#Obama expands economic plans
4787 Dead
Obama Expands Economic Plans
Article Tools Sponsored By
By JACKIE CALMES and JEFF ZELENY
Published: October 13, 2008
TOLEDO — Senator Barack Obama on Monday expanded his economic
platform, including proposals to spur new jobs, to give Americans
penalty-free access to retirement savings to help them through the
downturn, to urge a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures and to lend
money to strapped local and state governments.
“We need to give people the breathing room they need to get back on
their feet,” Mr. Obama said in an afternoon speech here at the Sea
Gate Convention Centre before a crowd of more than 3,000 people.
Mr. Obama called on Congress to double by another $25 billion the
government loan guarantees for automakers and to temporarily eliminate
taxes on unemployment benefits.
Campaign advisers said those steps and several others could be taken
before January through current laws or by the Democratic-controlled
Congress acting in a lame-duck session.
Mr. Obama outlined his revised plan in Toledo, a struggling city that
is representative of the economic crisis and the battle for
industrial-belt swing states that could determine the winner of the
Nov. 4 election. He is spending three days in northwestern Ohio,
sequestered with an advisers to prepare for the third presidential
debate on Wednesday.
In a 30-minute address here, Mr. Obama also called on Americans to
embrace a new “ethic of responsibility.” His speech was supplemented
with visions of optimism, but conceded that tough times faced the
nation in the coming months and years.
“I won’t pretend this will be easy,” Mr. Obama said. “George Bush has
dug a deep hole for us. It’s going to take a while for us to dig our
way out. We’re going to have to set priorities as never before.”
Senator John McCain, his Republican rival, also gave an economic
speech in Virginia Beach, Va., with no new policy prescriptions,
having rejected his advisers’ options over the weekend as too
gimmicky, according to one Republican close to the campaign. He
offered a glum sense of the nation’s economic outlook, bracing people
for the challenges ahead.
“These are hard times, my friends,” Mr. McCain said. “Our economy is
in crisis. Financial markets are collapsing. Credit is drying up. Your
savings are in danger and your retirement is at risk. Jobs are
disappearing.”
While the Obama campaign billed the speech here as a major economic
address, about three-fourths of the proposals had already been
announced. But the handful of new plans were intended to highlight how
he would immediately help middle-class Americans — if not his own
political standing by reassuring voters he is on top of the crisis.
“At a time when the ups and downs of the stock market have rarely been
so unpredictable and dramatic,” Mr. Obama said, “we also need to give
families and retirees more flexibility and security when it comes to
their retirement savings.”
Mr. Obama reprimanded his audience when people started jeering at the
mention of Mr. McCain’s name, declaring: “We don’t need that. We just
need to vote.”
Mr. Obama praised Mr. McCain’s proposal to waive the rules that
penalize retiree withdrawals from 401(k)’s, saying: “I want to give
credit where credit is due.”
Before Mr. Obama spoke here, aides announced the highlights of his
speech. They did so after word had spread on Sunday evening that Mr.
McCain would not be presenting new economic proposals, as had been
suggested by some aides.
The Obama campaign was attempting to maintain its hold on the economic
message that has lifted the Democratic candidate in recent weeks.
“We have the advantage of sharing ideas that are consistent with the
ideas we have shared before,” David Axelrod, the campaign’s chief
strategist, said in an interview. New polls suggest mounting economic
anxieties among voters are fueling Mr. Obama’s growing lead in many
polls against Mr. McCain.
The main new proposals would:
— for the next two years, give businesses a $3,000 income-tax credit
for each new full-time employee they hire above the number in their
current workforce;
— allow savers with tax-favored Individual Retirement Accounts and
401(k)’s to withdraw 15 percent of those retirement savings, up to a
maximum of $10,000, without paying a tax penalty as the law currently
requires for withdrawals before age 59 and a half;
— bar financial institutions that take advantage of the Treasury’s
rescue plan from foreclosing on the mortgages of any homeowners who
are making “good-faith efforts” to make payments;
— direct the Treasury and the Federal Reserve to create a temporary
facility for loans to state and local governments, similar to the
Fed’s new arrangement to loan corporations money by buying their
commercial paper, which are the I.O.U.s that help businesses with
daily operating expenses like payrolls.
Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for Mr. McCain, criticized the Obama plan
as one that would raise taxes on Americans, which he said would have
“a devastating effect.”
“Interestingly, Barack Obama called a moratorium on foreclosures,
which is a policy he had previously labeled disastrous when it was
proposed by a political opponent,” Mr. Bounds said, referring to a
plan proposed by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. “Proving yet again
that Barack Obama’s positions on the issues are tied to elections, not
solutions for the American people.”
During his remarks here, Mr. Obama gently scolded all Americans for
“living beyond their means — from Wall Street to Washington to even
some on Main Street.” His audience of supporters applauded as he said
it was a moment in the nation’s history to pull together and
sacrifice.
“We’ve lived through an era of easy money, in which we were allowed
and even encouraged to spend without limits; to take out as many
credit cards as possible, to take out as many credit cards as
possible, to borrow instead of save,” Mr. Obama said. “Now, I know
that in an age of declining wages and skyrocketing costs, for many
folks this was not a choice but a necessity just to keep up, I
understand that.”
“But we now know how dangerous that can be,” he continued. “Once we
get past the present emergency, which requires immediate new
investments, we have to break that cycle of debt. Our long-term future
requires that we do what’s necessary to scale down our deficits, grow
wages and encourage personal savings again.”
--
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government
talking
about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.
Nothing has
changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists,
we're
talking about getting a court order before we do so"
-George W. Bush, April 20, 2004
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed, http://yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (please contribute!)
http:yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_essays
--
Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition,
as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of
innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
-- John McCain, in the Sept/Oct 2008 issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the
American Academy of Actuaries.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Brian Carey
"4787 Dead" <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:pe97f4ljf828lcssk...@4ax.com...
He's going to triple, instead of just double, taxed on the middle class.
Mitchell Holman
news:vI6dnXKrKpYsN27V...@earthlink.com:
And your alternative program for paying off all the
debts that Bush and the GOP Congress racked up is....?
"Our children are ultimately going to have to pay for it"
- GOP Senator Bill Frist, regarding the massive debts being
run up by Pres. Bush and the GOP Congress, 9/23/05
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
4787 Dead wrote:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/us/politics/14campaign.html?hp
>
> Obama Expands Economic Plans
>
> Article Tools Sponsored By
> By JACKIE CALMES and JEFF ZELENY
> Published: October 13, 2008
>
> TOLEDO — Senator Barack Obama on Monday expanded his economic
> platform, including proposals to spur new jobs, to give Americans
> penalty-free access to retirement savings to help them through the
> downturn, to urge a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures and to lend
> money to strapped local and state governments.
>
Basically more spending and more tax cuts. I think it took a genius
to come up with that.
--
Here's an idea that any state can run with if it thinks it makes
sense. How about when times are good, instead of expanding the
state's budget so much, which just makes it harder to pay for when
times get bad again, start to get ahead of the curve by saving.
Eventually you could have a quarter then half a year and then
finally an entire budget year of funds socked away drawing interest
and ready for spending. You'd know what you had and wouldn't have
to estimate. What a concept!
4787 Dead
time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )"
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>4787 Dead wrote:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/us/politics/14campaign.html?hp
>>
>> Obama Expands Economic Plans
>>
>> Article Tools Sponsored By
>> By JACKIE CALMES and JEFF ZELENY
>> Published: October 13, 2008
>>
>> TOLEDO — Senator Barack Obama on Monday expanded his economic
>> platform, including proposals to spur new jobs, to give Americans
>> penalty-free access to retirement savings to help them through the
>> downturn, to urge a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures and to lend
>> money to strapped local and state governments.
