"Ranked as the world’s 9th-largest economy, California is projected to have a budget surplus for the first time in many years, due to recent voter-approved tax hikes"

[Ramon F. Herrera]

Just when we thought that the words "California" and "surplus" could
not be used in the same sentence...

-Ramon

----------------------------------------------------

California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget surplus

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California Governor Jerry Brown and top
Democrats in the legislature have agreed to a state budget deal that
gives them some increased spending in exchange for accepting his more
cautious revenue outlook, a lawmaker involved in budget talks said on
Monday.

"The state Assembly and Senate must still approve the budget deal, but
the agreement means the legislature will likely meet its June 15
deadline for approving a new spending plan. [...]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/10/california-governor-and-lawmakers-reach-deal-on-budget-surplus/

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
<0ad003c5-366e-491b...@n13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

They may have a budget surplus -- until those who have generated the tax
revenues that contributed to it get smart and leave the state.

[Bill Graham]

Anyone who trusts the liberal economists who redefine, "surplus" to suit
their own political ends using their weird Kenesian economics (arbornomics)
is as crazy as they are. Onloy a crazy Democrat can turn a 20+ billion
dollar deficit into a surplus in 6 months or less by rewriting their
economic dictionary.

[Ryanator]

> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/10/california-governor-and-lawmake...

This is an accounting gimmick that would make Enron blush with shame.
There is no surplus and CA is still sliding into the abyss.

[Ryanator]

On Jun 11, 3:46 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:

> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/10/california-governor-and-lawmake...

California's Phony Budget Surplus
David Henderson

My personal finances are doing great. I have a "surplus." I saved
$1,000 last month after paying all my expenses. Well, not all my
expenses. I didn't pay my $1,500 monthly mortgage. But, hey, don't be
picky.

The above is something I made up. Actually, my personal finances are
great and this is after never having missed a mortgage payment in 27
years.

But here's what's not made up:

And California, which faced a $26 billion deficit two years ago,
expects a surplus of between $1.2 billion and $4.4 billion this year,
thanks to a combination of tax increases, budget cuts and an improving
economy. But it could be erased if the state were to adequately
finance its teachers' pension fund, which says it will need an
additional $4.5 billion a year, much of it from the state, to pay the
benefits it promised.

In other words, California's state government has committed to a
pension fund for teachers and has ginned up a surplus by underpaying
into that fund. And notice the number: $4.5 billion. That puts it at
the top end of the optimistic estimate of the "surplus".

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/06/californias_pho.html

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 11, 3:46 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:

> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/10/california-governor-and-lawmake...

thank god, they finally figured out the reaganism scam, and have now
taken back their state from the "CONSERVATIVE" charlatans and
hucksters.

[Bill Graham]

I believe the Democrats define, "California" in much the same way as we
Republicans do. But the word, "surplus"? I have no ides how they define
that. I donlt even know how the Republicans define it. For sure, I know that
neither one defines it the same way I do. So, these people speak a totally
different language than I do. And, as a result, it is impossible for me to
discuss anything with them. We live in entirely different worlds.
Unfortunately, they cointrol the value (buying power) of my money, so I have
to live in fear of (real) bankrupsy at any time.

[Nickname unavailable]

reagan proved that deficits do not matter, snicker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Beatrice Kathryn Hope]

Ramon is a foreign transplant originally from Venezuela, probably a
beaner terrorist, and definitely a Fraud. Ramon F Herrera also goes by
"Cambridge Ray," "Google Poster," "Lucius Sanctimonious," and
"Hadron." An ultra-left, open-borders pretend-American. He lives and
works in Houston, TX. Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you
encourage them to continue lying.

Ramon F Herrera
13313 Cutten Rd, Apt 7102
Houston, TX 77069-2374

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"


On Thu, 28 May 2009 19:01:56 -0700 (PDT), Ramon F Herrera
<gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote:
>When they ask me where I am from

Nobody asks you where you're from. You're obviously a Beaner so it
doesn't matter which Beaner Toilet you come from...

>So my answer is:
>"I am from the country that has produced:
> - The most Miss Universe winners

Wrong, Beaner:

USA = 7
Venezuela = 5

>ps: No disrespect intended.

List of Miss Universe titleholders
1952 Finland
1953 France
1954 USA
1955 Sweden
1956 USA
1957 Peru
1958 Colombia
1959 Japan
1960 USA
1961 Germany
1962 Argentina
1963 Brazil
1964 Greece
1965 Thailand
1966 Sweden
1967 USA
1968 Brazil
1969 Philippines
1970 Puerto Rico
1971 Lebanon
1972 Australia
1973 Philippines
1974 Spain
1975 Finland
1976 Israel
1977 Trinidad and Tobago
1978 South Africa
1979 Venezuela
1980 USA
1981 Venezuela
1982 Canada
1983 New Zealand
1984 Sweden
1985 Puerto Rico
1986 Venezuela
1987 Chile
1988 Thailand
1989 Netherlands
1990 Norway
1991 Mexico
1992 Namibia
1993 Puerto Rico
1994 India
1995 USA
1996 Venezuela
1997 USA
1998 Trinidad and Tobago
1999 Botswana
2000 India
2001 Puerto Rico
2002 Russia
2003 Dominican Republic
2004 Australia
2005 Canada
2006 Puerto Rico
2007 Japan
2008 Venezuela
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Miss_Universe_titleholders

Posted on behalf of:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!

[Naughtius]

It's THE SAME LANGUAGE... *WE* Just **INSIST** That *OUR TERMS*
[FIRST] Be CORRECTLY SPELLED; And Be [RELENTLESSLY] Backed By TRUTH,
LOGIC, And [[FACTS]]...

[[[ALL]]] Of Which Are TOTALLY FOREIGN CONCEPTS To LIFE-LONG
Ignoramuses...

> And, as a result, it is impossible for me to
> discuss anything with them.

Guess Yer Gonna HAVETA Make Due With Your TRADITIONAL Ignoramus
CIRCLE-JERK... [EWWWWwww]...

[Someone Once "Published"... *Here*... A CLEVER *Latin* Phrase For
"Circle-Jerk"... WISH I Could Remember It...

> We live in entirely different worlds.
> Unfortunately, they cointrol the value (buying power) of my money,

BWUUUUUHAHAHAHAAAAaaaaaa... KORREKT You HOPELESS IMBECILE!! The
DIREKTORATE Would NORMALLY Hahf You LIQUIDATED For Your IMPUDENT
WHINING...

BUT... It EEES SO MUCH MORE PLEASURABLE To SEE You SUFFER...
Slowly... AGONIZINGLY... Under OUR **SOCIALIST** Heel...

> so I have
> to live in fear of (real) bankrupsy at any time.

"bankrupsy"... The TRUE MARK Of a *NATIVE Janitor-Speaker*
Ignoramus...

Naughtius "Live LONG; And SUFFER!" Maximus

[Bret Cahill]

> Just when we thought that the words "California" and "surplus" could
> not be used in the same sentence...

Univeral suffrage / referenda on fiscal policy will make every state
prosperous, not just California..

Gentle, start your ballot initiatives for a high tax economic boom in
_your_ state!!


Bret Cahill

[Christina Hipolito Corbett-Tellez]

An ultra-left LOSER. Like most socially misfit DemocRATs, Bret lives
alone in a one-room apartment:

Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227

Bret tried to sue the gov't and got stomped on like an insect. Ever
since that crushing humiliation he has hated himself, everybody else,
and America.

BRET E. CAHILL, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL....
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1995/w951444w.txt

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:49:32 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >HIGH FIVE!!
>> >> WTF?  Has GoDaddy dumped him??
>> >His tale of woe is here ...
>> >http://democratshallofshame.org/RAT_DHOS_vs_GD.html
>> >How long until he falls afoul of the TOS for his new provider?
>> I just read through his "tale of woe."
>That hardly makes sense.

It does if you assume that one or more employees at the GoDaddy Domain
Name Abuse department are faggots and the Complainer finally beat them
down with frequent complaints.

