Anyone notice Obama's latest Jobs plan? Say GOODBYE TO YOUR PAYCHECKS EVERYONE!!!!

[O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - RICK PERRY: America's Next President!!!]

Anyone notice Obama's latest Jobs plan? IT RAISES TAXES!!!!! And do
you know how much? Get ready for this one (I suggest you sit down for
this one):

1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS!!!

This would be the BIGGEST TAX INCREASE IN U.S. HISTORY!!!!!

Say GOODBYE TO YOUR PAYCHECKS EVERYONE!!!! You will be handing over
ALL OF YOUR MONEY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!

Do we need any more proof as to why we need to make Obama a ONE TERM
PRESIDENT??!!!!

[MuahMan]

On Sep 19, 1:59 pm, "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - RICK PERRY: America's

What paycheck. I got laid off because of payroll taxes and insurance
costs.

I'm going on welfare and food stamps, fuck working.

[3...@366.com]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:59:25 -0700 (PDT), "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate -
RICK PERRY: America's Next President!!!" <acco...@rocketmail.com>
wrote:

>Anyone notice Obama's latest Jobs plan? IT RAISES TAXES!!!!! And do
>you know how much? Get ready for this one (I suggest you sit down for
>this one):

Of course Scott Walker raised taxes but the blind republicans aren't
bitching about that.

[Dano]

wrote in message news:7p3f77hc8gldfqtgi...@4ax.com...

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:59:25 -0700 (PDT), "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate -
RICK PERRY: America's Next President!!!" <acco...@rocketmail.com>
wrote:

>Anyone notice Obama's latest Jobs plan? IT RAISES TAXES!!!!! And do
>you know how much? Get ready for this one (I suggest you sit down for
>this one):

Of course Scott Walker raised taxes but the blind republicans aren't
bitching about that.

==========================================

Ha ha ha ha...anyone here actually believe the Fagster actually pulls in a
paycheck?

That would mean leaving mom's basement...

[O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - RICK PERRY: America's Next President!!!]

On Sep 19, 4:49 pm, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> wrote in messagenews:7p3f77hc8gldfqtgi...@4ax.com...

>
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:59:25 -0700 (PDT), "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate -

> RICK PERRY: America's Next President!!!" <accoun...@rocketmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >Anyone notice Obama's latest Jobs plan?  IT RAISES TAXES!!!!! And do
> >you know how much? Get ready for this one (I suggest you sit down for
> >this one):
>
> Of course Scott Walker raised taxes but the blind republicans aren't
> bitching about that.
> ==========================================
>
> Ha ha ha ha...anyone here actually believe the Fagster actually pulls in a
> paycheck?
>
> That would mean leaving mom's basement...

Who's banging more chicks, me or you?

HINT: It ain't you!!!

[SNORDO]

it only raises taxes on those filthy joo cocksuckers who make more than $250,000 a
year you lyin
douche bag

"O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - RICK PERRY: America's Next President!!!"

<acco...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:1fc8b07b-f5a9-47aa...@u19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
: Anyone notice Obama's latest Jobs plan? IT RAISES TAXES!!!!! And do

:
:

[SNORDO]

"MuahMan" <mua...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:17c06d71-015f-421d...@s16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

I'm going on welfare and food stamps, fuck working.'




that's right dickwad, go ahead on and see how easy it is

to starve your fat ass to death that is

[SNORDO]

"O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - RICK PERRY: America's Next President!!!"

<acco...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:27c81c8d-1abf-44c7...@s20g2000yql.googlegroups.com...

prove it loud mouth

I think you meant to say you were sucking more dick than anyone here, and we
already know that would be a lie,

sordo,higgins,jime,balz, and dan c, suck more dick than any 400 hillbillies
combined

but I'm sure you could set a world record with that big mouth of yours if you
tried hard enough


start with your welathy plantation and hillbilly slave ownin masters there gomer

[MuahMan]

On Sep 20, 1:22 am, "SNORDO" <SNOTH...@Teranews.com> wrote:
> "MuahMan" <muah...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Easy. Sit at home and watch Oprah all day waiting for the government
to refill my debit card with 3 grand a month. It's awesome, I should
have been a Democrat a long time ago.

[ray]

In article <rBVdq.17480$eS....@newsfe03.iad>,

"SNORDO" <SNOT...@Teranews.com> wrote:

> it only raises taxes on those filthy joo cocksuckers who make more than
> $250,000 a
> year you lyin
> douche bag

Yes, those very same who are our employers, provide us benefits, and
invest money in the stock market. With ideas like Obama's, it's not a
wonder why our unemployment is only 9%.

--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.

[Alias]

On 09/20/2011 12:10 PM, ray wrote:
> In article<rBVdq.17480$eS....@newsfe03.iad>,
> "SNORDO"<SNOT...@Teranews.com> wrote:
>
>> it only raises taxes on those filthy joo cocksuckers who make more than
>> $250,000 a
>> year you lyin
>> douche bag
>
> Yes, those very same who are our employers, provide us benefits, and
> invest money in the stock market. With ideas like Obama's, it's not a
> wonder why our unemployment is only 9%.
>

They've had their tax cuts for over a decade and no new jobs. Oops,
there goes that Republican lie right out the window.

--
Alias

[Dano]

"Alias" wrote in message news:4e78...@news.x-privat.org...

=======================================

This is the place where the right wing nuts vanish. They have NO fucking
answer to that.

[Alias]

Ray? Hey Ray! Where are you Ray?

--
Alias

[Dano]

"Alias" wrote in message news:4e78b583$1...@news.x-privat.org...

============================================

Want an example of the corporate mindset? National Grid...major
international electricity and gas supplier...cut their staffing (JOBS) by 7%
last year...while enjoying a 35% profit jump...resulting in long and
widespread outages in the northeast (at least) in the recent tropical storm.
A storm that was supposed to be a cat 2 or 3 hurricane with plenty of
advanced warning left their customers in the dark for anywhere from 48
hours to over a week. JOBS? You think corporations or the wealthy
investors behind them give a flying fuck about JOBS? Why they don't even
care about their customers who pay them...who rely on their life sustaining
product!

JOBS cost corporations and investors MONEY. It's THAT simple. Left alone,
they will ALWAYS choose profits over JOBS or service to consumers.

[Alias]

Which is one of the reasons I run my own business and haven't worked for
someone else in over two decades.

--
Alias

[N...@gmail.com]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 06:10:54 -0400, ray <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote:

>In article <rBVdq.17480$eS....@newsfe03.iad>,
> "SNORDO" <SNOT...@Teranews.com> wrote:
>
>> it only raises taxes on those filthy joo cocksuckers who make more than
>> $250,000 a
>> year you lyin
>> douche bag
>
>Yes, those very same who are our employers, provide us benefits, and
>invest money in the stock market.