>>
>Basically more spending and more tax cuts. I think it took a genius
>to come up with that.
And jobs.
So what has McCain come up with?
Oh, right. More Bushenomics.
David Moffitt
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah
ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...
You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
"Change" is what's left in yer pocket after ya PAY FOR the "revolution"
David Moffitt
"Mitchell Holman" <Noe...@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B36A5AA...@216.196.97.131...
> "Brian Carey" <car...@mindspring.com> wrote in
> news:vI6dnXKrKpYsN27V...@earthlink.com:
>
>>
>> "4787 Dead" <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
>> news:pe97f4ljf828lcssk...@4ax.com...
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/us/politics/14campaign.html?hp
>>>
>>> Obama Expands Economic Plans
>>
>> He's going to triple, instead of just double, taxed on the middle class.
>
>
>
> And your alternative program for paying off all the
> debts that Bush and the GOP Congress racked up is....?
Line item veto to cut the pork tacked onto bills.
Phlip
>>to come up with that.
Tax cuts for the poor - going against your army of lobbyists.
Oh, Obama doesn't have one? Shame on him!
> And jobs.
>
> So what has McCain come up with?
>
> Oh, right. More Bushenomics.
I just heard a guy on the liberal CNN say Obama was way left of center, and
that McCain needed to get back to basics. He needed to announce his plan to
the voters.
I guess that's why McCain never announces his plan - it's "more loopholes
for the rich". Exactly what got us into this mess.
Phlip
> debts that Bush and the GOP Congress racked up is....?
Whenever anyone posts "tax the rich" noboby replies.
Why is this a dead-spot around here? Is it really so inconceivable we should
tax the creeps who plundered our economy?
David Moffitt
"Phlip" <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n5TIk.4817$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
How can you give a tax cut to someone who doesn't pay taxes?
>
>
Mitchell Holman
news:gd0u6i$tnf$1...@aioe.org:
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <Noe...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B36A5AA...@216.196.97.131...
>> "Brian Carey" <car...@mindspring.com> wrote in
>> news:vI6dnXKrKpYsN27V...@earthlink.com:
>>
>>>
>>> "4787 Dead" <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:pe97f4ljf828lcssk...@4ax.com...
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/us/politics/14campaign.html?hp
>>>>
>>>> Obama Expands Economic Plans
>>>
>>> He's going to triple, instead of just double, taxed on the middle class.
>>
>>
>>
>> And your alternative program for paying off all the
>> debts that Bush and the GOP Congress racked up is....?
>
> Line item veto to cut the pork tacked onto bills.
We tried that, Muffy.
The GOP-dominated Supreme Court shot it down, remember?
Sheesh......................
Mitchell Holman
news:E5TIk.4826$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:
They are still waiting for "trickle-down" economics
to trickle down to them.
Sorta like Waiting For Godot...............
Kurt Lochner
>
> Zepp quoted from:
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/us/politics/14campaign.html?hp
</excerpt follows..>
> > Obama Expands Economic Plans
> >
> > Article Tools Sponsored By
> > By JACKIE CALMES and JEFF ZELENY
> > Published: October 13, 2008
> >
> > TOLEDO — Senator Barack Obama on Monday expanded his economic
> > platform, including proposals to spur new jobs, to give Americans
> > penalty-free access to retirement savings to help them through the
> > downturn, to urge a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures and to lend
> > money to strapped local and state governments.
> >
> > “We need to give people the breathing room they need to get back on
> > their feet,” Mr. Obama said in an afternoon speech here at the Sea
> > Gate Convention Centre before a crowd of more than 3,000 people.
> >
> > Mr. Obama called on Congress to double by another $25 billion the
> > government loan guarantees for automakers and to temporarily eliminate
> > taxes on unemployment benefits.
</end excerpt>
>You say you want a revolution
Hey, it's little vapid mouthette violating copyrights again..
--Say, don't you still owe somebody $5,000.00? *>LOL!<*
David Moffitt
Cite.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mitchell Holman
How can you pay back all the money Bush borrowed
without taxing people? Specifically people who HAVE
money, i.e. the rich?
Mitchell Holman
Always happy to fill in the holes your
"faith-based" education.........
Supreme Court Deletes Line-Item Veto
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 25) -- The line-item veto
is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court decided Thursday,
ruling that Congress did not have the authority to hand
that power to the president.
The 6-3 ruling said that the Constitution gives a president
only two choices: either sign legislation or send it back to
Congress. The 1996 line-item veto law allowed the president
to pencil out specific spending items approved by the Congress.
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
4787 Dead wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:16:52 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more
> time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )"
> <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >4787 Dead wrote:
> >>
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/us/politics/14campaign.html?hp
> >>
> >> Obama Expands Economic Plans
> >>
> >> Article Tools Sponsored By
> >> By JACKIE CALMES and JEFF ZELENY
> >> Published: October 13, 2008
> >>
> >> TOLEDO — Senator Barack Obama on Monday expanded his economic
> >> platform, including proposals to spur new jobs, to give Americans
> >> penalty-free access to retirement savings to help them through the
> >> downturn, to urge a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures and to lend
> >> money to strapped local and state governments.
> >>
> >Basically more spending and more tax cuts. I think it took a genius
> >to come up with that.
>
> And jobs.
>
Oh please. Elect me and I'll give everyone 40 acres and a mule.
> So what has McCain come up with?
>
> Oh, right. More Bushenomics.
>
Really? What is wrong with "Bushenomics"? What is "Bushenomics"? Is
that like "The Bush Doctrine"? Should I know what "Bushenomics"
means? Does it mean having a credit scare?
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
Phlip wrote:
>
> >>Basically more spending and more tax cuts. I think it took a genius
> >>to come up with that.
>
> Tax cuts for the poor - going against your army of lobbyists.
>
Keep in mind that Obama is claiming he'll cut taxes by four times
more than McCain on everyone who is making $250,000 a year or less.
What sort of tax rate is he planning for those making $250,000 + $1
to afford that? I'd like to know.
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> "David Moffitt" <Dmof...@leftist-thumpers-of-america.com> wrote in
> news:gd1119$6b2$1...@aioe.org:
>
> >
> > "Phlip" <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:n5TIk.4817$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> >>>>Basically more spending and more tax cuts. I think it took a genius
> >>>>to come up with that.
> >>
> >> Tax cuts for the poor - going against your army of lobbyists.
> >>
> >> Oh, Obama doesn't have one? Shame on him!
> >>
> >>> And jobs.
> >>>
> >>> So what has McCain come up with?
> >>>
> >>> Oh, right. More Bushenomics.
> >>
> >> I just heard a guy on the liberal CNN say Obama was way left of center,
> >> and that McCain needed to get back to basics. He needed to announce his
> >> plan to the voters.
> >>
> >> I guess that's why McCain never announces his plan - it's "more
> loopholes
> >> for the rich". Exactly what got us into this mess.
> >
> > How can you give a tax cut to someone who doesn't pay taxes?
>
> How can you pay back all the money Bush borrowed
> without taxing people? Specifically people who HAVE
> money, i.e. the rich?
>
Why does Obama think that he can give tax cuts that are four times
larger to everyone making $250,000 or less? Is that going to work?
What rate on the "rich" is he going to have? What would super high
cap gains taxes do to the economy? That is what he wants to do,
isn't it?
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
Phlip wrote:
>
> > And your alternative program for paying off all the
> > debts that Bush and the GOP Congress racked up is....?
>
> Whenever anyone posts "tax the rich" noboby replies.
>
The rich already pay most of the taxes. But, of course, I'm
thinking that people making $250,000 are rich. Perhaps you think
that Obama should be funding the government since he made
$4,000,000 running for president.
> Why is this a dead-spot around here? Is it really so inconceivable we should
> tax the creeps who plundered our economy?