>No one ever went to his lame middle school
>emotional development level page anyway.

Oops! Caught lying...

Tens of millions of hits in several years...

[Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E]

On Jun 11, 5:46 pm, Nickname unavailable

> hucksters.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH !!! "Nickname unavailable"?? Hey,
pissmop, I have a nickname for ya', "Brainwashed Useful Idiot".
LMMFAO !!

[Ginger]

Yeah, now the entire legislature can go in drag without criticism. Gov.
Moonbeam can have out of body experiences where he balances the budget
and Mexicans are made out of gingerbread.

[Hell Stomper]

> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/10/california-governor-and-lawmake...

Good luck with that.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 11, 8:48 pm, "Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E"

california was the epicenter of "CONSERVATIVE" scams, they woke up.




http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/986912.html

Peter Schrag: Proposition 13 at 30: What a mess it has made

By Peter Schrag
psc...@sacbee.com
Published: Wednesday, Jun. 04, 2008 | Page 9B
Joel Fox, the amiable former president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association, used to complain vociferously about people who he thought
blamed too many of California's problems on Proposition 13, the
landmark property tax limitation measure that voters passed on June 6,
1978.
Fox, no fuming curmudgeon like Jarvis, who was the prime author of
Proposition 13, was partially right. Proposition 13 did not cause
every public service calamity of the last 30 years, much less the
Northridge earthquake or the San Diego County wildfires.
But in the years since Proposition 13's passage, it has compounded
California's governmental and fiscal mess something awful.
California's per pupil school spending, which was among the top 10
states in the 1960s, is now among the bottom 10. Proposition 13 alone
is not responsible, but along with two major court decisions that
preceded it, it helped decouple school funding from the local tax base
and thus undercut voter incentives to fund education generously, as it
had been in the generation after World War II. Our roads, once a
national model, are an embarrassment.
More certainly it entangled state and local accountability to the
point where it became increasingly hard even for diligent voters to
understand who was responsible for what. When streets didn't get
paved, was it City Hall that was wasting money or was it state
government, which now controlled the local property tax and wasn't
providing enough of it?
Worse, Proposition 13 reinforced the distrust of representative
government that helped bring it on and vastly increased reliance on
the initiative process and the sway of what became known as the
initiative-industrial complex, the network of lawyers, consultants,
petition circulators, pollsters, direct-mail operatives and the
various outsiders attached to them.
It brought the gush of "auto-pilot" ballot-box budget measures that's
both driven and restricted state spending and otherwise limited
elected government. Here's a partial list:
• Proposition 4 in 1979, Paul Gann's state and local spending limits
measure, later revised and Jarvis' Propositions 5, 6 and 7 in 1982
eliminating the inheritance tax and indexing the state income tax.
• Proposition 98, the constitutional school spending formula passed in
1988 in response to the effects on school funding of the Gann limit.
It's a formula that hardly anyone understands and that continues to
bedevil the system without measurably raising school funding.
• Legislative term limits in 1990.
• A string of multimillion-dollar wildlife conservation and public
transit bonds proposed by the Planning and Conservation League and
enacted in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
• Proposition 187, the "three strikes" sentencing initiative of 1994
that's relentlessly driven up prison costs and is now helping to put
the state and its prison system into a crippling fiscal bind with the
federal courts.
• Proposition 218, enacted in 1996, to close various local attempts to
skirt property tax limitation with fees and other charges.
• Proposition 49 in 2002, Arnold Schwarzenegger's initiative to
provide an additional $500 million annually for before-and-after
school programs.
• Proposition 71, the $3 billion stem cell research bond backed by the
governor that, with interest, will cost the state $6 billion to repay.
Proposition 13 also helped spark a national tax revolt that continues
to this day. Never before in history has the federal government cut
taxes in wartime. And while the nation began with a sort of tax
revolt, never before has no-new-taxes become so rigid a piece of
political orthodoxy as it is now.
Schwarzenegger, who now as governor complains loudly about the
budgetary mess he's in, contributed himself to the creation of the
mess, not only through his support of ballot-box budgeting measures
but through his first-day cut of the state's vehicle license fee, the
car tax – and his general embrace of that tax-cut mantra.
Loss of the car-tax now costs the state the $6 billion a year that
local governments had been getting from it. That appears on the books
as spending, but it's a tax cut.
Fox, like other defenders of Proposition 13, argues that the measure
helped save the homes of thousands of people facing escalating,
inflation-driven property tax bills they couldn't afford to pay.
Sacramento diddled in its futile effort to provide relief. But it's
inconceivable that had there been no initiative process in California
and no Howard Jarvis, Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature wouldn't
have gotten the message in the 1978 general election and offered a
more workable solution, even if it had taken legions of geezers with
pitchforks to deliver it.
Instead we borrow and fudge and struggle with a policy-making process
that's little more than a string of ad-hoc votes driven by deep-pocket
interest groups – public-sector unions, railroads, insurance
companies, real-estate groups, Indian casinos, oil and tobacco
corporations, among others – the very groups whose influence the
initiative process was once designed to check.
California once had a communitarian ethic. That's been turned into a
market ethic. It once did serious planning for the future. For now,
that's a nearly forgotten hope.
Happy anniversary.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 11, 8:48 pm, "Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E"
<burtonu...@gmail.com> wrote:

the new epicenters of "CONSERVATIVE" crank, charlatan, and huckster
centers are now in places like texas, kansas, and wisconsin, and the
results are, tada,


"THE CONSERVATIVES" are destroying the once proud blue state of
wisconsin: manufacturers fleeing wisconsin, out sourcing to high tax
illinois, turning down federal money for transportation, 44th in job
creation, destroyed demand(wages)


http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/column/dave_zweifel/plain-talk-cream-puffs-outsourced-to-illinois-tell-a-larger/article_eb6987d2-f724-5221-8f09-27094fd7ae50.html

Plain Talk: Cream puffs outsourced to Illinois tell a larger story


2013-06-10T04:55:00Z Plain Talk: Cream puffs outsourced to Illinois
tell a larger storyDAVE ZWEIFEL | The Capital Times editor emeritus

Editor Emeritus Dave Zweifel has been with The Capital Times since he
graduated from UW-Madison in 1962, serving as the paper's editor in
chief from 1983 to 2008. He was president of the Wisconsin Freedom of
Information Council for 15 years, served as a Pulitzer Prize judge in
2000 and 2001, and named to the Wisconsin Newspaper Hall of Fame in
2011. A native of New Glarus, Wis., where he grew up on a farm, he
serves on several non-profit boards and is a military veteran, having
served on active duty as a field artillery officer in the early 1960s
and for 26 years in the Wisconsin Army National Guard where he retired
as a colonel in 1993.


This headline says more about the state of Wisconsin's economy than
just about anything:
"Wisconsin's beloved State Fair cream puffs outsourced to Illinois."
Because the once-thriving Golden Guernsey dairy went out of business
last year even as Gov. Scott Walker insisted that our state is "open
for business," there isn't a dairy big enough to provide the 1,200
gallons of cream needed to meet the cream puff demand at the State
Fair.
So for the first time ever, the Wisconsin Bakers' Association had to
go to Illinois to find a dairy that could. Prairie Farms Dairy of
Carlinville, Ill., a small city about 50 miles northeast of St. Louis,
was awarded the contract for the popular fun food that has been a
hallmark of the Wisconsin State Fair since its inception.
To take a little salt out of the wound, Prairie Farms has pledged to
work with Wisconsin dairy farmers to supply the cream. But to have
this unique Wisconsin product outsourced to a company in Illinois is
akin to cheering for the Bears over the Packers.
This may just be the first in a string of embarrassing events for the
Badger state ever since it plummeted to 44th in the nation in job
creation and continues to fail to attract new business to the state —
as Walker promised to do if only we'd elect him.
This must be poetic justice for Illinois Gov. Patrick Quinn, who
Walker ridiculed last year for raising taxes before announcing a full-
scale effort to steal businesses from the flatlanders.
One other thing of note: Little Carlinville has daily Amtrak passenger
rail service, something that Walker's capital city could have had, but
doesn't.
The modus operandi of the Walker administration has been to turn back
the clock by destroying Wisconsin's time-honored progressivism. And
what do we get in return? A lousy 100 bucks a year in tax savings (a
little over $8 a month) and cream puffs with cream from Illinois.
Dave Zweifel is editor emeritus of The Capital Times. dzweifel@m