Except under Bush the didn't create jobs.

Obama created more jobs in the last year than Bush
did in eight years.

[ray]

In article <4e78...@news.x-privat.org>,

Sure, even though most of the Bush years were successful ones. If not
for the housing crash, we probably would have enjoyed more good years
for the rest of his term.

[ray]

In article <4e78b583$1...@news.x-privat.org>,

Hey, we are not all on government assistance like you. I'm a
Republican. That means I work for my money.

[ray]

In article <j5aeh7$e7$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>

Now what company is this that had a profit margin of over 35%? Don't
lie now. I will look it up.

But as long as the head Socialist is in charge, perhaps blackouts is
something we should learn to live with. After all, when he closes down
all those coal powered electric companies, where will we get electricity
from?

[ray]

In article <ikhh77pe1h6i594ek...@4ax.com>, N...@gmail.com
wrote:

PRIVATE jobs is the key here.

Now let me ask: if Obama created more jobs than Bush, why did
unemployment go down to the 5% range when Bush created jobs, but went to
the 9% range when Obama created jobs?

[O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - Countdown to Nov. '12]

On Sep 19, 3:49 pm, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> wrote in messagenews:7p3f77hc8gldfqtgi...@4ax.com...

>
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:59:25 -0700 (PDT), "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate -

> RICK PERRY: America's Next President!!!" <accoun...@rocketmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >Anyone notice Obama's latest Jobs plan?  IT RAISES TAXES!!!!! And do
> >you know how much? Get ready for this one (I suggest you sit down for
> >this one):
>
> Of course Scott Walker raised taxes but the blind republicans aren't
> bitching about that.
> ==========================================
>
> Ha ha ha ha...anyone here actually believe the Fagster actually pulls in a
> paycheck?
>
> That would mean leaving mom's basement...

LOL@DUPES!!!
:D

[Alias]

On 09/20/2011 11:14 PM, ray wrote:
> In article<4e78b583$1...@news.x-privat.org>,

I don't live in the USA. I own my own business and I have never been on
government assistance. Oops. Got any more lies to hurl hoping what I
posted goes away?

--
Alias

[Alias]

On 09/20/2011 11:12 PM, ray wrote:
> In article<4e78...@news.x-privat.org>,

Obama has created more jobs in less than three years than Bush with his
corporate welfare plan did in eight. Them's the facts. The welfare for
the rich has got to stop.

--
Alias

[Alias]

Failed math in school, eh?

--
Alias

[Alias]

On 09/20/2011 11:18 PM, ray wrote:

If McCain and is clueless barbie doll would have won, it would be over
20% now.

--
Alias

[ray]

In article <4e79087e$1...@news.x-privat.org>,

Of course you don't. And I'm an astronaut.

[ray]

In article <4e7908e3$1...@news.x-privat.org>,

Sounds like we can make a deal here: I'll go with stopping corporate
welfare if you go along with stopping welfare in general. There is no
reason taxpayers should be supporting lowlifes on welfare while they
pump out kid after kid.

[ray]

In article <4e790906$1...@news.x-privat.org>,

You always know when you've won the argument. LOL!

[ray]

In article <4e79094d$1...@news.x-privat.org>,

And where did you get your crystal ball from? K-Mart? I don't believe
McCain would have created such a hostile business environment. I don't
believe McCain would have spent 4 trillion dollars on padding his
reelection campaign. How would things be worse? Or a better question,
how can things be worse than Obama?

[khadijahbi...@gmail.com]

On 11-09-20 05:25 PM, ray wrote:
> In article<4e79094d$1...@news.x-privat.org>,

Well, it wouldn't be worse.

Unfortuantely, McCain had aligned himself with Mark Zandi, who was a
supporter of the stimulus package. So, assume the 800B would still have
passed. What it *wouldn't* have had in it, though. were massive unfunded
state mandates for Medicaid expansion, temporary tax cuts (temporary
doesn't work, permanent does) and all that Pelosi-fluff.

So, the bad news is we would have done the stimlulus; the good news it
it would have been more effective.

And, of course, you wouldn't have had either Obamacare or Dodd/Frank,
both of which have the business sectors which *are* experiencing demand
growth sitting on their hands filling their needs with contract
employees until the uncertainty diminishes.

Any guess is going to be a SWAG, but mine is that we'd be sitting
somewheres around 7.5% right now with GDP still trending (slowly)
upward, with the housing situation continuing to drag on the economy.

Khadijah
>

[mario in victoria]

I'm a socialist and I work for my money.
So what does that mean?

mario in victoria
--
not rich, but damn comfortable

[mario in victoria]

Bush started with 4.2% unemployment, finished with 7.8 (counting
Jan/2009). Obama started with 8.2 (starting Feb/2009), and is at 9.1.

You do the math on unemployment.

mario in victoria
--
from bureau of statistics

[mario in victoria]

Ah. So that's why your world view is warped.

mario in victoria
--
if you check his post originates in europe

[mario in victoria]

One thing at a time, ray. Can we say as long as 'those guys are in
charge of things they directly control' you can forward to more
blackouts? That's happening now, not in some paranoid right-wing future.

mario in victoria
--
which of course if the rw mindset: fear before facts

[Alias]

Yep, you got more lies and that's all you got. Does it help you sleep at
night to believe lies?

--
Alias

[Alias]

You're an idiot. The rich like welfare; it keeps the poor poor and in
their place. You couldn't live on welfare; it's not much money. Compared
to the banquet welfare corporations get, the poor barely get crumbs.

--
Alias

[Alias]

If you think you've won with your phony math, you obviously failed other
things than math.

--
Alias

[Alias]

"Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." Also, 20% is worse than 9.6%. Simple math.

> Or a better question,
> how can things be worse than Obama?
>

Things would get a whole lot better if the Republicans would get the
hell out of the way.

--
Alias

[Alias]

He can't. He failed math.

--
Alias

[ray]

In article <CF8eq.804$L45...@newsfe06.iad>,

Already done: Bush's unemployment rate went up slightly and then surged
after 911. There is nobody in the world that could have prevented that.
However, after his tax cuts, unemployment once again went into the 5%
area until the housing crash where it spiked up again.

http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/bush-
vs-obama-unemployment-april-data.jpg

[ray]

In article <4e791bae$1...@news.x-privat.org>,

Not sure. How does it work out for you?

[ray]

In article <4e791c38$1...@news.x-privat.org>,

Let's see..... welfare, free food, utilities paid, suburban housing,
free childcare, free schools. I would say they're doing pretty good.
The so-called poor in our country live better than some of our working.
That's why a socialist-progressive system is such a failure.