>
Who are these people? I see people who aren't rich buying homes
that they couldn't afford. Who was "plundering" there? I see
financial services people taking advantage, I'd agree that is
plundering. I don't see that from other industries. Do you think
that people who washing machines are "plundering"?
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
Go stand under that tree, maybe an apple will fall on your head.
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
David Moffitt wrote:
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <Noe...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B36A5AA...@216.196.97.131...
> > "Brian Carey" <car...@mindspring.com> wrote in
> > news:vI6dnXKrKpYsN27V...@earthlink.com:
> >
> >>
> >> "4787 Dead" <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
> >> news:pe97f4ljf828lcssk...@4ax.com...
> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/us/politics/14campaign.html?hp
> >>>
> >>> Obama Expands Economic Plans
> >>
> >> He's going to triple, instead of just double, taxed on the middle class.
> >
> >
> >
> > And your alternative program for paying off all the
> > debts that Bush and the GOP Congress racked up is....?
>
> Line item veto to cut the pork tacked onto bills.
>
Find some way to make it constitutional. Of course *most* of the
spending isn't discretionary so line item won't fix it.
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
He means provide proof that it was the "GOP" in the court that
opposed the line item veto. You should be able to do that by
looking up the decision for us and telling us who voted which way.
> Supreme Court Deletes Line-Item Veto
>
> WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 25) -- The line-item veto
> is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court decided Thursday,
> ruling that Congress did not have the authority to hand
> that power to the president.
>
> The 6-3 ruling said that the Constitution gives a president
> only two choices: either sign legislation or send it back to
> Congress. The 1996 line-item veto law allowed the president
> to pencil out specific spending items approved by the Congress.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/25/scotus.lineitem/
--
nys999
news:48F42CB1...@yahoo.co.uk:
>
>
> 4787 Dead wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:16:52 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more
>> time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )"
>> <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >4787 Dead wrote:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/us/politics/14campaign.html?hp
>> >>
>> >> Obama Expands Economic Plans
>> >>
>> >> Article Tools Sponsored By
>> >> By JACKIE CALMES and JEFF ZELENY
>> >> Published: October 13, 2008
>> >>
>> >> TOLEDO — Senator Barack Obama on Monday expanded his economic
>> >> platform, including proposals to spur new jobs, to give Americans
>> >> penalty-free access to retirement savings to help them through the
>> >> downturn, to urge a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures and to
>> >> lend money to strapped local and state governments.
>> >>
>> >Basically more spending and more tax cuts. I think it took a genius
>> >to come up with that.
>>
>> And jobs.
>>
> Oh please. Elect me and I'll give everyone 40 acres and a mule.
You can pull a plow? IQ-wise it probably works...
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
nys999 wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought
> the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:48F42CB1...@yahoo.co.uk:
>
> >
> >
> > 4787 Dead wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:16:52 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more
> >> time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )"
> >> <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >4787 Dead wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/us/politics/14campaign.html?hp
> >> >>
> >> >> Obama Expands Economic Plans
> >> >>
> >> >> Article Tools Sponsored By
> >> >> By JACKIE CALMES and JEFF ZELENY
> >> >> Published: October 13, 2008
> >> >>
> >> >> TOLEDO — Senator Barack Obama on Monday expanded his economic
> >> >> platform, including proposals to spur new jobs, to give Americans
> >> >> penalty-free access to retirement savings to help them through the
> >> >> downturn, to urge a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures and to
> >> >> lend money to strapped local and state governments.
> >> >>
> >> >Basically more spending and more tax cuts. I think it took a genius
> >> >to come up with that.
> >>
> >> And jobs.
> >>
> > Oh please. Elect me and I'll give everyone 40 acres and a mule.
>
> You can pull a plow? IQ-wise it probably works...
>
I doubt I can be the mule for everyone. You offering to help drag
iron implements around? I wish we were back in the days when we
could just buy gasoline.
> >> So what has McCain come up with?
> >>
> >> Oh, right. More Bushenomics.
> >>
> > Really? What is wrong with "Bushenomics"? What is "Bushenomics"? Is
> > that like "The Bush Doctrine"? Should I know what "Bushenomics"
> > means? Does it mean having a credit scare?
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
nys999
"revolution"? Ahhh, yes! The infamous "REPUBLICAN REVOLUTION". When yer
right, yer right.
Phlip
> ...people with minds that hate
David Moffitt wrote:
> "Change" is what's left in yer pocket after ya PAY FOR the "revolution"
'nuff said!
Phlip
>> And your alternative program for paying off all the
>> debts that Bush and the GOP Congress racked up is....?
>
> Line item veto to cut the pork tacked onto bills.
Who asked for the LIV historically?
Oh, yeah - Clinton! (Bill.)
Phlip
>> for the rich". Exactly what got us into this mess.
>
> How can you give a tax cut to someone who doesn't pay taxes?
Corporate welfare takes many forms.
Mitchell Holman
@yahoo.co.uk:
Just answer the question. How is the Bush Debt going
to be paid back without raising some taxes?
Mitchell Holman
the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>
>
> Phlip wrote:
>>
>> > And your alternative program for paying off all the
>> > debts that Bush and the GOP Congress racked up is....?
>>
>> Whenever anyone posts "tax the rich" noboby replies.
>>
> The rich already pay most of the taxes.
The rich didn't need any of the THREE tax cuts
that Bush and the GOP gave them. In fact the rich
were doing just fine before them.
So what ist he harm in restoring the 1994 tax
structure? You know, the one that resulted in all
those balanced budgets that conservatives hate.
Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion
Federal deficit in 1994 = 259 Billion
Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion
Federal deficit in 1996 = 174 Billion
Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion
Federal deficit in 1999 = 0 (1.9 billion SURPLUS)
Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion SURPLUS)
Federal deficit in 2001 = 32 Billion
Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion
Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion
Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion
Federal deficit in 2005 = 318 Billion
Federal deficit in 2006 = 247 Billion
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
Mitchell Holman
the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>
>
> David Moffitt wrote:
>>
>> "Mitchell Holman" <Noe...@comcast.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9B36A5AA...@216.196.97.131...
>> > "Brian Carey" <car...@mindspring.com> wrote in
>> > news:vI6dnXKrKpYsN27V...@earthlink.com:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "4787 Dead" <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:pe97f4ljf828lcssk...@4ax.com...
>> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/us/politics/14campaign.html?hp
>> >>>
>> >>> Obama Expands Economic Plans
>> >>
>> >> He's going to triple, instead of just double, taxed on the middle
>> >> class.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > And your alternative program for paying off all the
>> > debts that Bush and the GOP Congress racked up is....?
>>
>> Line item veto to cut the pork tacked onto bills.
>>
> Find some way to make it constitutional. Of course *most* of the
> spending isn't discretionary so line item won't fix it.
Maybe electing another Democrat who can draft and
submit balanced budgets to Congress will do the trick.
Lord knows we can't expect any Republicans to do that.
Clinton
Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion
Federal deficit in 1994 = 259 Billion
Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion
Federal deficit in 1996 = 174 Billion
Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion
Federal deficit in 1999 = 0 (1.9 billion SURPLUS)
Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion SURPLUS)
Bush
Mitchell Holman
gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
Are you and Muffy equally crippled in your
inability to look up answers to the questions
YOU want to know about? How did you learn anything
before Usenet came along?
4787 Dead
time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )"
>
>
>Phlip wrote:
>>
>> >>Basically more spending and more tax cuts. I think it took a genius
>> >>to come up with that.
>>
>> Tax cuts for the poor - going against your army of lobbyists.
>>
>Keep in mind that Obama is claiming he'll cut taxes by four times
>more than McCain on everyone who is making $250,000 a year or less.
>What sort of tax rate is he planning for those making $250,000 + $1
>to afford that? I'd like to know.