Read more:
http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/column/dave_zweifel/plain-talk-cream-puffs-outsourced-to-illinois-tell-a-larger/article_eb6987d2-f724-5221-8f09-27094fd7ae50.html#ixzz2VqCf4ydm

[Nickname unavailable]

reagan proved deficits do not matter, snicker:)))))))))))))))))))))))

[Scout]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
news:d26751e4-e1fc-492f...@g8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

> On Jun 11, 5:59 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Ryanator wrote:
>> > On Jun 11, 3:46 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>> >> Just when we thought that the words "California" and "surplus" could
>> >> not be used in the same sentence...
>>
>> >> -Ramon
>>
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------
>>
>> >> California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget surplus
>>

>> >> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) � California Governor Jerry Brown and top

And Obama took that ball and ran with it.........

[deadrat]

circulum inprobus?
<snip/>

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 11, 10:50 pm, "Scout"
<me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

>
> news:d26751e4-e1fc-492f...@g8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 11, 5:59 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Ryanator wrote:
> >> > On Jun 11, 3:46 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> >> >> Just when we thought that the words "California" and "surplus" could
> >> >> not be used in the same sentence...
>
> >> >> -Ramon
>
> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> >> >> California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget surplus
>

> >> >> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California Governor Jerry Brown and top

yes its all bushs fault, and american knows it.


yes its all bushes fault: China Is Reaping Biggest Benefits of Iraq
Oil Boom. What the Chinese have demonstrated is that in the modern
world, to the conquerors do not go the spoils. The United States has
spent well over $3 trillion on its Iraq War, while suffering and
inflicting much mayhem. Yet it is the studiously neutral government of
China that has most clearly benefited from George W. Bush's folly.
Beijing refused to play the militarist's game but coolly picked up the
winner's prize.
"Since the American-led invasion of 2003, Iraq has become one of the
world's top oil producers," the Times reports, "and China is now its
biggest customer.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/china-benefits-from-bushs_b_3382137.html

Robert Scheer
Editor, Truthdig.com; Author, 'The Great American Stickup'




China Benefits From Bush's Folly
Posted: 06/04/2013 2:49 am


Imperialism doesn't pay. Of course, it never did for the common folk
recruited to invade another country, or the natives they conquered.
But still, the thought persists that occupying foreign lands --
particularly as in the case of Iraq, soaked in oil as well as blood --
is a winner.
True, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, with its nonexistent WMDs and virulent
hostility to the religious fanatics that attacked us on 9/11, was a
false target for a war on terror. And yes, a Shiite-run Iraq is now
closely allied with co-religionists in Iran and Lebanon, whereas
Hussein had once been our ally in containing the power of the
ayatollahs. But "we" now control Iraq's vast oil reserves, some hawks
will still argue in the manner of the idiot savant Paul Wolfowitz, who
as then-deputy defense secretary promised that the oil would pay for
the war. Only they, like he, have once again been proved wrong.
That myth of wealth following the flag can finally be put to rest with
the report in Sunday's New York Times headlined "China Is Reaping
Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom." What the Chinese have demonstrated
is that in the modern world, to the conquerors do not go the spoils.
The United States has spent well over $3 trillion on its Iraq War,
while suffering and inflicting much mayhem. Yet it is the studiously
neutral government of China that has most clearly benefited from
George W. Bush's folly. Beijing refused to play the militarist's game
but coolly picked up the winner's prize.
"Since the American-led invasion of 2003, Iraq has become one of the
world's top oil producers," the Times reports, "and China is now its
biggest customer." Almost half of Iraq's oil production already is
shipped to China, and those once vilified commies, reincarnated as
today's robber barons, are bidding for an even larger stake in Iraq's
oil field production. The Cold War is indeed over, but China's red
capitalists have won.
While the United States remains mired in the outdated task of
establishing military hegemony through a vast network of advanced
bases and sophisticated weaponry, the Chinese have emerged as the
world's most nimble entrepreneurs, shrewdly covering their bets
without the distraction of patriotic flag waving.
"We lost out," Bush Defense Department official Michael Makovsky
admits to the Times. "The Chinese had nothing to do with the war, but
from an economic standpoint, they are benefitting from it, and our
Fifth Fleet and air forces are helping to assure their supply."
Actually, the Chinese had quite a bit to do with the war in that they
profited from the interest on the loans they made that floated the U.S
war debt. This debt will continue to increase as we remain stuck with
the bill for that Fifth Fleet protecting the shipping lanes connecting
Iraq's oil with China's ever expanding economy.
What all this underscores is that America, driven by an obsession with
foreign enemies and burdened with a huge permanent military economy,
lost its original sense of purpose, as outlined by George Washington
in his Farewell Address:
"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all Nations, are recommended by
policy, humanity and interest. But even our Commercial policy should
hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting
exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of
things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of
commerce but forcing nothing."
Not exactly the tone of our policy toward China during the Cold War,
or with Iraq more recently. Possessed of an armed forces power
dwarfing all that came before, we have been drunk on the elixir of
military confrontation. Ignoring the plea of Washington's farewell
effort "to warn against the mischiefs of foreign Intrigue, to guard
against the Impostures of pretended patriotism," we wallowed in that
very imposture.
A nation born in revolt against the preoccupations of empire came to
embrace foreign military conquest as its raison d'être. Particularly
during the era of post 9/11 hysteria, the arrogance of unquestioned
nationalist power has come to define our political culture. How ironic
that the once ossified police state of communist China should now
threaten us with a free market alternative.
The next time we feel the need to go to war -- Iran comes to mind --
we might be cautioned by Beijing's startling turnaround. This was the
government that would never abandon its revolutionary politics, it was
commonly said. And now an Iraq Oil Ministry official is quoted in the
Times as saying of the Chinese: "They are practical people. They don't
have anything to do with politics or religion. They just work and eat
and sleep." Sounds like how we used to be.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 11, 10:50 pm, "Scout"
<me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

>
> news:d26751e4-e1fc-492f...@g8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 11, 5:59 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Ryanator wrote:
> >> > On Jun 11, 3:46 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> >> >> Just when we thought that the words "California" and "surplus" could
> >> >> not be used in the same sentence...
>
> >> >> -Ramon
>
> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> >> >> California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget surplus
>

> >> >> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California Governor Jerry Brown and top

tsk tsk, poor "CONSERVATIVES", it ain't working this time:) The
Republican Noise Machine is falling on deaf ears: no matter how loud
conservatives scream "Benghazi," "Solyndra," "Fast and Furious" and
even "Intim-O-Gate" (Glenn Beck's failed attempt to brand the IRS and
leak investigation controversies), President Obama glides past. His
poll numbers remain relatively stable. its because a majority of
americans despise "CONSERVATISM".

http://news.yahoo.com/why-conservatives-cant-whitewater-obama-1345000...

Why conservatives can't whitewater Obama
By Bill Scher | The Week – 13 hrs ago

The Republican Noise Machine is falling on deaf ears
Twenty years ago, conservative media mavens seemed able to turn any
minor flap into scandal gold, be it a decade-old land deal that lost
money or a mundane replacement of White House travel office staff.
They even pressured Bill Clinton, early in his first term, to accept
an investigation led by an independent special prosecutor, which years
later led to his own impeachment. Liberals, in disturbed awe of the
Right's ability to control the media narrative, dubbed the
conservative media the "Republican Noise Machine."
Yet today, no matter how loud conservatives scream "Benghazi,"
"Solyndra," "Fast and Furious" and even "Intim-O-Gate" (Glenn Beck's
failed attempt to brand the IRS and leak investigation controversies),
President Obama glides past. His poll numbers remain relatively
stable.

