made the
mistake of imitating Bill Clinton. You only get away with sexual
harassment in the neo-Lib Democratic party, where they don't care about
things like that. Bill Clinton didn't declare a War on Women, he just
wanted to take them prisoner.