[ray]

In article <4e791cf0$1...@news.x-privat.org>,

No, simple you. You have not one shred of evidence that unemployment
would be 20%. Like all liberal allegations, it's made up in your head.

> > Or a better question,
> > how can things be worse than Obama?
> >
>
> Things would get a whole lot better if the Republicans would get the
> hell out of the way.

Yes they would. Then we could drop our world credit rating to one star
and be 25 trillion in debt. That's what liberals consider good.

[N...@gmail.com]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:38:56 -0400, ray <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote:

>In article <4e791cf0$1...@news.x-privat.org>,
> Alias <a...@maskedandanonymous.com.invalida> wrote:
>
>> On 09/21/2011 12:25 AM, ray wrote:
>> > In article<4e79094d$1...@news.x-privat.org>,
>> > Alias<a...@maskedandanonymous.com.invalida> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 09/20/2011 11:18 PM, ray wrote:
>> >>> In article<ikhh77pe1h6i594ek...@4ax.com>, N...@gmail.com
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 06:10:54 -0400, ray<xxxr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> In article<rBVdq.17480$eS....@newsfe03.iad>,
>> >>>>> "SNORDO"<SNOT...@Teranews.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> it only raises taxes on those filthy joo cocksuckers who make more than
>> >>>>>> $250,000 a
>> >>>>>> year you lyin
>> >>>>>> douche bag
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Yes, those very same who are our employers, provide us benefits, and
>> >>>>> invest money in the stock market.
>> >>>> Except under Bush the didn't create jobs.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Obama created more jobs in the last year than Bush
>> >>>> did in eight years.
>> >>>

>> >>> P4RIVATE jobs is the key here.

>> >>>
>> >>> Now let me ask: if Obama created more jobs than Bush, why did
>> >>> unemployment go down to the 5% range when Bush created jobs, but went to
>> >>> the 9% range when Obama created jobs?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> If McCain and is clueless barbie doll would have won, it would be over
>> >> 20% now.

If McCain had won unemployment now would be 75% as many more jobs
would have been shipped overseas.

[ZZH...@yahoo.com]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:30:33 -0400, ray <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote:
>Already done: Bush's unemployment rate went up slightly and then surged
>after 911. There is nobody in the world that could have prevented that.

Sure they could have. If Bush had cut his vacation short and been in
Washington the month prior to 9/11 he could have prevented
9/11.

[Alias]

On 09/21/2011 01:33 AM, ray wrote:
> In article<4e791c38$1...@news.x-privat.org>,

Keep telling yourself those Republican lies so you can justify your hate
of those less fortunate than you are.

--
Alias

[ray]

In article <hk9i77pd5kbn5g28t...@4ax.com>, N...@gmail.com

Politicians don't ship jobs overseas--private companies do. All
politicians can do is make it more or less inviting for businesses to
stay in the US.

[ray]

In article <7q9i771f9gr17bl8k...@4ax.com>,

Oh do tell. How would he have done that?

Nobody has taken more time off from Washington than Obama. And it's not
that I'm criticizing Obama. The President {no matter who it is} is
always on the job no matter where he is. Most of the planning for 911
took place in the last years of the Clinton administration. So are you
going to blame him too?

[ray]

In article <4e792ab4$1...@news.x-privat.org>,

Less fortunate, huh? Well do you call the census Republican lies? I'm
sure you will after reading their report of our so-called poor:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

[Alias]

On 09/21/2011 02:28 AM, ray wrote:
> In article<4e792ab4$1...@news.x-privat.org>,

Heritage Organization? You're joking, right?

--
Alias

[ray]

In article <4e793d82$1...@news.x-privat.org>,

Heritage didn't do the research. They are only conveying it. If you
actually read the report {which I'm sure you didn't. You just seen
Heritage and closed the page} you will find they site their sources, and
you are welcome to check it out for yourself.

[mario in victoria]

Those are excuses of convenience. Bush FINISHED with 7.8/8.2 (Jan/Feb,
2009). And you blame the housing bubble (and no doubt the bank
difficulties). Okay, I'll give you that.

All Bush did was REDUCE revenue. Period. Fewer taxes immediately REDUCES
revenue. Period. The so-called 'employment SPIKE' never happened because
of the REDUCED revenue. A war on credit doesn't help the banking markets.

In return, I ask that you admit the Republicans have PREVENTED Obama
from doing WHAT HE WANTS TO DO. So there can be no comparison. You don't
know what would have happened if he'd INCREASED revenue by letting the
Bush tax cuts LAPSE. Remember, they were DUE to lapse by Bush's edict.

Bush was there and unemployment went way up. (63-80%) increase. Obama is
there and unemployment went way up (10-18% increase).

Forget 'excuses and reasons' and just do the math.

mario in victoria
-
but, but, but...

[mario in victoria]

Marketing boards (to guarantee prices), subsidized capital investment,
deferred investment through imporovement.

As an example, such needy companies like Boeing, Xerox, Motorola, Dow,
GE have received BILLIONS in subsidies, et al. The majority of so-called
agriculture subsidies, represented as help to hard-working farmers
mainly goes to combines such as A.D. Midland et al, who own the majority
of production. I'm sure they need it.

You don't do your homework, ray.

Even the zero rate loans to banks is a form of subsidy or welfare. They
effectively borrow for free and make 2-3% on that money IF they lend it
back rather than spend it. Most spent it on acquisitions. I mean, you
can't get cheaper money than free.

In the meantime credit dried up for the 'normal' consumer. Hell, if
they'd lent me money at 0% I would have gladly lent it out at only 1.5%.
That's one heck of a profit.

No, ray. You see things in black and white and don't understand the
issues at all. You see the word 'welfare' and immediately think of
single women pumping out kids to get more money. I see the word welfare
and think of 'all' the welfare the governments fritter away. The
majority does NOT go to individuals; not when you accept that subsidies
and market control are a form of welfare.

And it's usually inefficient. And wasteful. And unnecessary.

mario in victoria
--
if ignorance is bliss i want what you drink

[mario in victoria]

Your first sentence in the above paragraph is not true. Unless you
include teachers, policemen, etc.

mario in victoria
--
if you mean presidents, you're wrong

[ray]

In article <fybeq.18749$Ol1....@newsfe07.iad>,

Okay, let's do the math:

Tax cuts are not meant to increase revenue. Tax cuts are designed to
stimulate the economy which all records show, happened under Bush.

As for what would probably have happened had the Bush tax cuts expired,
this man will tell you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwoKOFgghxI

Yes, the Republicans are preventing Obama from more taxation and
spending. That's what they were sent there to do. This new scam of
Obama's is nothing but a Pork Bill light, so Republicans are going to
refuse it. After all, if the first one failed, why pass another one?