There is not really a "what did the president know" drumbeat, and no
suggestion he warrants independent investigation. Calls for Attorney
General Eric Holder's resignation died down following his meeting with
Washington media bureau chiefs. Benghazi lightning rod Susan Rice just
got a promotion, and her Republican antagonists are pledging
cooperation.
What happened to the Republican Noise Machine? Here are three reasons
it's sputtering:
1. Liberals finally learned how to fight back
When the 1988 George H.
W. Bush presidential campaign derided Gov. Michael Dukakis with smear
after smear, the Democrat fatally believed he could simply ignore it
because "nobody's going to believe it." In the 1990s, Bill Clinton
naively believed naming a special prosecutor would put to rest any
doubts about his real estate dealings. In 2004, Sen. John Kerry
thought he could wait a few weeks before responding to the "Swift
Boat" attacks on his war record and avoid inadvertently spreading
false smears.

But in 2008, the Obama campaign aggressively fought off smears,
sometimes with high-profile speeches, sometimes by quietly getting
factual responses in the hands of the media. And newly established
outside groups like Media Matters provided big assists.
Today, the forward-leaning approach continues. Democrats are quick to
challenge the credibility of chief Obama antagonist Rep. Darrell Issa.
The work of left-leaning reporters that debunk hysterical conservative
charges is rapidly shared, minimizing the echo chamber effect of
smears being repeated by traditional media outlets for days and
accepted as fact before any belated corrections materialize.

2. Conservatives have cried wolf too many times
Conservative firebrand
Michelle Malkin futilely tried to tag Obama as fostering a "culture of
corruption" in a book published merely six months into his presidency.
Breathless charges of cronyism in the Solyndra matter proved to be
baseless. You will not be surprised to learn that "Fast and Furious"
was not a deliberate plot by Obama to ship guns to Mexican drug
cartels, maximize cross-border gun violence, and con the public into
accepting draconian gun control. These are a mere few examples of
smears gone bust in the Obama era.
In turn, conservative muckrakers don't get the benefit of the doubt
anymore. Granted, the traditional media still lets conservatives stir
the pot, happily broadcasting initial charges. But the media has been
less inclined to let conservatives dump the pot all over the front
pages with wild speculation, day after day after day.

3. When something does go wrong, Obama is quick to take care of
business
Martha Johnson, resigned. Robert Peck, fired. David Chaney,
resigned. Greg Stokes, indefinitely suspended without pay. Louis
Caldera, resigned.
Don't know who those people are? That's because President Obama got
rid of them fast enough to prevent their minor scandals from being
exploited by Republicans and becoming extended media soap operas.

The itchy trigger finger has its downside: Agricultural Department
state-level director Shirley Sherrod was infamously and prematurely
whacked before it could be proven she was the victim of a dishonestly
edited video charging her with anti-white racism. Liberal Obama
detractors accused Obama of cowering in the face of right-wing
bullying.
However, Obama's overall record shows he is quite willing to fight
back when he is standing on firm ground, yet also willing to jettison
problem staffers when he sees their actions as indefensible. Sherrod's
ouster was just one mistake out of haste. But Obama's basic approach
of speedy decision-making has served his purposes of preventing low-
level scandals from metastasizing.

[deadrat]

On 6/11/13 10:50 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
> message
> news:d26751e4-e1fc-492f...@g8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 11, 5:59 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Ryanator wrote:
>>> > On Jun 11, 3:46 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>> >> Just when we thought that the words "California" and "surplus" could
>>> >> not be used in the same sentence...
>>>
>>> >> -Ramon
>>>
>>> >> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> >> California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget surplus
>>>

>>> >> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California Governor Jerry Brown and top

The CBO says the 2013FY deficit will be $642B or 4% of GDP. That's
about the same percentage as 2003 and 2004 under Il Dunce.

Oh, well. You'll find something else to whine about.

[Greegor]

Ginger > Yeah, now the entire legislature can go
Ginger > in drag without criticism. Gov. Moonbeam
Ginger > can have out of body experiences where
Ginger > he balances the budget and Mexicans
Ginger > are made out of gingerbread.

LOL

[Bret Cahill]

> >> >> California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget surplus
>

> >> >> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California Governor Jerry Brown and top

Obama could balance the budget for a tax hike economic boom just like
California.

Just amend the U. S. Consitution so voters decide fiscal policy.

Of course, if you are a cowardly winger, by definition you oppose
voters and democratic freedom and don't want voters deciding anything.


Bret Cahill

[Naughtius]

Yeeaahhh... *CLOSE*... BUT... This Seems To Describe a "Circle [of]
JERKS"...

RATHER THAN What a "Circle Of Jerks" Typically DOES... At
*Overnight Stay-Overs*... In The Girl-FriendLESS Environment Of a SPAZ/
DORK/GEEK Basement Bedroom... OR California Porn Flick...

"Circulum Masturbaroni"?

You Know... "Conjugate The VERB"...

Naughtius "Romani Ite Domum" Maximus

[Bret Cahill]

> > Obama could balance the budget for a tax hike economic boom just like
> > California.
>
> > Just amend the U. S. Consitution so voters decide fiscal policy.
>
> > Of course, if you are a cowardly winger, by definition you oppose
> > voters and democratic freedom and don't want voters deciding anything.
>

> I'm afraid many liberal states have lost their way.  I live in
> Washington state.  We've had Tim Eyman initiatives for years.
> The focus is always on the tax side.  Sure we have groups that
> want to tax coffee to pay for daycare but those initiatives tend
> to fail.  Just cutting taxes without saying how services will be
> affected appears to be a winning technique.


75% of Americans including red & blue states support hiking taxes on
the rich

This is increasing by 1% a year.

By 2017 we'll have the same 80% super majority now garnered by those
supporting the repeal of Citizens United by amendment.

The legacy media, always in the same hip pocket of the 0.01% as the
GOP, doesn't want the amendment camel's nose getting under the tent.
No siree Bob. Can't have the unwashed masses deciding anything except
naked nazi flagburner parades. The legacy media are going to gush
hype every bit of culture war nonsense under the sun to distract from
the amendment process.

But the Citizen's United amendment is going through anyway.

Amend the U. S. Constitution so Americans can decide income tax rates
and the progressivity of income taxes.

After all, Congress is _way_ to busy to sandal mongreling to mess
around with fiscal policy. They don't have the time so we, the
people, need to start adjusting tax rates.


Bret Cahill

[deadrat]

Better to decline the noun.

Circulum Masturabatorum?

[Scout]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:a08ca9dd-7a48-4c1f...@c3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

> On Jun 11, 10:50 pm, "Scout"
> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
>> message
>>
>> news:d26751e4-e1fc-492f...@g8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 11, 5:59 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> Ryanator wrote:
>> >> > On Jun 11, 3:46 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>> >> >> Just when we thought that the words "California" and "surplus"
>> >> >> could
>> >> >> not be used in the same sentence...
>>
>> >> >> -Ramon
>>
>> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------
>>
>> >> >> California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget surplus
>>

>> >> >> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) � California Governor Jerry Brown and top

Really? America thinks Bush is still President?

ROFL

[Scout]

"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:897a6ca3-fc96-4762...@g9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...

>> >> >> California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget surplus
>>

>> >> >> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) � California Governor Jerry Brown and top

On the contrary, I'm all in favor of removing the government's power to
impose or increase taxes.

IMO, that should ALL be decided by public referendum of net tax payers and
the government isn't allowed to spend more than their income unless
authorized by public referendum.

Looks like you're going to have to reconsider your bigotry.

[Scout]

"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:335d53f0-fc56-493b...@v10g2000pbv.googlegroups.com...