You're lying again, Bill. It would be four times bigger at the
$35,000 level, and the ratio closes at $250,000 progressively. Rich
pay more taxes, poor pay less.
--
Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition,
as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of
innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
-- John McCain, in the Sept/Oct 2008 issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the
American Academy of Actuaries.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
4787 Dead
He doesn't, Bill. Why don't you go read his plan so you don't look
like a fool or a liar misrepresenting it?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/758/
David Moffitt
David Moffitt
Less pork barrel spending.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
4787 Dead wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 06:24:22 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more
> time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )"
> <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Phlip wrote:
> >>
> >> >>Basically more spending and more tax cuts. I think it took a genius
> >> >>to come up with that.
> >>
> >> Tax cuts for the poor - going against your army of lobbyists.
> >>
> >Keep in mind that Obama is claiming he'll cut taxes by four times
> >more than McCain on everyone who is making $250,000 a year or less.
> >What sort of tax rate is he planning for those making $250,000 + $1
> >to afford that? I'd like to know.
>
> You're lying again, Bill.
>
I'm not lying now and I wasn't lying before, whatever that is
supposed to refer to.
> It would be four times bigger at the
> $35,000 level, and the ratio closes at $250,000 progressively. Rich
> pay more taxes, poor pay less.
>
Excuse me, but Obama would cut taxes for someone making $250,000,
would he not? Is that "poor"? But since we are asking who is lying
here:
http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/how-much-would-you-pay-taxes.html
#begin quote
October 12, 2008
How Much Would You Pay in Taxes?
Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain both say they’ll cut federal
taxes if elected. Here’s what their proposals would mean for you.
Obama McCain
If you make...
less than $19,000 $567 $21
$19,000-$37,600 $892 $118
$37,600-$66,400 $1118 $325
$66,400-$111,600 $1264 $994
$111,600-$161,000 $2135 $2584
$161,000-$227,000 $2796 $4437
#end quote
So in the above, if you make less than $19,000 a year, you'd save
$561 under Obama. But if you make $227,000 a year, you'd save
$2796. $2796 is more than $567, isn't it? So doesn't that mean that
if you make more, you get more of a tax cut than if you make less?
So your claim, "Rich pay more taxes, poor pay less", is the lie,
isn't it?
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
I don't agree that it is "Bush Debt". But in any case, one way to
pay back debt is to expand the economy and spend less such that
there is a surplus. But that can't happen until nondiscretionary
spending is addressed.
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
YOU made the claim, you prove it. I'm perfectly capable of looking
up the decision, but then I'd have to decide which jurists were
"GOP". It is better all around if you just do it.
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought
> the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:48F42DE0...@yahoo.co.uk:
>
> >
> >
> > Phlip wrote:
> >>
> >> > And your alternative program for paying off all the
> >> > debts that Bush and the GOP Congress racked up is....?
> >>
> >> Whenever anyone posts "tax the rich" noboby replies.
> >>
> > The rich already pay most of the taxes.
>
> The rich didn't need any of the THREE tax cuts
> that Bush and the GOP gave them. In fact the rich
> were doing just fine before them.
>
The rich invest. They are vital to the economy. Your hatred of the
haves is your problem. It's not good to the country.
> So what ist he harm in restoring the 1994 tax
> structure? You know, the one that resulted in all
> those balanced budgets that conservatives hate.
>
It is Conservatives who support balanced budgets, you goof.
> Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion
> Federal deficit in 1994 = 259 Billion
> Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion
> Federal deficit in 1996 = 174 Billion
> Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
> Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion
> Federal deficit in 1999 = 0 (1.9 billion SURPLUS)
> Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion SURPLUS)
> Federal deficit in 2001 = 32 Billion
> Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion
> Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion
> Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion
> Federal deficit in 2005 = 318 Billion
> Federal deficit in 2006 = 247 Billion
>
> http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
--
Mitchell Holman
Like we got when we turned the whole government
over to Republicans in 2001?
Mitchell Holman
President Bush is the first chief executive since
John Quincy Adams in the 1820s to complete a full term
without vetoing a single spending bill.
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107541,00.html
Mitchell Holman
@yahoo.co.uk:
>
>
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought
>> the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:48F42DE0...@yahoo.co.uk:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Phlip wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > And your alternative program for paying off all the
>> >> > debts that Bush and the GOP Congress racked up is....?
>> >>
>> >> Whenever anyone posts "tax the rich" noboby replies.
>> >>
>> > The rich already pay most of the taxes.
>>
>> The rich didn't need any of the THREE tax cuts
>> that Bush and the GOP gave them. In fact the rich
>> were doing just fine before them.
>>
> The rich invest.
In China, in Dubai, in European hedge funds.
> They are vital to the economy. Your hatred of the
> haves is your problem. It's not good to the country.
>
Pity the poor rich. Paris Hilton just can't
get by on the paltry millions she has, won't someone
take pity on her and give her another tax cut?
>
>
>> So what ist he harm in restoring the 1994 tax
>> structure? You know, the one that resulted in all
>> those balanced budgets that conservatives hate.
>>
> It is Conservatives who support balanced budgets, you goof.
Name the last conservative president to send
a balanced budget to Congress.
>
>
>
>> Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion
>> Federal deficit in 1994 = 259 Billion
>> Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion
>> Federal deficit in 1996 = 174 Billion
>> Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
>> Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion
>> Federal deficit in 1999 = 0 (1.9 billion SURPLUS)
>> Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion SURPLUS)
>> Federal deficit in 2001 = 32 Billion
>> Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion
>> Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion
>> Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion
>> Federal deficit in 2005 = 318 Billion
>> Federal deficit in 2006 = 247 Billion
>>
>> http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
>
"Deficits don't matter"
Dick Cheney, 2004
Mitchell Holman
the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
I just did.
And you deleted it, like the cowardly little weasel
that you are.
Here it is again, so you can delete it again, like
you do with ALL the posted proof that proves you wrong.
Supreme Court Deletes Line-Item Veto
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 25) -- The line-item veto
is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court decided Thursday,
ruling that Congress did not have the authority to hand
that power to the president.
The 6-3 ruling said that the Constitution gives a president
only two choices: either sign legislation or send it back to
Congress. The 1996 line-item veto law allowed the president
to pencil out specific spending items approved by the Congress.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/25/scotus.lineitem/
> I'm perfectly capable of looking
> up the decision, but then I'd have to decide which jurists were
> "GOP". It is better all around if you just do it.
Why, so you can delete the proof that proves you wrong, AGAIN?
Mitchell Holman
"I don't read links before deleting them."
Bill Bonde, admitting he simply deletes the proof
that proves him wrong, 7/7/08
nys999
the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
Duh??? See Clinton 1993-2001. Raised taxes, didn't cut discretionary
spending. Economy expanded. Handed Bush a susplus. You don't believe me?
Bush declared Clinton's surpluses surplus and gave 'em away to the wealthy
as tax cuts.
Empirical evidence not your forte?
nys999
the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>
>
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought
>> the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:48F42DE0...@yahoo.co.uk:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Phlip wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > And your alternative program for paying off all the
>> >> > debts that Bush and the GOP Congress racked up is....?
>> >>
>> >> Whenever anyone posts "tax the rich" noboby replies.
>> >>
>> > The rich already pay most of the taxes.
>>
>> The rich didn't need any of the THREE tax cuts
>> that Bush and the GOP gave them. In fact the rich
>> were doing just fine before them.
>>
> The rich invest. They are vital to the economy. Your hatred of the
> haves is your problem. It's not good to the country.
Duh???? The nation's output grew dramatically 1942-61. Tax rates on high
incomes was over 90%. Explain that growth. The economy grew 1962-82 after
Kennedy's reduction of top rate to around 70%. Explain that growth.