[mario in victoria]

Well, I don't remember exactly when the Bush tax cuts were in 2001 or
2003, but lets start with this:

In 2001 the unemployment rate started at 4.2 % and ended with 5.7.
There were tax cuts instituted that year. I DO NOT remember when they
took effect or when they were passes.

In 2003: the unemployment rate started at 5.8%, went up to 6.3 during
the year and finally got UNDER 5.8% in December of that year. All the
way down to 5.7%.
Again, I don't remember exactly when the tax cuts were passed or when
they took effect.

2004: Jan: 5.7; Dec: 5.4
2005: Jan: 5.3; Dec: 4.9 (only significant drop in 8 yrs. 0.4%)
2006: Jan: 4.7; Dec: 4.4
2007: Jan: 4.6; Dec: 5.0
2008: Jan: 5.0; Dec: 7.3

Okay. Where did the tax cuts increase employment?

>
> As for what would probably have happened had the Bush tax cuts expired,
> this man will tell you:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwoKOFgghxI

Could it be worse than during the Bush years? Remember, letting the tax
cuts LAPSE (like Bush intended, apparently), would have INCREASED revenue.

> Yes, the Republicans are preventing Obama from more taxation and
> spending. That's what they were sent there to do. This new scam of
> Obama's is nothing but a Pork Bill light, so Republicans are going to
> refuse it. After all, if the first one failed, why pass another one?

No. The Republicans prevented the tax cuts from LAPSING (like the Bush
tax cuts were labeled to do). You can call it increasing taxes, but
you'd have to blame Bush for writing it up that way.

The tax cuts were another form of welfare. All of the upper bracket,
most of the high middle class, little of the lower middle class and very
few of the lower class taxpayers 'benefited' from them.

But tell me where the tax cuts helped unemployment.

mario in victoria
--
i really want to hear that

[MuahMan]

On Sep 20, 6:37 pm, mario in victoria <mario5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/09/2011 14:14, ray wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article<4e78b58...@news.x-privat.org>,
> >   Alias<a...@maskedandanonymous.com.invalida>  wrote:
>

> >> On 09/20/2011 05:08 PM, Dano wrote:
> >>> "Alias" wrote in messagenews:4e78...@news.x-privat.org...
>

> >>> On 09/20/2011 12:10 PM, ray wrote:

> >>>> In article<rBVdq.17480$eS.3...@newsfe03.iad>,
> >>>> "SNORDO"<SNOTH...@Teranews.com>  wrote:

>
> >>>>> it only raises taxes on those filthy joo cocksuckers who make more than
> >>>>> $250,000 a
> >>>>> year you lyin
> >>>>> douche bag
>
> >>>> Yes, those very same who are our employers, provide us benefits, and
> >>>> invest money in the stock market. With ideas like Obama's, it's not a
> >>>> wonder why our unemployment is only 9%.
>
> >>> They've had their tax cuts for over a decade and no new jobs. Oops,
> >>> there goes that Republican lie right out the window.
>

> >>> =======================================
>
> >>> This is the place where the right wing nuts vanish. They have NO fucking
> >>> answer to that.
>
> >> Ray? Hey Ray! Where are you Ray?
>
> > Hey, we are not all on government assistance like you.  I'm a
> > Republican.  That means I work for my money.
>

> I'm a socialist and I work for my money.
> So what does that mean?
>
> mario in victoria
> --
> not rich, but damn comfortable

That you're a liar.

[Dano]

"mario in victoria" wrote in message
news:M9ceq.6529$Un7....@newsfe13.iad...

=======================================

That's not gonna happen. These cowardly bastards ALWAYS turn tail and run
at this point. Seen it all before.

[Dan C]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:41:12 +0200, Alias wrote:

>> Hey, we are not all on government assistance like you. I'm a
>> Republican. That means I work for my money.
>>
>>

> I don't live in the USA.

Then keep your nose out of our business, Spaniard.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he stuck a pin in Hillary's implants.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Thanks, Obama: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/politica/thanks.jpg

[Jake]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:57:57 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>The tax cuts were another form of welfare. All of the upper bracket,
>most of the high middle class, little of the lower middle class and very
>few of the lower class taxpayers 'benefited' from them.

Welfare is giving money to someone who does not earn it.

How is allowing people to keep more of the money that they legally
earned, welfare?

Or do you think that the government is entitled to take as much money
as they want from people and if they decide to not take as much, it is
welfare.

Are you aware that almost half the working population of the United
States pays no Federal income taxes. Are they getting welfare by not
having to pay any federal income taxes? The lions share of federal
income tax revenue comes from wealthy individuals.

It is insanity to raise taxes when we are in a recession unless your
intent is to cause a depression. Businesses will be less likely to
hire new people if they expect taxes to be increased. Get a clue.

Jake

[SNORDO]

"O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - Countdown to Nov. '12" <oneilsp...@aol.com> wrote
in message
news:7074006a-4636-4b28...@z5g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 19, 3:49 pm, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> wrote in messagenews:7p3f77hc8gldfqtgi...@4ax.com...



damn good thing yall has never got a paycheck eh gomer ?

[SNORDO]

"MuahMan" <mua...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1803fbd7-1e5e-497e...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 20, 1:22 am, "SNORDO" <SNOTH...@Teranews.com> wrote:
> "MuahMan" <muah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:17c06d71-015f-421d...@s16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 19, 1:59 pm, "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - RICK PERRY: America's
>
> Next President!!!" <accoun...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> > Anyone notice Obama's latest Jobs plan? IT RAISES TAXES!!!!! And do
> > you know how much? Get ready for this one (I suggest you sit down for
> > this one):
>
> > 1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS!!!
>
> > This would be the BIGGEST TAX INCREASE IN U.S. HISTORY!!!!!
>
> > Say GOODBYE TO YOUR PAYCHECKS EVERYONE!!!! You will be handing over
> > ALL OF YOUR MONEY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!
>
> > Do we need any more proof as to why we need to make Obama a ONE TERM
> > PRESIDENT??!!!!
>
> What paycheck. I got laid off because of payroll taxes and insurance
> costs.
>
> I'm going on welfare and food stamps, fuck working.'
>
> that's right dickwad, go ahead on and see how easy it is
>
> to starve your fat ass to death that is

Easy. Sit at home and watch Oprah all day waiting for the government
to refill my debit card with 3 grand a month. It's awesome, I should
have been a Democrat a long time ago.




hey shithead, does it occur to your simple and feeble minded hillbilly ass that 3g
is $36,000 a year tax free ?, or about
the equivelant of a $50,000 a year taxed job ?

and if that were possible everyone would be doing it


do you hillbillies have any thinking capacity at all ??