>> > Obama could balance the budget for a tax hike economic boom just like
>> > California.
>>
>> > Just amend the U. S. Consitution so voters decide fiscal policy.
>>
>> > Of course, if you are a cowardly winger, by definition you oppose
>> > voters and democratic freedom and don't want voters deciding anything.
>>
>> I'm afraid many liberal states have lost their way. I live in
>> Washington state. We've had Tim Eyman initiatives for years.
>> The focus is always on the tax side. Sure we have groups that
>> want to tax coffee to pay for daycare but those initiatives tend
>> to fail. Just cutting taxes without saying how services will be
>> affected appears to be a winning technique.
>
>
> 75% of Americans including red & blue states support hiking taxes on
> the rich
>
> This is increasing by 1% a year.

And then we wonder why businesses and the rich are moving their operations
and investments overseas......

[FirstPost]

I more often wonder why the liberal fools think that it is preferrable
for the government to have more than it needs than it is for the
people to just have enough.
In this thread, for example, the libs are elated that the government
is getting more and the people less.
And they honestly believe that it makes the people better off.
Indeed, it is a "wonder" that those folks know how to wipe their own
asses.

[deadrat]

On 6/12/13 4:35 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Bret Cahill" <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:897a6ca3-fc96-4762...@g9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...
>>> >> >> California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget surplus
>>>

>>> >> >> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California Governor Jerry Brown and top

Breathtaking in its ignorance. I think I'll have to invent a new level
of award. Perhaps, dumber than a switching yard full of unit trains
loaded with crates of ball-peen hammers.

Answer me this. You're a loser. You need those services that
government provides. Why do you carry water for the people who want to
cut you off at the knees? What is that? Some form of Stockholm Syndrome?

[deadrat]

Businesses move their operations where they think it will make them the
most money. Say, Bangladesh. The rich write loopholes into the laws so
they won't have to pay taxes. Like Rmoney. All of this will happen no
matter what the tax tables say.

But you don't own a business. You're not rich. Why are you a
cheerleader for people who pick your pockets?

[deadrat]

Another loser parrots the 1% talking points.

[Bret Cahill]

> >> >> >> California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget surplus
>

> >> >> >> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California Governor Jerry Brown and top

Here, try again:

Amend the U. S. Consitution so voters decide fiscal policy, raising or
lowering tax rates according to the will of the people.

[Bret Cahill]

> >> > Obama could balance the budget for a tax hike economic boom just like
> >> > California.
>
> >> > Just amend the U. S. Consitution so voters decide fiscal policy.
>
> >> > Of course, if you are a cowardly winger, by definition you oppose
> >> > voters and democratic freedom and don't want voters deciding anything.
>
> >> I'm afraid many liberal states have lost their way.  I live in
> >> Washington state.  We've had Tim Eyman initiatives for years.
> >> The focus is always on the tax side.  Sure we have groups that
> >> want to tax coffee to pay for daycare but those initiatives tend
> >> to fail.  Just cutting taxes without saying how services will be
> >> affected appears to be a winning technique.
>
> > 75% of Americans including red & blue states support hiking taxes on
> > the rich
>
> > This is increasing by 1% a year.
>
> And then we wonder why businesses and the rich are moving their operations
> and investments overseas......

Why would they move overseas when they won't even move across state
lines?

[FirstPost]

You mean services like these?
http://money.msn.com/investing/12-examples-of-government-waste

Or these:
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/Government-waste-adds-up-45000-empty-government-owned-buildings-800000-on-bottled-water

Or all of these:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/03/28/insane-government-waste-and-use-of-taxpayer-money-n1551772

Seems you're the ones that are so desperate to carry the water for
those that are truly taking money out of your pocket you pathetic
lying loser.

How much have you benefited from the billions spent in the links I
posted above idiot?

It is simply amazing at the level of sheer stupidity demonstrated by
liberal fools here on a daily basis.

[Bret Cahill]

:
> >> >> >> Just when we thought that the words "California" and "surplus"
> >> >> >> could
> >> >> >> not be used in the same sentence...
>
> >> >> >> -Ramon
>
> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> >> >> >> California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget surplus
>

> >> >> >> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California Governor Jerry Brown and top

Would you sore losers like some cheese with that whine?

[Bret Cahill]

> >> >> >> California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget surplus
>

> >> >> >> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California Governor Jerry Brown and top

Then support an amendment to the U. S. Constitution to provide for
referenda on tax rates.


Bret Cahill

[Scout]

"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:7d9873de-c53b-436e...@kt20g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

>> >> >> >> California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget surplus
>>

>> >> >> >> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) � California Governor Jerry Brown and

You're not exactly the quickest student in the class, are you?

[Scout]

"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:54b6f6fb-ffde-47a9...@qn4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Except they are moving.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:kpap4t$9t6$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
> message
> news:a08ca9dd-7a48-4c1f...@c3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com..
> .
>> On Jun 11, 10:50 pm, "Scout"
>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
>>> message
>>>
>>> news:d26751e4-e1fc-492f...@g8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Jun 11, 5:59 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> >> Ryanator wrote:
>>> >> > On Jun 11, 3:46 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> Just when we thought that the words "California" and "surplus"
>>> >> >> could
>>> >> >> not be used in the same sentence...
>>>
>>> >> >> -Ramon
>>>
>>> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> >> >> California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget surplus
>>>

>>> >> >> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California Governor Jerry Brown and

Half of them probably get the two Georges confused.



--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

Old Air Force adage..The only time you have too
much fuel is when you are on fire!!

[RD Sandman]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
news:TOedna77U-i0aCXM...@giganews.com:

I am just one of the folks paying for it. If you also are,
congratulations.

[RD Sandman]

FirstPost <AIOE_posters_...@AIOE.org> wrote in
news:10rhr8h8rlq6fjla1...@4ax.com:

They do? They're not trying to make it a government service?

[Bill Graham]

It used to be that if the government doesn't get it, then they can't spend
it. /but this is no longer the case. Today, their borrowing power is
(apparently) unlimited, so they can continue to spend like drunken sailors
whether they have the money or not. They can depend on our grandchildren and
great-grandchildren to pay it off long after they are dead. And, apparently,
the American public is happy with that. At least, I seem to be pissing up
wind.....

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jun 12, 5:56 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:


> Then support an amendment to the U. S. Constitution
> to provide for referenda on tax rates.
>
> Bret Cahill

Sorry. That would be Democracy and the founders (starting with Jimmy
Madison) were adamantly against it.

The last thing we need is ignorant baggers (or the resentful like you)
deciding on such important policies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY0Y7vQF13U

NO WAY Joseph!!

You can always move to Arizona, though, this sort of thing _almost_
works there.

-Ramon

[deadrat]

It was never the case. The US Government has always borrowed.

> Today, their borrowing power
> is (apparently) unlimited, so they can continue to spend like drunken
> sailors whether they have the money or not. They can depend on our
> grandchildren and great-grandchildren to pay it off long after they are
> dead. And, apparently, the American public is happy with that.

Again, always the case. We've always borrowed and bet on the future.

> At least, I seem to be pissing up wind.....

How soaked to you have to get to wise up?

Just askin'

[Rosaline H Aponte-Fahey]

An ultra-left LOSER. Like most socially misfit DemocRATs, Bret lives
alone in a one-room apartment:

Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227

Bret tried to sue the gov't and got stomped on like an insect. Ever
since that crushing humiliation he has hated himself, everybody else,
and America.

BRET E. CAHILL, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL....
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1995/w951444w.txt

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 06:42:27 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>Re: I Just Paid for a Full Year At GoDaddy

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't have a website, you don't even have a job!!!!!!!!!!

Posted on behalf of:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!

[Daria Bowlin]

An ultra-left LOSER. Like most socially misfit DemocRATs, Bret lives
alone in a one-room apartment:

Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227

Bret tried to sue the gov't and got stomped on like an insect. Ever
since that crushing humiliation he has hated himself, everybody else,
and America.

BRET E. CAHILL, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL....
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1995/w951444w.txt

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 21:30:21 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Dems got Nixon out of office by focusing one scandal.