You say "THE RICH INVEST".... Care to name one business a "RICH PERSON"
has started up? The rich invest in the stock market, not in creating
businesses.
You need to grasp the difference.
David Moffitt
David Moffitt
No like the spending was for 40 years before Republicans got control. Did
you notice the pork added to the bail out by the Democrats?
David Moffitt
> "Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought
> the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:48F4E331...@yahoo.co.uk:
>
>>
>>
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>
>>> "Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought
>>> the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>>> news:48F42DE0...@yahoo.co.uk:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Phlip wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > And your alternative program for paying off all the
>>> >> > debts that Bush and the GOP Congress racked up is....?
>>> >>
>>> >> Whenever anyone posts "tax the rich" noboby replies.
>>> >>
>>> > The rich already pay most of the taxes.
>>>
>>> The rich didn't need any of the THREE tax cuts
>>> that Bush and the GOP gave them. In fact the rich
>>> were doing just fine before them.
>>>
>> The rich invest. They are vital to the economy. Your hatred of the
>> haves is your problem. It's not good to the country.
>
> Duh???? The nation's output grew dramatically 1942-61. Tax rates on high
> incomes was over 90%. Explain that growth. The economy grew 1962-82 after
> Kennedy's reduction of top rate to around 70%. Explain that growth.
>
>
> You say "THE RICH INVEST".... Care to name one business a "RICH PERSON"
> has started up?
Microsoft. Ebay. Google.
Care to name one business a "WELFARE BROOD SOW" has started up?
The rich invest in the stock market, not in creating
> businesses.
Businesses are financed by selling stock in their company you economic
idiot. ":o)
Phlip
>>> >> > debts that Bush and the GOP Congress racked up is....?
>>> >>
>>> >> Whenever anyone posts "tax the rich" noboby replies.
>>> >>
>>> > The rich already pay most of the taxes.
>>>
>>> The rich didn't need any of the THREE tax cuts
>>> that Bush and the GOP gave them. In fact the rich
>>> were doing just fine before them.
>>>
>> The rich invest. They are vital to the economy. Your hatred of the
>> haves is your problem. It's not good to the country.
Oh, and the rich people sure have a lean efficient system to invest in our
economy. So vital they are about to ruin it. Have fun standing in line at
the soup kitchen!
OneTwoThree
"David Moffitt" <Dmof...@leftist-thumpers-of-america.com> wrote in message
news:gd3pvq$q1h$1...@aioe.org...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related
like the leftbots here will accept the truth of the matter
nys999
DUH?
Microsoft: a software company. Tell me what investment is needed to write
software. Bill Gates' biggest "leg-up" was that his parents knew the
executives of IBM.
EBAY: an on-line auction. Tell me what investment is needed to set up a
website.
Google: an on-line search company. what was the initial investment needed
to start Google? keep in mind, two twenty-somethings started it. I recall
the initial reporting on Google and Yahoo, but not the inital investment
to start them up.
Mike Dell started Dell in his college dorm room.
Steve Jobs wanted a small bank loan to start Apple Computer. Couldn't get
one. But a venture capitalist saw them. If Mike Dell started in his dorm
room, how much could Jobs have needed to start Apple?
Moffitt, Buffett "invested" five billion in Goldman-Sachs, how often has a
"rich person" shelled out five billion to fund a start up? Obviously *YOU*
fail to grasp the meaning of the term "invest" as used to defend tax
breaks for the wealthy.
Perhaps you can't see the difference between "start-up" and IPO. Which
suggests you're a low-grade moron.
Yer wayyyyyy outa yer league, sonny. All you are is comic relief.
nys999
>
Oops, wanted to kinda' respond to this line (thinkin' about yer mommy
again?): one answer is JK Rawlings with her Harry Potter industry.
Rawlings was on the British dole at the time.
Another, although not quite at your "welfare brood sow" level, but close
to it:
From Wikipedia:
"...In 1969, Oakland Athletics owner Charles O. Finley introduced
"ballgirls" (young girls who would sit in foul territory near the
baselines to retrieve baseballs grounded foul by batters) to major league
baseball. Debbi was one of the first ones he hired. She was paid five
dollars an hour and would use the money to buy ingredients for what would
become her famous cookies..."
So from shagging foul balls for small change, Debbie went on to build Mrs.
Fields, the cookie maker once found in every mall across the nation.
One of the biggest problems for the typical "WELFARE BROOD SOW" like your
mommy is getting a small business loan just to have a mailing address.
Oh, and BTW, you a church-going christian there, Moffitt? I mean "WELFARE
BROOD SOW," that sounds so reichwing christian identity-ish.
As Palin's kid and her boyfriend are dropping out of school, and will
sponge off mommy and daddy Palin, does that make Bristol kinda' a "WELFARE
BROOD SOW"?? Or does she have to wait for those welfare checks to come in?
nobody
Don't look for Mitchie to condemn wasteful spending from the left.
This would require consistency which I've never seen from him. Look
for him to divert instead.
Mitchell Holman
The entire Harry Potter franchise ($4.4 BILLION in ticket
sales, more than all the Bond and Star Wars sales put together,
not to mention 400 million books sold), started by a mother on
welfare.
Mitchell Holman
Show us where spending went down when the Republicans
controlled all three branches of government.
How federal spending has climbed since 2001
4/3/2006
USA TODAY
President Bush and the Republican-led Congress have increased
spending substantially since Bush took office in 2001. In those
five years, spending has risen faster than at any time since
the Vietnam War.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-02-federal-spending-
inside_x.htm
4787 Dead
Well, there were a couple of years during the Eisenhower
administration...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>How federal spending has climbed since 2001
>4/3/2006
>USA TODAY
>
>President Bush and the Republican-led Congress have increased
>spending substantially since Bush took office in 2001. In those
>five years, spending has risen faster than at any time since
>the Vietnam War.
>
>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-02-federal-spending-
>inside_x.htm
>
>
Mitchell Holman
I can't find any time during the Eisenhower
terms where all three branches were controlled
by the GOP. His first term had GOP control of
the House and Senate for a couple of years but
the Supreme Court still had a majority of
democratic picks. IIRC.........
4787 Dead
<Noe...@comcast.com> wrote:
I didn't factor the courts in, because they don't really have any role
in spending. That's the purview of Congress and the executive, and
thus out of their jurisdiction. Separation of powers.
Of course, by today's standards, Eisenhower was a flaming liberal...
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>How federal spending has climbed since 2001
>>>4/3/2006
>>>USA TODAY
>>>
>>>President Bush and the Republican-led Congress have increased
>>>spending substantially since Bush took office in 2001. In those
>>>five years, spending has risen faster than at any time since
>>>the Vietnam War.
>>>
>>>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-02-federal-spending-
>>>inside_x.htm
>
>
>
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
How does your repeating the same thing that didn't prove your claim
the first time prove it this time? It doesn't. And how am I wrong?
I'm not. You are lying again.
>
>
> Supreme Court Deletes Line-Item Veto
>
> WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 25) -- The line-item veto
> is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court decided Thursday,
> ruling that Congress did not have the authority to hand
> that power to the president.
>
> The 6-3 ruling said that the Constitution gives a president
> only two choices: either sign legislation or send it back to
> Congress. The 1996 line-item veto law allowed the president
> to pencil out specific spending items approved by the Congress.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/25/scotus.lineitem/
>
> > I'm perfectly capable of looking
> > up the decision, but then I'd have to decide which jurists were
> > "GOP". It is better all around if you just do it.
>
> Why, so you can delete the proof that proves you wrong, AGAIN?
>
Why can't you stop lying? What is wrong with you?
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> "David Moffitt" <Dmof...@leftist-thumpers-of-america.com> wrote in
> >>
> >> Like we got when we turned the whole government
> >> over to Republicans in 2001?