[Alias]

On 09/21/2011 03:41 AM, ray wrote:
> In article<4e793d82$1...@news.x-privat.org>,

All that article says is that the poor isn't poor enough for them to
really call poor. I stand by what I posted. You're joking, right?

--
Alias

[Alias]

On 09/21/2011 05:24 AM, Jake wrote:
> It is insanity to raise taxes when we are in a recession unless your
> intent is to cause a depression. Businesses will be less likely to
> hire new people if they expect taxes to be increased. Get a clue.
>
> Jake

So where are all the jobs that the Bush tax cuts were supposed to
create? Get a clue yourself.

--
Alias

[ray]

In article <M9ceq.6529$Un7....@newsfe13.iad>,

I just showed you where they helped and again, if not for the housing
crisis, would have likely continued.

Taking less money from somebody is not welfare. Welfare is taking from
people to give to somebody else. Tax cuts are not welfare.

Government does not provide jobs. The private sector provides jobs.
All government can do is make it more or less inviting for the private
sector to do that.

Expiration of tax cuts is nothing more than a political game. Just like
Commie Care really won't go into full destruction mode for about another
year. The tax cuts expiration was designed to entice people to keep
voting Republican after Bush left office so that those tax cuts could
continue after he's gone.

[khadijahbi...@gmail.com]

OK, let's get back to history, here.

1) When the Bush tax package was put into place, the unemployment rate
in the US was in the high 4% range. This was higher than the
artificially-low (due to the dot-com boom) 4% logged in 2000 but *well
below* both the ten- and the twenty- year averages. A tax cut under
those conditions is not going to stimulate the private job market ---
you're too close to "full employment."

2) Thus, the Bush tax package was *not* implemented for the purpose of
stimulating the private jobs market. The Bush package was a return of
capital. The nation was awash in surplus left over by the dot-com boom
tax receipts, and when government has a surplus, it *should* do one of
two things --- either return the money to the taxpayer or pay down the
debt. Bush chose the former, which AT THE TIME was a completely
defensible course of action.

3) Unfortunately for him, the ability to defend that course of action
ended fairly quickly, as the dot-com bust and 9/11 mucked up the idea
that we were going to be in perpetual surplus. This is when Bush made
his first error ---- looking at declining tax revenues and a war, he
should have reversed his tax package. He did not.

Now, on to your question, although it's not a relevant one considering
the above context:

In a global economy where the cost of labor is substantially lower in
other parts of the world *and* where trade barriers are lowered *and*
where remote management is enabled electronically *and* where
unemployment is running well above the 20 year mean, lowering marginal
rates *does* stimulate the private job market, but it is at least as
likely to stimulate the creation of jobs abroad as it is domestically.
So, messing with marginal rates isn't the answer.

What *is* the answer is a PERMANENT (none of this temporary crap ---
that doesn't get the attention of business) tax policy for decreasing
the cost of domestic employment over some baseline. How to write that
properly is tricky, but if written properly, is necessary to offset the
advantage of cheaper labor pools overseas.

Obama has put *something* like this in his "jobs plan", but as usual,
he's screwed the pooch by structuring it so its (a) temporary and (b)
only advantageous for small businesses and (c) a tax credit rather than
an expense-line deduction.

If a small business has enough demand to warrant hiring, they would hire
anyway, AND small businesses aren't the ones who are shipping jobs
overseas; that's what the LARGE businesses are doing, and large business
is where the demand is right now. So, the program will increase the
deficit 33B and do nothing for hiring the way it's structured.

So, even Dems are voicing strong skepticism such as:

“I think it’s unlikely to be effective,” Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.),
chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said at the time. “If you think
about it, businesspeople are not going to hire people to produce
products that are not selling. Who is going to hire in the auto industry
if you give them a $3,000 credit to make cars that people are not buying?”

Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) concurred, saying the employer tax credit
would likely have a negligible impact on job creation. As did Sen. Ben
Nelson (D., Neb.). “There’s a question of whether that puts the cart
before the horse,” he said. “If I don’t have enough customers for my
product, hiring more people is not going to help, and tax credits are
not going to be to my advantage.”

“I don’t know anybody in business who hires an employee because they
will get a tax break,” said Rep. Mike Thompson (D., Calif.). “They hire
employees because they have work to do.”

“Surely, the Treasury can come up with a better way to promote job
growth,” an exasperated Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D., Texas) told Treasury
Secretary Tim Geithner during a hearing. Even liberal economists
couldn’t bring themselves to back the president on the issue. “It sounds
good because it’s for small businesses and job creation,” Dean Baker of
the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research told Time
magazine. “But basically, you are paying companies to hire workers that
would have been hired even if you hadn’t handed out tax breaks.”

Khadijah





Get a clue yourself.
>

[Dan C]

"Dano" and the rest of the libtard idiots in here think the gub'mint
should control every single detail of your life, including how much money
you're allowed to have. They believe that everyone should be "equal",
and that hard working individuals should not have anything more/better
than the lazy fucks who refuse to work and demand that the gub'mint
provide for their every need.

They're socialists/Marxists, in other words. Fools to be ridiculed and
laughed at.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

"Bother!" said Pooh, as Piglet pulled out the Anal Intruder.

[Alias]

You don't know what you're talking about (again).

--
Alias

[Sure,Not]

On Sep 20, 5:42 pm, Alias <a...@maskedandanonymous.com.invalida>

wrote:
> On 09/20/2011 11:12 PM, ray wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article<4e786...@news.x-privat.org>,

> >   Alias<a...@maskedandanonymous.com.invalida>  wrote:
>
> >> On 09/20/2011 12:10 PM, ray wrote:

> >>> In article<rBVdq.17480$eS.3...@newsfe03.iad>,

> >>>    "SNORDO"<SNOTH...@Teranews.com>   wrote:
>
> >>>> it only raises taxes on those filthy joo cocksuckers who make more than
> >>>> $250,000 a
> >>>> year you lyin
> >>>> douche bag
>
> >>> Yes, those very same who are our employers, provide us benefits, and

> >>> invest money in the stock market.  With ideas likeObama's, it's not a

> >>> wonder why our unemployment is only 9%.
>

> >> They've had theirtaxcuts for over a decade and no new jobs. Oops,

> >> there goes that Republican lie right out the window.
>
> > Sure, even though most of the Bush years were successful ones.  If not
> > for the housing crash, we probably would have enjoyed more good years
> > for the rest of his term.
>

> Obamahas created more jobs in less than three years than Bush with his
> corporate welfareplandid in eight. Them's the facts. The welfare for

> the rich has got to stop.
>

> --
> Alias

Agreed, Let's start with defined pension plans.