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On the night of August 7, 1974, Senators Barry Goldwater (R) and Hugh
Scott (R) and Congressman John Jacob Rhodes (R) met with Nixon in the
Oval Office and told the president that he not only faced certain
impeachment in the House, but that there were enough votes in the
Senate to convict and remove him. Goldwater and Scott told him that,
at most, 15 Senators were willing to vote for acquittal. Realizing
that he had no chance of staying in office, Nixon decided to resign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#Resignation

[Cassandra Dix]

An ultra-left LOSER. Like most socially misfit DemocRATs, Bret lives
alone in a one-room apartment:

Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227

Bret tried to sue the gov't and got stomped on like an insect. Ever
since that crushing humiliation he has hated himself, everybody else,
and America.

BRET E. CAHILL, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL....
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1995/w951444w.txt

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:43:28 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>Re: Why Can't Teabaggers Get Anyone To Believe Their
>Scandal Mongering?
>Maybe it's too contrived.

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. May 16-19, 2013. "Republicans in
Congress have criticized the way the Obama administration handled the
attack that killed a U.S. ambassador in Benghazi, Libya, last fall. Do
you think Republicans in Congress are raising legitimate concerns, or
are they just political posturing?"
Legitimate concerns: 44%
Political posturing: 45%
http://pollingreport.com/libya.htm

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. May 16-19, 2013. "As you may know, it's
been disclosed that the Internal Revenue Service singled out some
conservative political groups for extra questions about their tax
status. Do you think it was appropriate or inappropriate for the IRS
to do this?"
Appropriate: 20%
Inappropriate: 74%
http://pollingreport.com/politics.htm

[Dian Korey Christiansen]

An ultra-left LOSER. Like most socially misfit DemocRATs, Bret lives
alone in a one-room apartment:

Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227

Bret tried to sue the gov't and got stomped on like an insect. Ever
since that crushing humiliation he has hated himself, everybody else,
and America.

BRET E. CAHILL, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL....
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1995/w951444w.txt

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:51:11 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Re: Legacy Media Silent On the Progress of the Amend To
>Overturn Citizens United

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is NO such Amendment................

The Amendment Process
http://usconstitution.net/constam.html

H.J.Res. 103 (112th): Providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule ...
Referred to Committee Feb 16, 2012 (dead)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hjres103

S.J.Res. 36 (112th): A joint resolution providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the
rule ...
Died (Reported by Committee)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/sjres36#overview

[George Rosalee Gavin]

An ultra-left LOSER. Like most socially misfit DemocRATs, Bret lives
alone in a one-room apartment:

Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227

Bret tried to sue the gov't and got stomped on like an insect. Ever
since that crushing humiliation he has hated himself, everybody else,
and America.

BRET E. CAHILL, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL....
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1995/w951444w.txt

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.136.236.132Subject: Marxism
Should Be Reconsidered By All Political PartiesFrom: Bret Cahill
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com>

Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227

[B. Jamison Hubert]

An ultra-left LOSER. Like most socially misfit DemocRATs, Bret lives
alone in a one-room apartment:

Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227

Bret tried to sue the gov't and got stomped on like an insect. Ever
since that crushing humiliation he has hated himself, everybody else,
and America.

BRET E. CAHILL, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL....
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1995/w951444w.txt

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:27e3bd65-4a33-4497...@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> The good thing about Huckabee is the 75% who don't believe in
> creationism ain't votin' for him.

How do you expect to get away with LYING when you ALWAYS get CAUGHT?

ABC News PrimeTime Poll. Feb. 6-10, 2004. ""I'm going to ask about a
few stories in the Bible. Do you think that's literally true, meaning
it happened that way word-for-word; or do you think it's meant as a
lesson, but not to be taken literally?"

"The creation story in which the world was created in six days."
Literally True: 61%
Not Literally True: 30%
Stupid: 8%
http://www.pollingreport.com/religion2.htm

[Bill Graham]

Be sure to limit the borrowing power of government also. Otherwise, you will
just be pissing up wind.....

[Bill Graham]

New businesses do. Its only the old, established ones that don't because
they have been doing what they are doing too long in the same place and with
the same employees. And the state governments know this, and bank on it.

[Bill Graham]

More than half.... Watch Jay Leno interview people on the street.... On the
other hand, why be depressed?

[Florida N. Andrus]

Ramon is a foreign transplant originally from Venezuela, probably a
beaner terrorist, and definitely a Fraud. Ramon F Herrera also goes by
"Cambridge Ray," "Google Poster," "Lucius Sanctimonious," and
"Hadron." An ultra-left, open-borders pretend-American. He lives and
works in Houston, TX. Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you

encourage them to continue lying.

Ramon F Herrera
13313 Cutten Rd, Apt 7102
Houston, TX 77069-2374

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:20:46 -0800 (PST), "Ramon F. Herrera"
<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>Re: GOP voters prefer AOL e-mail, why am I not surprised?

Because you're a sub-standard Hispanic and a Proven Liar?

>"According to poll results released today by Poll Position, AOL e-mail
>is a favorite among Republicans, with some 20 percent picking it as
>the best service. "
>http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57324229-93/gop-voters-prefer-aol-e-mail-service-poll-shows/
>http://tinyurl.com/8xr3z35

Oops! Caught lying...

Google Mail 22.8%
Yahoo Mail 20.2%
AOL 12.1%
Another e-mail provider 19.6%
No opinion 25.3%
http://media.pollposition.com.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/Poll-Position-crosstabs-best-email-provider.pdf

[Bret Cahill]

> >> >> >> >> California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget surplus
>

> >> >> >> >> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California Governor Jerry Brown and

Here, try again:

Why are you afraid of an amendment to the U. S. Constitution to
provide for referenda on tax rates?

Just because politicians are smarter than you doesn't mean politicians
are smarter than the majority.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 12, 4:48 pm, FirstPost <AIOE_posters_are_all_li...@AIOE.org>
wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:36:11 -0400, "Scout"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:335d53f0-fc56-493b...@v10g2000pbv.googlegroups.com...

> >>> > Obama could balance the budget for a tax hike economic boom just like
> >>> > California.
>
> >>> > Just amend the U. S. Consitution so voters decide fiscal policy.
>
> >>> > Of course, if you are a cowardly winger, by definition you oppose
> >>> > voters and democratic freedom and don't want voters deciding anything.
>

> >>> I'm afraid many liberal states have lost their way.  I live in
> >>> Washington state.  We've had Tim Eyman initiatives for years.
> >>> The focus is always on the tax side.  Sure we have groups that
> >>> want to tax coffee to pay for daycare but those initiatives tend
> >>> to fail.  Just cutting taxes without saying how services will be
> >>> affected appears to be a winning technique.
>
> >> 75% of Americans including red & blue states support hiking taxes on
> >> the rich
>
> >> This is increasing by 1% a year.
>
> >And then we wonder why businesses and the rich are moving their operations
> >and investments overseas......
>

> I more often wonder why the liberal fools think that it is preferrable
> for the government to have more than it needs than it is for the
> people to just have enough.
> In this thread, for example, the libs are elated that the government
> is getting more and the people less.
> And they honestly believe that it makes the people better off.
> Indeed, it is a "wonder" that those folks know how to wipe their own
> asses.

we know history, and what the founders wished for. you on the other
hand know nothing.

madison the father of the constitution clearly wanted a strong central
government with authority to regulate commerce, and subordinate state
law to federal law: "Let it be tried then he wrote, whether any middle
ground can be taken which will at once support a due supremacy of the
national authority, while maintaining state power only when
subordinately useful


http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_history.html






www.archives.gov
June 13, 2013



A More Perfect Union:
The Creation of the U.S. Constitution
May 25, 1787, Freshly spread dirt covered the cobblestone street in
front of the Pennsylvania State House, protecting the men inside from
the sound of passing carriages and carts. Guards stood at the
entrances to ensure that the curious were kept at a distance. Robert
Morris of Pennsylvania, the "financier" of the Revolution, opened the
proceedings with a nomination--Gen. George Washington for the
presidency of the Constitutional Convention. The vote was unanimous.
With characteristic ceremonial modesty, the general expressed his
embarrassment at his lack of qualifications to preside over such an
august body and apologized for any errors into which he might fall in
the course of its deliberations.
To many of those assembled, especially to the small, boyish-looking,
36-year-old delegate from Virginia, James Madison, the general's mere
presence boded well for the convention, for the illustrious Washington
gave to the gathering an air of importance and legitimacy But his
decision to attend the convention had been an agonizing one. The
Father of the Country had almost remained at home.
Suffering from rheumatism, despondent over the loss of a brother,
absorbed in the management of Mount Vernon, and doubting that the
convention would accomplish very much or that many men of stature
would attend, Washington delayed accepting the invitation to attend
for several months. Torn between the hazards of lending his reputation
to a gathering perhaps doomed to failure and the chance that the
public would view his reluctance to attend with a critical eye, the
general finally agreed to make the trip. James Madison was pleased.