> >
> > No like the spending was for 40 years before Republicans got control.
>
> Show us where spending went down when the Republicans
> controlled all three branches of government.
>
Face it, Democrats running everything means they don't have any
excuses for not doing all those wonderful things they keep
promising. Of course no excuses except that there's no money. So if
what you are really saying is that Obama is just lying, like
Clinton before him, to get elected. I'll buy that.
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
They certainly stopped the Republican Line Item Veto.
Mitchell Holman
gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>
>
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> "David Moffitt" <Dmof...@leftist-thumpers-of-america.com> wrote in
>
>
>> >>
>> >> Like we got when we turned the whole government
>> >> over to Republicans in 2001?
>> >
>> > No like the spending was for 40 years before Republicans got control.
>>
>> Show us where spending went down when the Republicans
>> controlled all three branches of government.
>>
> Face it, Democrats running everything means they don't have any
> excuses for not doing all those wonderful things they keep
> promising.
Just show us where spending went down when the Republicans
controlled all three branches of government.
> Of course no excuses except that there's no money. So if
> what you are really saying is that Obama is just lying, like
> Clinton before him, to get elected. I'll buy that.
>
Clinton diversion noted.
But since you mention it, why CAN'T Bush submit
balanced budgets to Congress the way Clinton did?
nys999
the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
I was gonna point that out too. But ya know what's really a hoot? Check
this out from Wikipedia:
"...Presidents have repeatedly asked Congress to give them a line item veto
power. According to Louis Fisher in The Politics of Shared Power, Ronald
Reagan said to Congress in his 1986 State of the Union address, "Tonight I
ask you to give me what forty-three governors have: Give me a line-item
veto this year. Give me the authority to veto waste, and I'll take the
responsibility, I'll make the cuts, I'll take the heat." Bill Clinton
echoed the request in his State of the Union address in 1995.
The President was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of
1996, passed by Congress in order to control "pork barrel spending" that
favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item
veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget by
President Bill Clinton. [3][4]
However, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan ruled on February 12,
1998, that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes
violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on
June 25, 1998, by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States
in the case Clinton v. City of New York. The case was brought by the then
New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani....."
Didja catch that name?
nys999
the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>
>
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> "David Moffitt" <Dmof...@leftist-thumpers-of-america.com> wrote in
>
>
>> >>
>> >> Like we got when we turned the whole government
>> >> over to Republicans in 2001?
>> >
>> > No like the spending was for 40 years before Republicans got control.
>>
>> Show us where spending went down when the Republicans
>> controlled all three branches of government.
>>
> Face it, Democrats running everything means they don't have any
> excuses for not doing all those wonderful things they keep
> promising. Of course no excuses except that there's no money. So if
> what you are really saying is that Obama is just lying, like
> Clinton before him, to get elected. I'll buy that.
>
Ohhh, there's money. Just kill the tax giveaways that rethugs created.
Eemember what happened to the US economy the last time a democratic
president and Congress raised taxes? Remember how the Ray-gun/Bush
deficits keep falling?
Mitchell Holman
news:Xns9B38E181C...@216.168.3.44:
So how are the rightwingers blame it all on Clinton?
nys999
Lie?
Claim Clinton dissed Rudy?
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
Obama would *cut* taxes for everyone making $250,000 or less, I'm
not sure I remember Clinton the way you do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_1997
#begin quote
The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) reduced several
federal taxes in the United States.
Subject to certain phase-in rules, the top capital gains rate fell
from 28% to 20%. The 15% bracket was lowered to 10%.
Starting in 1998, a $400 tax credit for each child under age 17 was
introduced, which was increased to $500 in 1999. This credit was
phased out for high income families.
The act exempted from taxation profits on the sale of a personal
residence of up to $500,000 for married couples filing jointly and
$250,000 for singles.
The $600,000 estate tax exemption was to increase gradually to $1
million by the year 2006.
Family farms and small businesses could qualify for an exemption of
$1.3 million, effective 1998. Starting in 1999, the $10,000 annual
gift tax exclusion was to be corrected for inflation.
The act also provided tax relief for education savings and
retirement accounts. Some expiring business tax provisions were
extended.
It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on August 5, 1997.
#end quote
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
No one blamed the Line Item Veto being struck down on Clinton.
OneTwoThree
> David Moffitt wrote:
>
>>> And your alternative program for paying off all the
>>> debts that Bush and the GOP Congress racked up is....?
>>
>> Line item veto to cut the pork tacked onto bills.
>
>
> Oh, yeah - Clinton! (Bill.)
Reagan asked for the line item veto several times while president. Just so
you know.
>
>
OneTwoThree
"Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the
news:48F630EA...@yahoo.co.uk...
Leftbot Mitch strike again..... it takes time for him to search the leftbot
blogs to find answers to questions knowledgable people ask....
.
OneTwoThree
"4787 Dead" <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:ge1cf4l52h9htssgi...@4ax.com...
and Kennedy was a flaming conservative, what with his escalations in Viet
Nam and his hard line anti communist effortss as evidenced in Cuba...
OneTwoThree
>> And your alternative program for paying off all the
>> debts that Bush and the GOP Congress racked up is....?
>
>
> should tax the creeps who plundered our economy?
>
OneTwoThree
tell us all about YOUR business, and all the bennies your multitude of
employees enjoy.....
still waiting..........
>
>
OneTwoThree
> "Phlip" <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:E5TIk.4826$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>>> And your alternative program for paying off all the
>>> debts that Bush and the GOP Congress racked up is....?
>>
>> Whenever anyone posts "tax the rich" noboby replies.
>>
>> Why is this a dead-spot around here? Is it really so inconceivable we
>> should tax the creeps who plundered our economy?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> to trickle down to them.
>
> Sorta like Waiting For Godot...............
STILL WAITING for your report on YOUR business, Mitchie, and ALL the beniies
your MAANY employees enjoy.....
whats the problem Mitch? Why are you so reluctant to tell us all about the
business YOU founded......
>
>
>
>
OneTwoThree
> "Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought
> the
> @yahoo.co.uk:
>
>>
>>
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>
>>> "Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought
>>> the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Phlip wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > And your alternative program for paying off all the
>>> >> > debts that Bush and the GOP Congress racked up is....?
>>> >>
>>> >> Whenever anyone posts "tax the rich" noboby replies.
>>> >>
>>>
>>> The rich didn't need any of the THREE tax cuts
>>> that Bush and the GOP gave them. In fact the rich
>>> were doing just fine before them.
>>>
>> The rich invest.
>
>
>
>
>
>> They are vital to the economy. Your hatred of the
>> haves is your problem. It's not good to the country.
>>
>
> get by on the paltry millions she has, won't someone
> take pity on her and give her another tax cut?
Pity poor Mitch.... his business is SO profitable and yet he is forced to
keep all those evil priofits for himself........
>
>
>
>>
>>
OneTwoThree
> the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>
>>
>>
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>
>>> "Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought
>>> the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>>> news:48F42DE0...@yahoo.co.uk:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Phlip wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > And your alternative program for paying off all the
>>> >> > debts that Bush and the GOP Congress racked up is....?
>>> >>
>>> >> Whenever anyone posts "tax the rich" noboby replies.
>>> >>
>>> > The rich already pay most of the taxes.
>>>
>>> The rich didn't need any of the THREE tax cuts
>>> that Bush and the GOP gave them. In fact the rich
>>> were doing just fine before them.
>>>
>> haves is your problem. It's not good to the country.
>
> incomes was over 90%. Explain that growth. The economy grew 1962-82 after
> Kennedy's reduction of top rate to around 70%. Explain that growth.
>
>
> You say "THE RICH INVEST".... Care to name one business a "RICH PERSON"
> businesses.