[Dano]

"Khad...@forteinc.com" wrote in message
news:9Hkeq.380731$Li5.1...@en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com...

Khadijah

Get a clue yourself.
>
==================================
Well that certainly WAS a thoughtful response...right up to your last line.

Look. I agree that EVERYONE disagrees first of all. No question there.
So. Do NOTHING? As the Republicans espouse. Oh wait. They simply want to
cut more taxes and social programs. THAT'S a novel approach by them is it
not? If tax breaks tied to hiring doesn't work...there will at least be
increased revenues. Not enough of course...but to paraphrase the famous
quote...a billion here, a billion there, and soon we're talking real money.
At the very least, let's make it LESS profitable to move jobs offshore. I'm
also agreeable to protectionist trade policies to counteract those in other
nations that hurt the US to address the imbalance in trade.

You never DID address the question of course. When...EVER...did cutting
(taxes OR programs) actually HELP to spur employment? At the very
least...spending on things like infrastructure will create jobs. It's not
like there is a dearth of work to be done.

The Republicans have one clear goal. Several have stated it clearly. Their
ONLY interest is in making this administration look bad. No matter how many
Americans that hurts. That IMO is akin to treason.

[Dano]

"Dan C" wrote in message news:pan.2011.09...@moria.lan...

"Dano" and the rest of the libtard idiots in here think the gub'mint
should control every single detail of your life, including how much money
you're allowed to have. They believe that everyone should be "equal",
and that hard working individuals should not have anything more/better
than the lazy fucks who refuse to work and demand that the gub'mint
provide for their every need.

They're socialists/Marxists, in other words. Fools to be ridiculed and
laughed at.

=============================================

Yep. THERE is Dan C. Still laughin' and lyin'. EVERY fucking day of his
life!

No need to refute an obvious moron who has NEVER found a fact or truth he
liked.

Continue on nitwit. There is no hope for anyone who would respect your
views after reading ONE of your idiotic posts.

[ZZH...@yahoo.com]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:26:32 -0400, ray <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote:

>In article <7q9i771f9gr17bl8k...@4ax.com>,
> ZZH...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:30:33 -0400, ray <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >Already done: Bush's unemployment rate went up slightly and then surged
>> >after 911. There is nobody in the world that could have prevented that.
>> Sure they could have. If Bush had cut his vacation short and been in
>> Washington the month prior to 9/11 he could have prevented
>> 9/11.
>

>Oh do tell. How would he have done that? .
By being in Washingon where the chatter was deafening that something
big was about to come down, also by reading his daily breifings.

>
>Nobody has taken more time off from Washington than Obama.

Except George W. Bush. When Obama took 62 days off Bush in the same
period of time too 262 days off. Grantedd it's been a lot of years
since I took math but back then 262 was still a lot more than 62.

And it's not
>that I'm criticizing Obama. The President {no matter who it is} is
>always on the job no matter where he is. Most of the planning for 911
>took place in the last years of the Clinton administration.

Wrong. The 9/11 hijackers first arrived in the US of A when
George Herbert Walker Bush was president.

> So are you going to blame him too?

No. George H.W. Bush wasn't president in the month leading up to
9/11 when all these signs screamed that something big was about to
do down.

[N...@gmail.com]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:59:40 -0700, mario in victoria

Wrong. They were due to expire because the method used to enact them
only allowed them to enacted for ten years.

They were due to sunset unless renewed by congress.

[khadijahbi...@gmail.com]

Didn't write that. Not sure what happened to the second >.

>
> Look. I agree that EVERYONE disagrees first of all. No question there.
> So. Do NOTHING? As the Republicans espouse. Oh wait. They simply want to
> cut more taxes and social programs. THAT'S a novel approach by them is
> it not? If tax breaks tied to hiring doesn't work...there will at least
> be increased revenues. Not enough of course...but to paraphrase the
> famous quote...a billion here, a billion there, and soon we're talking
> real money. At the very least, let's make it LESS profitable to move
> jobs offshore. I'm also agreeable to protectionist trade policies to
> counteract those in other nations that hurt the US to address the
> imbalance in trade.

Can't. Under Clinton, we signed WTO treaties which strongly limit our
ability to engage in such measures. We have unfortunately "dropped our
shields" on this one.

The general idea is as follows: When business hires, the incur the cost
of employing the productive employee, and also the risk that the
employee will *not* be productive. Because government subsidizes
employment in the tax code (businesses are taxed on the remainder after
deducting wage and others expenses) the tax code is a viable way to
decrease these costs or manage those risks.

Unfortunately, the archaic nature of the corporate tax code means that
across the board measures for decreasing these costs and risks are
difficult to predict. But, the *solution* is a larger "bargain" where
the corporate tax code is flattened and the government increases
deductions for domestic employment (or assumes part of the unproductive
risk, which is also possible to do).

>
> You never DID address the question of course. When...EVER...did cutting
> (taxes OR programs) actually HELP to spur employment?

The 20's, 60's, and 80's.

At the very
> least...spending on things like infrastructure will create jobs. It's
> not like there is a dearth of work to be done.

There's plenty of work, no doubt. How much we can do under the current
debt situation is questionable.

>
> The Republicans have one clear goal. Several have stated it clearly.
> Their ONLY interest is in making this administration look bad. No matter
> how many Americans that hurts. That IMO is akin to treason.

I see it as business as usual. Our politics has been in scorched-earth
mode since the 80's at least, with other political historians saying
that the discord we currently have is actually more typical for our
history, while the relative civility we experienced from WW2 though to
Bush I was the outlier.

Khadijah

[Jerry Okamura]

"Alias" wrote in message news:4e78...@news.x-privat.org...

On 09/20/2011 12:10 PM, ray wrote:
> In article<rBVdq.17480$eS....@newsfe03.iad>,
> "SNORDO"<SNOT...@Teranews.com> wrote:
>
>> it only raises taxes on those filthy joo cocksuckers who make more than
>> $250,000 a
>> year you lyin
>> douche bag
>
> Yes, those very same who are our employers, provide us benefits, and

> invest money in the stock market. With ideas like Obama's, it's not a

> wonder why our unemployment is only 9%.
>

They've had their tax cuts for over a decade and no new jobs. Oops,

there goes that Republican lie right out the window.

Can jobs be created when no one has the money to create those jobs?

[Jerry Okamura]

"Alias" wrote in message news:4e79b14f$1...@news.x-privat.org...

Where are all the jobs that Obama tried to create?

[Jerry Okamura]

"Alias" wrote in message news:4e79b040$2...@news.x-privat.org...

A definition problem? When is someone "poor"?

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hBoeq.23192$eS....@newsfe03.iad...