General George Washington was unanimously elected presidentof the
Philadelphia convention.

The Articles of Confederation
The determined Madison had for several years insatiably studied
history and political theory searching for a solution to the political
and economic dilemmas he saw plaguing America. The Virginian's labors
convinced him of the futility and weakness of confederacies of
independent states. America's own government under the Articles of
Confederation, Madison was convinced, had to be replaced. In force
since 1781, established as a "league of friendship" and a constitution
for the 13 sovereign and independent states after the Revolution, the
articles seemed to Madison woefully inadequate. With the states
retaining considerable power, the central government, he believed, had
insufficient power to regulate commerce. It could not tax and was
generally impotent in setting commercial policy It could not
effectively support a war effort. It had little power to settle
quarrels between states. Saddled with this weak government, the states
were on the brink of economic disaster. The evidence was overwhelming.
Congress was attempting to function with a depleted treasury; paper
money was flooding the country, creating extraordinary inflation--a
pound of tea in some areas could be purchased for a tidy $100; and the
depressed condition of business was taking its toll on many small
farmers. Some of them were being thrown in jail for debt, and numerous
farms were being confiscated and sold for taxes.
In 1786 some of the farmers had fought back. Led by Daniel Shays, a
former captain in the Continental army, a group of armed men, sporting
evergreen twigs in their hats, prevented the circuit court from
sitting at Northampton, MA, and threatened to seize muskets stored in
the arsenal at Springfield. Although the insurrection was put down by
state troops, the incident confirmed the fears of many wealthy men
that anarchy was just around the corner. Embellished day after day in
the press, the uprising made upper-class Americans shudder as they
imagined hordes of vicious outlaws descending upon innocent citizens.
From his idyllic Mount Vernon setting, Washington wrote to Madison:
"Wisdom and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the
political machine from the impending storm."
Madison thought he had the answer. He wanted a strong central
government to provide order and stability. "Let it be tried then," he
wrote, "whether any middle ground can be taken which will at once
support a due supremacy of the national authority," while maintaining
state power only when "subordinately useful." The resolute Virginian
looked to the Constitutional Convention to forge a new government in
this mold.
The convention had its specific origins in a proposal offered by
Madison and John Tyler in the Virginia assembly that the Continental
Congress be given power to regulate commerce throughout the
Confederation. Through their efforts in the assembly a plan was
devised inviting the several states to attend a convention at
Annapolis, MD, in September 1786 to discuss commercial problems.
Madison and a young lawyer from New York named Alexander Hamilton
issued a report on the meeting in Annapolis, calling upon Congress to
summon delegates of all of the states to meet for the purpose of
revising the Articles of Confederation. Although the report was widely
viewed as a usurpation of congressional authority, the Congress did
issue a formal call to the states for a convention. To Madison it
represented the supreme chance to reverse the country's trend. And as
the delegations gathered in Philadelphia, its importance was not lost
to others. The squire of Gunston Hall, George Mason, wrote to his son,
"The Eyes of the United States are turned upon this Assembly and their
Expectations raised to a very anxious Degree. May God Grant that we
may be able to gratify them, by establishing a wise and just
Government."
The Delegates
Seventy-four delegates were appointed to the convention, of which 55
actually attended sessions. Rhode Island was the only state that
refused to send delegates. Dominated by men wedded to paper currency,
low taxes, and popular government, Rhode Island's leaders refused to
participate in what they saw as a conspiracy to overthrow the
established government. Other Americans also had their suspicions.
Patrick Henry, of the flowing red Glasgow cloak and the magnetic
oratory, refused to attend, declaring he "smelt a rat." He suspected,
correctly, that Madison had in mind the creation of a powerful central
government and the subversion of the authority of the state
legislatures. Henry along with many other political leaders, believed
that the state governments offered the chief protection for personal
liberties. He was determined not to lend a hand to any proceeding that
seemed to pose a threat to that protection.
With Henry absent, with such towering figures as Jefferson and Adams
abroad on foreign missions, and with John Jay in New York at the
Foreign Office, the convention was without some of the country's major
political leaders. It was, nevertheless, an impressive assemblage. In
addition to Madison and Washington, there were Benjamin Franklin of
Pennsylvania--crippled by gout, the 81-year-old Franklin was a man of
many dimensions printer, storekeeper, publisher, scientist, public
official, philosopher, diplomat, and ladies' man; James Wilson of
Pennsylvania--a distinguished lawyer with a penchant for ill-advised
land-jobbing schemes, which would force him late in life to flee from
state to state avoiding prosecution for debt, the Scotsman brought a
profound mind steeped in constitutional theory and law; Alexander
Hamilton of New York--a brilliant, ambitious former aide-de-camp and
secretary to Washington during the Revolution who had, after his
marriage into the Schuyler family of New York, become a powerful
political figure; George Mason of Virginia--the author of the Virginia
Bill of Rights whom Jefferson later called "the Cato of his country
without the avarice of the Roman"; John Dickinson of Delaware--the
quiet, reserved author of the "Farmers' Letters" and chairman of the
congressional committee that framed the articles; and Gouverneur
Morris of Pennsylvania-- well versed in French literature and
language, with a flair and bravado to match his keen intellect, who
had helped draft the New York State Constitution and had worked with
Robert Morris in the Finance Office.
There were others who played major roles - Oliver Ellsworth of
Connecticut; Edmund Randolph of Virginia; William Paterson of New
Jersey; John Rutledge of South Carolina; Elbridge Gerry of
Massachusetts; Roger Sherman of Connecticut; Luther Martin of
Maryland; and the Pinckneys, Charles and Charles Cotesworth, of South
Carolina. Franklin was the oldest member and Jonathan Dayton, the 27-
year-old delegate from New Jersey was the youngest. The average age
was 42. Most of the delegates had studied law, had served in colonial
or state legislatures, or had been in the Congress. Well versed in
philosophical theories of government advanced by such philosophers as
James Harrington, John Locke, and Montesquieu, profiting from
experience gained in state politics, the delegates composed an
exceptional body, one that left a remarkably learned record of debate.
Fortunately we have a relatively complete record of the proceedings,
thanks to the indefatigable James Madison. Day after day, the
Virginian sat in front of the presiding officer, compiling notes of
the debates, not missing a single day or a single major speech. He
later remarked that his self-confinement in the hall, which was often
oppressively hot in the Philadelphia summer, almost killed him.
The sessions of the convention were held in secret--no reporters or
visitors were permitted. Although many of the naturally loquacious
members were prodded in the pubs and on the streets, most remained
surprisingly discreet. To those suspicious of the convention, the
curtain of secrecy only served to confirm their anxieties. Luther
Martin of Maryland later charged that the conspiracy in Philadelphia
needed a quiet breeding ground. Thomas Jefferson wrote John Adams from
Paris, "I am sorry they began their deliberations by so abominable a
precedent as that of tying up the tongues of their members."
The Virginia Plan
On Tuesday morning, May 29, Edmund Randolph, the tall, 34-year- old
governor of Virginia, opened the debate with a long speech decrying
the evils that had befallen the country under the Articles of
Confederation and stressing the need for creating a strong national
government. Randolph then outlined a broad plan that he and his
Virginia compatriots had, through long sessions at the Indian Queen
tavern, put together in the days preceding the convention. James
Madison had such a plan on his mind for years. The proposed government
had three branches--legislative, executive, and judicial--each branch
structured to check the other. Highly centralized, the government
would have veto power over laws enacted by state legislatures. The
plan, Randolph confessed, "meant a strong consolidated union in which
the idea of states should be nearly annihilated." This was, indeed,
the rat so offensive to Patrick Henry.
The introduction of the so-called Virginia Plan at the beginning of
the convention was a tactical coup. The Virginians had forced the
debate into their own frame of reference and in their own terms.
For 10 days the members of the convention discussed the sweeping and,
to many delegates, startling Virginia resolutions. The critical issue,
described succinctly by Gouverneur Morris on May 30, was the
distinction between a federation and a national government, the
"former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties;
the latter having a compleat and compulsive operation." Morris favored
the latter, a "supreme power" capable of exercising necessary
authority not merely a shadow government, fragmented and hopelessly
ineffective.
The New Jersey Plan
This nationalist position revolted many delegates who cringed at the
vision of a central government swallowing state sovereignty. On June
13 delegates from smaller states rallied around proposals offered by
New Jersey delegate William Paterson. Railing against efforts to throw
the states into "hotchpot," Paterson proposed a "union of the States
merely federal." The "New Jersey resolutions" called only for a
revision of the articles to enable the Congress more easily to raise
revenues and regulate commerce. It also provided that acts of Congress
and ratified treaties be "the supreme law of the States."
For 3 days the convention debated Paterson's plan, finally voting for
rejection. With the defeat of the New Jersey resolutions, the
convention was moving toward creation of a new government, much to the
dismay of many small-state delegates. The nationalists, led by
Madison, appeared to have the proceedings in their grip. In addition,
they were able to persuade the members that any new constitution
should be ratified through conventions of the people and not by the
Congress and the state legislatures- -another tactical coup. Madison
and his allies believed that the constitution they had in mind would
likely be scuttled in the legislatures, where many state political
leaders stood to lose power. The nationalists wanted to bring the
issue before "the people," where ratification was more likely.
Hamilton's Plan
On June 18 Alexander Hamilton presented his own ideal plan of
government. Erudite and polished, the speech, nevertheless, failed to
win a following. It went too far. Calling the British government "the
best in the world," Hamilton proposed a model strikingly similar an
executive to serve during good behavior or life with veto power over
all laws; a senate with members serving during good behavior; the
legislature to have power to pass "all laws whatsoever." Hamilton
later wrote to Washington that the people were now willing to accept
"something not very remote from that which they have lately quitted."
What the people had "lately quitted," of course, was monarchy. Some
members of the convention fully expected the country to turn in this
direction. Hugh Williamson of North Carolina, a wealthy physician,
declared that it was "pretty certain . . . that we should at some time
or other have a king." Newspaper accounts appeared in the summer of
1787 alleging that a plot was under way to invite the second son of
George III, Frederick, Duke of York, the secular bishop of Osnaburgh
in Prussia, to become "king of the United States."