>
> You need to grasp the difference.
you need to get real.....
who do you think supplies the venture capital to startups?
OneTwoThree
the mother on welfare wrote abook... IE she WORKED on a particular project
that took off......
the ticket sales is irrelevant, since most of that went to your Hollywood
fat cats......
she did not :start" a business..... not by any means...
if YOU had ever "started" a business you would get it..... but you have not,
and you have no klew....
do you, Mitchie?
.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
nys999
the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>
>
> nys999 wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who
>> brought the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:48F67D61...@yahoo.co.uk:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "David Moffitt" <Dmof...@leftist-thumpers-of-america.com> wrote
>> >> in
>> >
>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Like we got when we turned the whole government
>> >> >> over to Republicans in 2001?
>> >> >
>> >> > No like the spending was for 40 years before Republicans got
>> >> > control.
>> >>
>> >> Show us where spending went down when the Republicans
>> >> controlled all three branches of government.
>> >>
>> > Face it, Democrats running everything means they don't have any
>> > excuses for not doing all those wonderful things they keep
>> > promising. Of course no excuses except that there's no money. So if
>> > what you are really saying is that Obama is just lying, like
>> > Clinton before him, to get elected. I'll buy that.
>> >
>>
>> Ohhh, there's money. Just kill the tax giveaways that rethugs
>> created. Eemember what happened to the US economy the last time a
>> democratic president and Congress raised taxes? Remember how the
>> Ray-gun/Bush deficits keep falling?
>>
> Obama would *cut* taxes for everyone making $250,000 or less, I'm
> not sure I remember Clinton the way you do:
Oh, that convenient memory:
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_
1993
You know, the bill Newt Gingrich rode to the speakership of the House of
Representatives when rethugs finally took control of both Houses in the
1994 election by claiming it was going to lead to a depression.
Mitchell Holman
216.168.3.44:
The same year Clinton signed the Family Leave Act,
which Republicans said would lead to massive unemployment.
Instead unemployment fell every year Clinton was in office.
Reality indeed has a left-wing bias.......;)
Year........Unemployment Rate
Bush 41
1989.........5.26
1990.........5.62
1991.........6.85
1992.........7.49
Clinton
1993.........6.91
1994.........6.10
1995.........5.59
1996.........5.41
1997.........4.94
1998.........4.50
1999.........4.22
2000.........3.97
Bush 43
2001.........4.76
2002.........5.78
2003.........5.99
2004.........5.53
2005.........5.08
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
You seem to have forgotten the tax cuts. I'm pointing that out.
> Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
> Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_
> 1993
>
> You know, the bill Newt Gingrich rode to the speakership of the House of
> Representatives when rethugs finally took control of both Houses in the
> 1994 election by claiming it was going to lead to a depression.
>
It looks like it finally has.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_1997
> > #begin quote
> > The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) reduced several
> > federal taxes in the United States.
> >
> > Subject to certain phase-in rules, the top capital gains rate fell
> > from 28% to 20%. The 15% bracket was lowered to 10%.
> >
> > Starting in 1998, a $400 tax credit for each child under age 17 was
> > introduced, which was increased to $500 in 1999. This credit was
> > phased out for high income families.
> >
> > The act exempted from taxation profits on the sale of a personal
> > residence of up to $500,000 for married couples filing jointly and
> > $250,000 for singles.
> >
> > The $600,000 estate tax exemption was to increase gradually to $1
> > million by the year 2006.
> >
> > Family farms and small businesses could qualify for an exemption of
> > $1.3 million, effective 1998. Starting in 1999, the $10,000 annual
> > gift tax exclusion was to be corrected for inflation.
> >
> > The act also provided tax relief for education savings and
> > retirement accounts. Some expiring business tax provisions were
> > extended.
> >
> > It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on August 5, 1997.
> > #end quote
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
How do we tell if someone gets unemployed from that act or from an
increase in the minimum wage? These issues are complicated, and as
usual you think they are not.
> Instead unemployment fell every year Clinton was in office.
>
The economy was growing. Look at what happens during a contr'ction.
That's when this overhead on business is going to be most keenly
felt.
> Reality indeed has a left-wing bias.......;)
>
> Year........Unemployment Rate
>
> Bush 41
>
> 1989.........5.26
> 1990.........5.62
> 1991.........6.85
> 1992.........7.49
>
> Clinton
>
> 1993.........6.91
> 1994.........6.10
> 1995.........5.59
> 1996.........5.41
> 1997.........4.94
> 1998.........4.50
> 1999.........4.22
> 2000.........3.97
>
> Bush 43
>
> 2001.........4.76
> 2002.........5.78
> 2003.........5.99
> 2004.........5.53
> 2005.........5.08
>
You are so screwed up, you are thinking that the debate is "Which
president had the best unemployment trends?", not "Does family
leave impact unemployment levels?"
nys999
the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
The problem I have is not that you are stupid ass, believing what you
believe; but that you won't act on it by moving to a country that lives
according to those beliefs. No, instead you squat on your ass in a country
that goes against everything you think noble and fine.Why? Because every
society that meets your standards of "low taxes," "no coodling of the
poor," "no coodling of prisoners" are such societial hell-holes even you
won't live there.
But like the fool you are, you can't resist the need to turn western
society into what you visualize as perfection. A return to Dickensian
England.
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
I'm completely at a loss as to where you get this from. I never
advocated mistreatment of the poor. I do believe in low taxes but
also in a balanced budget. I have different views about how the
poor should be helped than you do. That doesn't mean I think they
should not be helped.
> But like the fool you are, you can't resist the need to turn western
> society into what you visualize as perfection. A return to Dickensian
> England.
>
And I certainly oppose what Dickens described in such novels as,
well most of them.
nys999
the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
From your posts.
> I never
> advocated mistreatment of the poor.
Sure you have. Go back to your recent posts on wage determination. The
poor are poor becuase of a combination of factors which include some or
all of: Low IQ, physical disability, age, poor schools, genetic factors
(susceptibility to addiction, etc.), abusive family, bad bosses, family
obligations, so forth and so on.
> I do believe in low taxes but
> also in a balanced budget. I have different views about how the
> poor should be helped than you do.
Soup kitchens and support dependent on accepting religious indoctrination?
> That doesn't mean I think they
> should not be helped.
>
>
>
>
>> But like the fool you are, you can't resist the need to turn western
>> society into what you visualize as perfection. A return to Dickensian
>> England.
>>
> And I certainly oppose what Dickens described in such novels as,
> well most of them.
Your lips may say "No" but your posts say "Hot Damn, screw the poor!"
My point is your policies will create what you say you oppose.
>
>
>
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
There are thousands of posts from me defending poor people and
seeking ways to empower them so they can better their lives.
> > I never
> > advocated mistreatment of the poor.
>
> Sure you have. Go back to your recent posts on wage determination.
>
Wages should come from a bargaining between the employer and the
employee. This should ideally be an individual negotiation because
value is individually based.
> The
> poor are poor becuase of a combination of factors which include some or
> all of: Low IQ, physical disability, age, poor schools, genetic factors
> (susceptibility to addiction, etc.), abusive family, bad bosses, family
> obligations, so forth and so on.
>
So it's never their fault?
> > I do believe in low taxes but
> > also in a balanced budget. I have different views about how the
> > poor should be helped than you do.
>
> Soup kitchens and support dependent on accepting religious indoctrination?
>
I think that Castro's idea that each person can get a certain
amount of food that provides them with a base level as a right is
fine. Of course in Cuba the people all need it because the rest of
the system is so dysfunctional. But I would support staples being
given to anyone who asks. I've also long advocated barracks housing
for all Americans who ask for it. And I've stated that public
transport should be free if it can't really pay for a substantial
portion of itself with fares. So I don't see how I am taken as
advocating mistreatment of the poor (or anyone).