Hey, stupid! Tax cuts ALONE won't create jobs. Tax cuts have to be
combined with spending cuts by the federal government which means
smaller, less intrusive government.

So, don't give us this liberal crap talking point that tax cuts don't
work. They only don't work of you have a liberal congress that keeps
spending out out control.

Dumbass!

--
Gregory Hall

[Jerry Okamura]

" Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." wrote in message
news:519qr9....@news.alt.net...

I asked can jobs be created when no one has the money to create those jobs?

[Jerry Okamura]

"Dano" wrote in message news:j5bjri$cs9$1...@dont-email.me...

The question is, are more jobs created when people have more money to spend
and invest, or are less jobs created when people have less money to invest
and spend.....

[mario in victoria]

Thank you. I don't know the 'mechanics' of the enactment/lapsing.
All I know is that reducing taxes reduces revenue. It's a given. Should
that be followed by a surge in jobs/revenue, fine. But it didn't happen.

mario in victoria
--
nice to learn stuff

[mario in victoria]

Again it's difficult to understand which is your answer. I'm assuming
the last two statements are yours.

You answered your own question. The tax cuts gave people money. Why
weren't jobs created?

mario in victoria
--
he's a politician, impossible to figure out what he's saying

[mario in victoria]

Okay.
So what happened during the Bush reign?

mario in victoria
--
sic semper moronis

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message

news:dSpeq.13663$RC6....@newsfe10.iad...

Cutting taxes equals more money left in the pockets of consumers.

Consumers then spend the extra money.

This increases the demand for goods and services.

Businesses who supply goods and services hire in order to handle the
increased demand for goods and services.

But, you can't have runaway spending by big government nor can you have
over-regulation of business by big government. On the contrary, you must
have big government get the fuck out of the way so businesses aren't
hampered in the expansion by regulations, business taxes, EPA
regulations etc. Businesses won't hire anybody unless it's profitable
for them to do so. Businesses don't exist as a form of charity. They
exist to make a profit. If they can make a BIGGER profit by selling more
goods and services and they have to hire more people to do so they will.

It' doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. It takes a liberal
brainwashing, however, to NOT figure it out.

--
Gregory Hall

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"mario in victoria" <mari...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s1qeq.43984$CQ4....@newsfe09.iad...

All was going quite well economically during the Bush term. Unemployment
generally stayed under 5%. It only got above 5% in the last two years of
the administration and that was because the Democrats took control of
Congress and commenced their reckless spending agenda. The spend
recklessly so they can yell, "We need to raise taxes to decrease the
deficit!" NEVER to they point the finger at themselves and say, "We
need to decrease our spending."

--
Gregory Hall

[nate]

On Sep 21, 12:59 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
wrote:

>
> A definition problem?  When is someone "poor"?

Try a standard deviation below the average? Same with "rich" - a
standard deviation above the average.

We could dicker over the coefficient i propose here (1.00).

- nate

[Dan C]

Really? My statements above are based simply on what/how you post here.
You clearly are in favor of big government involvement in ordinary folks'
lives, and in raising taxes, and in more govt spending, and in taking
care of lazy freeloaders so they don't have to work. All of those are
things that YOU have indicated in your posts.

Why is it that you now call me a "nitwit" for paraphrasing and reposting
exactly what you've already said a hundred times? What's the "lie" in
what I've said there above?

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

"Bother!" said Pooh, as he declared his horse a Senator.

[Dan C]

What a great comeback! You sure showed me!!!

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

"Bother!" said Pooh, as he scrambled his partition table.

[nate]

On Sep 21, 3:31 pm, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <gregh...@home.fake>
wrote:

>
> All was going quite well economically during the Bush term.

Fuck - I have to disagree with this. Stupidity was admired ... I lost
my best job ... Idioticity was installed at all the lower governmental
ranks that Bush's henchmen could do and Dick Cheney proved to be
possibly even more a mental broken man than Joseph Stalin. When you
say "economically" you have to take into account at least the 100-year
effects of what you are doing. Never mind the "next week" mentality.

This country has really NEVER had anything going "quite well
economically". EVER. But then, no country in history has. We should
work FOR that, instead of favoring stupid ideas that always seem to
make the income disparity even worse which will always result in
VIOLENCE. There *SHOULD* be an income disparity! But not like this.
Maybe +/- 3 standard deviations?


- nate

[nate]

On Sep 20, 5:17 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <j5aeh7$e...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Want an example of the corporate mindset?  National Grid...
>
> Now what company is this that had a profit margin of over 35%?  Don't
> lie now. I will look it up.  


Reading FAIL.


- nate

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"nate" <grey...@net1plus.com> wrote in message
news:849472a2-58b7-422b...@p4g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...

================[reply]=================

When all I hear is complaints from a bunch of wannabe rich rabble I tend
to discount it. Of course the freeloaders want a better free ride. It's
expected. Too bad the whining welfare bums don't get off their lazy
asses and do something productive. I'm tired of their selfish whining
about how downtrodden they all are. . .\

--
Gregory Hall

[ray]

In article <4e79b040$2...@news.x-privat.org>,

Alias <a...@maskedandanonymous.com.invalida> wrote:

> >>>
> >>
> >> Heritage Organization? You're joking, right?
> >
> > Heritage didn't do the research. They are only conveying it. If you
> > actually read the report {which I'm sure you didn't. You just seen
> > Heritage and closed the page} you will find they site their sources, and
> > you are welcome to check it out for yourself.
> >
>
> All that article says is that the poor isn't poor enough for them to
> really call poor. I stand by what I posted. You're joking, right?

What it says is that calling these people poor is ridiculous. By
anybody's standards, they are not poor.

--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.

[Dano]

==================================================

If THAT is what you take from my posts...you aren't simply a liar...you're a
complete fucking moron. Oh wait...we all knew that already.

[Dano]

"nate" wrote in message
news:5af15624-db13-40c7...@g30g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

=========================================

"ray" resides in my KF.

I have previously posted the source of the 35% figure for National Grid. By
all means he's free to look it up himself. I also researched the 7% cut in
employees. If I were "making it up" would I pick THAT number?

[ray]

In article <3d3k77hpcchhlvkhr...@4ax.com>,
ZZH...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:26:32 -0400, ray <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <7q9i771f9gr17bl8k...@4ax.com>,
> > ZZH...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:30:33 -0400, ray <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >Already done: Bush's unemployment rate went up slightly and then surged
> >> >after 911. There is nobody in the world that could have prevented that.
> >> Sure they could have. If Bush had cut his vacation short and been in
> >> Washington the month prior to 9/11 he could have prevented
> >> 9/11.
> >
> >Oh do tell. How would he have done that? .
> By being in Washingon where the chatter was deafening that something
> big was about to come down, also by reading his daily breifings.

No, that's the typical liberal lie you bought into. Bush had no
knowledge of 911. Terrorists threats have been bombarding the White
House through the last several Presidents before Bush.

> >Nobody has taken more time off from Washington than Obama.
> Except George W. Bush. When Obama took 62 days off Bush in the same
> period of time too 262 days off. Grantedd it's been a lot of years
> since I took math but back then 262 was still a lot more than 62.

Source please? And yes, I include golf trips as "out of the White
House."

> And it's not
> >that I'm criticizing Obama. The President {no matter who it is} is
> >always on the job no matter where he is. Most of the planning for 911
> >took place in the last years of the Clinton administration.
> Wrong. The 9/11 hijackers first arrived in the US of A when
> George Herbert Walker Bush was president.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

> > So are you going to blame him too?
> No. George H.W. Bush wasn't president in the month leading up to
> 9/11 when all these signs screamed that something big was about to
> do down.

--

[mario in victoria]

**********************

You're not answering my question, merely posing another to muddy the
water. The charts above show that the tax cuts DID NOT reduce
unemployment. Get it? Look at the numbers:

In 2001 (1st round of cuts) unemployment went from 4.2% (prior to cuts)
to 5.7. Fine, blame 11/9. BUT, unemployment went from 4.2% (Jan) to 5.0%
in September. THEN it increased to 5.7% (Dec). So, the math says that
unemployment grew 0.8% prior to 11/9, and 0.7% afterward.

In 2003, as shown above (I have to repeat it because I sense you're
being obtuse), the unemployment rate went from 5.8% to a high of 6.3%
and finally down to 5.7% in December of 2003.

Through 2004 it fell to 5.4%.

Again, WHERE did the tax cuts (which were meant to give people more
money to spend and invest) reduce unemployment appreciably.

Please explain that to me. Don't go off on a tangent with another,
different aspect of the problem. If you can't answer the question as
posed, don't bother.

mario in victoria
--
obtuse is a mild word in his case.
wish he'd learn to post correctly

[mario in victoria]

You're wrong.
During the Bush regime unemployment was above 5% from late 2001 to the
end of 2005. (Bureau of Statistics -- you can look it up)

The dramatic rise to 7.3% in Sept/2008 might have been caused by that
little credit crunch/housing bubble collapse that occurred while Bush
was in power. And his bailout.

By the way, the bulk of bank bailout money was spent on acquisitions and
created a net loss in jobs. Thank you W.

Are you lying or just plain wrong? ('generally stayed under 5%...)

mario in victoria
--
research, not opinions, greg

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"mario in victoria" <mari...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:Y9teq.23204$eS.1...@newsfe03.iad...

=====================[reply]====================

No, YOU'RE wrong. From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration

Unemployment

"The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose from 4.3% in January
2001, peaking at 6.3% in June 2003 and reaching a trough of 4.4% in
March 2007. After an economic slowdown, the rate rose again to 6.1% in
August 2008 and up to 7.2% in December 2008.[53] From December 2007 when
the recession started to December 2008, an additional 3.6 million people
became unemployed.[54] And, as of January 1, 2009, his last month in
office, the nation lost 655,000 jobs, raising the unemployment rate to
7.8%, the highest level in more than 15 years.[55]"

Note how the rise coincided with Democrat's taking control of Congress
in 2008. Note how Bush's tax cuts quickly got us out of the Clinton
recession and kept the unemployment rate in control until the Democrats
assumed power in Congress and killed job creation with legislation they
passed. Obama simply carried on the disaster.

--
Gregory Hall

[mario in victoria]

On 21/09/2011 14:30, ray wrote:
> In article<3d3k77hpcchhlvkhr...@4ax.com>,
> ZZH...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:26:32 -0400, ray<xxxr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article<7q9i771f9gr17bl8k...@4ax.com>,
>>> ZZH...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:30:33 -0400, ray<xxxr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> Already done: Bush's unemployment rate went up slightly and then surged
>>>>> after 911. There is nobody in the world that could have prevented that.
>>>> Sure they could have. If Bush had cut his vacation short and been in
>>>> Washington the month prior to 9/11 he could have prevented
>>>> 9/11.
>>>
>>> Oh do tell. How would he have done that? .
>> By being in Washingon where the chatter was deafening that something
>> big was about to come down, also by reading his daily breifings.
>
> No, that's the typical liberal lie you bought into. Bush had no
> knowledge of 911. Terrorists threats have been bombarding the White
> House through the last several Presidents before Bush.
>
>>> Nobody has taken more time off from Washington than Obama.
>> Except George W. Bush. When Obama took 62 days off Bush in the same
>> period of time too 262 days off. Grantedd it's been a lot of years
>> since I took math but back then 262 was still a lot more than 62.
>
> Source please? And yes, I include golf trips as "out of the White
> House."

www.factcheck.org and many others.

Fact is that Bush II spent more time on vacation than just about anyone
in the Oval Office.

You could look it up, ray.

mario in victoria
--
stuff

<snip>

[PETER SHORTS]

On Sep 21, 5:52 pm, mario in victoria <mario5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 21/09/2011 11:19, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "Dano" wrote in messagenews:j5bjri$cs9$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> > "mario in victoria" wrote in message
> >news:M9ceq.6529$Un7....@newsfe13.iad...
>
> > On 20/09/2011 19:19, ray wrote:

> >> In article<fybeq.18749$Ol1.3...@newsfe07.iad>,

> >> mario in victoria<mario5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Already done: Bush's unemployment rate went up slightly and then surged
> >>>> after 911. There is nobody in the world that could have prevented that.
> >>>> However, after his tax cuts, unemployment once again went into the 5%
> >>>> area until the housing crash where it spiked up again.
>

> >>>>http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/b...

and the reason for this is simple - u.s. corporations law. public
corporations are owned by shareholders, and steered by directors, with
their wishes implemented by the ceo and other officers. the fiduciary
duty of the directors is to increase profit above all other goals.
failure to do so exposes them to liability. if a public corporation
is given a tax break with no restrictions, and doesn't follow the path
that will increase profit, the directors will be sued and will be
found liable, because they have a duty to put profit above all else.
if laying off employees despite the increased revenue from tax cuts
will increase profits even more, then they must lay off employees.
this is why the health of the stock market is not a good indication of
which way the employment rate is heading - increased unemployment can
increase profit.

so, either congress has to make changes to corporate law, or any tax
cuts to corporations must have restrictions as to how they are used.
of course, any talk of doing either will be protested in some circles
as being 'socialist', but unless this happens nothing will change.
some of the people who would protest these kinds of changes are the
very people who are getting fucked by the current system, and need to
wake up.