> > That doesn't mean I think they
> > should not be helped.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> But like the fool you are, you can't resist the need to turn western
> >> society into what you visualize as perfection. A return to Dickensian
> >> England.
> >>
> > And I certainly oppose what Dickens described in such novels as,
> > well most of them.
>
> Your lips may say "No" but your posts say "Hot Damn, screw the poor!"
>
Where have I ever said that?
> My point is your policies will create what you say you oppose.
>
How? I've repeatedly argued for empowering the poor so that they
can negotiate better wages. How do you do that? You solve the
housing and food cost problem in the US. How do you do that? I
explained a start above where people would have barracks housing
and staples available to them as a right.
nys999
the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> >> >> f_ 1993
Ahh, those reading comprehenson problems, I'll leave it to you to re-read
that paragrah slowly, moving your lips if necessary.
But why don't you identify the poor who are poor for reasons that are
their own fault.
And of course you didn't demonstrate how your "policies" would not create
what you say you oppose.
If a Chinese or Vietnamese worker can survive on $5 a day or less (which
is $1,300 per year) .... would you hire an American at $13,600/year?
You're like the person who protests being called a racist just because
they'd never hire a black person.
Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought the gun'' )
nys999 wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde { ''Free OJ, no more time for him than the guy who brought
> the gun'' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> w
> >> Sure you have. Go back to your recent posts on wage determination.
> >>
> > Wages should come from a bargaining between the employer and the
> > employee. This should ideally be an individual negotiation because
> > value is individually based.
> >
> >
> >> The
> >> poor are poor becuase of a combination of factors which include some
> >> or all of: Low IQ, physical disability, age, poor schools, genetic
> >> factors (susceptibility to addiction, etc.), abusive family, bad
> >> bosses, family obligations, so forth and so on.
> >>
> > So it's never their fault?
>
> Ahh, those reading comprehenson problems, I'll leave it to you to re-read
> that paragrah slowly, moving your lips if necessary.
>
Each of the examples you gave are not the fault of the person in
question. Had you given even one example that was the fault of the
person who is poor, I would not have responded as I did. This is
your list again: "Low IQ, physical disability, age, poor schools,
genetic factors (susceptibility to addiction, etc.), abusive
family, bad bosses, family obligations, so forth and so on." None
of those things are the fault of the person in question.
> But why don't you identify the poor who are poor for reasons that are
> their own fault.
>
How about the people who earns good money but spends it on
frivolous things until they can't make the house payment? People
who go to the pay day loan places or the rent a centres, they buy
things they can't afford. Isn't that their fault? Or people who
don't work hard enough. Or people who don't make good choices. Or
people who make mistakes. These are their own fault. It doesn't
mean they are bad people, it means they screwed up. So the answer
is to find ways to let them try again, not to pretend they are
blameless.
> >
> >> My point is your policies will create what you say you oppose.
> >>
> > How? I've repeatedly argued for empowering the poor so that they
> > can negotiate better wages. How do you do that? You solve the
> > housing and food cost problem in the US. How do you do that? I
> > explained a start above where people would have barracks housing
> > and staples available to them as a right.
> >
> >
>
> And of course you didn't demonstrate how your "policies" would not create
> what you say you oppose.
>
I think that if poor people can save, they can become much less
poor. I think the cost of a place to sleep is a huge cost. So I
support solving that by finding ways for people to sleep on the
cheap. You'll notice that I support finding places for homeless
people to stay. I don't support free houses for them. If I defined
policy, the whole system would be different, but it wouldn't be
anti-poor.
> If a Chinese or Vietnamese worker can survive on $5 a day or less (which
> is $1,300 per year) .... would you hire an American at $13,600/year?
>
That's not the only cost of hiring someone from those countries. I
care about people in China and Vietnam just as I care about the
poor in America. I want to see all people everywhere have better
lives. How does that work? Those people in China are doing better
than they did before. Just like people in Japan, their lives will
continue to improve. As they expect more, they will demand more.
This is the market at work.
> You're like the person who protests being called a racist just because
> they'd never hire a black person.
>
I'm completely at a loss as to what you are saying. I couldn't care
less what race someone is. I would hire or vote for the best person
in my view for the job. I don't see the connection to poor people.
nys999
news:48FEC946...@yahoo.co.uk:
Do you read what you type before posting?
"...How about the people who earns good money but spends it on
frivolous things until they can't make the house payment?..."
If they're "making good money" they ain't poor. What they do wiuth their
money is a different issue.
"..People who go to the pay day loan places or the rent a centres..."?
Duh, These are people who make minimum wage or just above....aka "Poor".
Why didn't they take that job offer of corporate lawyer and make $70-
100,000 per year? Oh yeah, they weren't smart enough to get into law
school.
"...Or people who don't work hard enough...."?
Would that be something like hypothyroidism?
"...Or people who don't make good choices...."?
Would that be like, oh I don't know, "Not smart enough"?
"...Or people who make mistakes..."?
Would that be like "Not smart enough" or maybe just bad luck? Maybe you
know people who enjoy making mistakes; I never met anyone like that.
Ever hear the adage "Like father, like son"? Understand what it means?
Read up on twin studies to gain an appreciation of just how much ordinary
behavior is influenced by genes. It is surprising.
>
>
>
>
>> >
>> >> My point is your policies will create what you say you oppose.
>> >>
>> > How? I've repeatedly argued for empowering the poor so that they
>> > can negotiate better wages. How do you do that? You solve the
>> > housing and food cost problem in the US. How do you do that? I
>> > explained a start above where people would have barracks housing
>> > and staples available to them as a right.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> And of course you didn't demonstrate how your "policies" would not
>> create what you say you oppose.
>>
> I think that if poor people can save,
You know why US welfare once paid a family around $17,000 in cash and
benefits? Because legislators prices the goods and services needed by a
family. They missed the point that quite a few familes made do with far
less.
If poor people earned enough to actually save....THEY WOULDN'T BE FUCKING
POOR.
> they can become much less
> poor. I think the cost of a place to sleep is a huge cost. So I
> support solving that by finding ways for people to sleep on the
> cheap.
Oh sure ya do. Of course if you gave your job to one of them, they
wouldn't need that "cheap" place to sleep. Oh god, yer such a
humanitarian....I genuflect.
> You'll notice that I support finding places for homeless
> people to stay. I don't support free houses for them.
Define "places for homeless people to stay". A bunk in a hundred person
room?
No house for them? Where would they keep personal items: seasonal clothes,
work clothes, change of clothes, refrigeration for the unused portions of
dinner, that quart of milk, the box of cereal, soap, towela, etc?
> If I defined
> policy, the whole system would be different, but it wouldn't be
> anti-poor.
Sure it would. Because deep down you blame poor people for not being born
rich.
>
>
>
>> If a Chinese or Vietnamese worker can survive on $5 a day or less
>> (which is $1,300 per year) .... would you hire an American at
>> $13,600/year?
>>
> That's not the only cost of hiring someone from those countries. I
> care about people in China and Vietnam just as I care about the
> poor in America.
Some of the poor in America are poor because their jobs went to China.
> I want to see all people everywhere have better
> lives. How does that work? Those people in China are doing better
> than they did before.
Because they're doing work once performed by US citizens.
> Just like people in Japan, their lives will
> continue to improve. As they expect more, they will demand more.
Gee, above you said some people are poor because they were buying too
much.
> This is the market at work.
So when does your job go to China? Are you making any effort to outsource
your job to make sure the market works efficiently?
>
>
>> You're like the person who protests being called a racist just
>> because they'd never hire a black person.
>>
> I'm completely at a loss as to what you are saying. I couldn't care
> less what race someone is. I would hire or vote for the best person
> in my view for the job. I don't see the connection to poor people.
Don't fret, everyone else reading what I wrote understands what I meant.