Alexander Hamilton on June 18 called the British government "the best
in the world" and proposed a model strikingly similar. The erudite New
Yorker, however, later became one of the most ardent spokesmen for the
new Constitution.

Strongly militating against any serious attempt to establish monarchy
was the enmity so prevalent in the revolutionary period toward royalty
and the privileged classes. Some state constitutions had even
prohibited titles of nobility. In the same year as the Philadelphia
convention, Royall Tyler, a revolutionary war veteran, in his play The
Contract, gave his own jaundiced view of the upper classes:
Exult each patriot heart! this night is shewn
A piece, which we may
fairly call our own;
Where the proud titles of "My Lord!" "Your
Grace!"
To humble Mr. and plain Sir give place.
Most delegates were well aware that there were too many Royall Tylers
in the country, with too many memories of British rule and too many
ties to a recent bloody war, to accept a king. As the debate moved
into the specifics of the new government, Alexander Hamilton and
others of his persuasion would have to accept something less.
By the end of June, debate between the large and small states over the
issue of representation in the first chamber of the legislature was
becoming increasingly acrimonious. Delegates from Virginia and other
large states demanded that voting in Congress be according to
population; representatives of smaller states insisted upon the
equality they had enjoyed under the articles. With the oratory
degenerating into threats and accusations, Benjamin Franklin appealed
for daily prayers. Dressed in his customary gray homespun, the aged
philosopher pleaded that "the Father of lights . . . illuminate our
understandings." Franklin's appeal for prayers was never fulfilled;
the convention, as Hugh Williamson noted, had no funds to pay a
preacher.
On June 29 the delegates from the small states lost the first battle.
The convention approved a resolution establishing population as the
basis for representation in the House of Representatives, thus
favoring the larger states. On a subsequent small-state proposal that
the states have equal representation in the Senate, the vote resulted
in a tie. With large-state delegates unwilling to compromise on this
issue, one member thought that the convention "was on the verge of
dissolution, scarce held together by the strength of an hair."
By July 10 George Washington was so frustrated over the deadlock that
he bemoaned "having had any agency" in the proceedings and called the
opponents of a strong central government "narrow minded
politicians . . . under the influence of local views." Luther Martin
of Maryland, perhaps one whom Washington saw as "narrow minded,"
thought otherwise. A tiger in debate, not content merely to parry an
opponent's argument but determined to bludgeon it into eternal rest,
Martin had become perhaps the small states' most effective, if
irascible, orator. The Marylander leaped eagerly into the battle on
the representation issue declaring, "The States have a right to an
equality of representation. This is secured to us by our present
articles of confederation; we are in possession of this privilege."
The Great Compromise
Also crowding into this complicated and divisive discussion over
representation was the North-South division over the method by which
slaves were to be counted for purposes of taxation and representation.
On July 12 Oliver Ellsworth proposed that representation for the lower
house be based on the number of free persons and three-fifths of "all
other persons," a euphemism for slaves. In the following week the
members finally compromised, agreeing that direct taxation be
according to representation and that the representation of the lower
house be based on the white inhabitants and three-fifths of the "other
people." With this compromise and with the growing realization that
such compromise was necessary to avoid a complete breakdown of the
convention, the members then approved Senate equality. Roger Sherman
had remarked that it was the wish of the delegates "that some general
government should be established." With the crisis over representation
now settled, it began to look again as if this wish might be
fulfilled.
For the next few days the air in the City of Brotherly Love, although
insufferably muggy and swarming with blue-bottle flies, had the clean
scent of conciliation. In this period of welcome calm, the members
decided to appoint a Committee of Detail to draw up a draft
constitution. The convention would now at last have something on
paper. As Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts, John Rutledge, Edmund
Randolph, James Wilson, and Oliver Ellsworth went to work, the other
delegates voted themselves a much needed 10-day vacation.
During the adjournment, Gouverneur Morris and George Washington rode
out along a creek that ran through land that had been part of the
Valley Forge encampment 10 years earlier. While Morris cast for trout,
Washington pensively looked over the now lush ground where his
freezing troops had suffered, at a time when it had seemed as if the
American Revolution had reached its end. The country had come a long
way.
The First Draft
On Monday August 6, 1787, the convention accepted the first draft of
the Constitution. Here was the article-by-article model from which the
final document would result some 5 weeks later. As the members began
to consider the various sections, the willingness to compromise of the
previous days quickly evaporated. The most serious controversy erupted
over the question of regulation of commerce. The southern states,
exporters of raw materials, rice, indigo, and tobacco, were fearful
that a New England-dominated Congress might, through export taxes,
severely damage the South's economic life. C. C. Pinckney declared
that if Congress had the power to regulate trade, the southern states
would be "nothing more than overseers for the Northern States."
On August 21 the debate over the issue of commerce became very closely
linked to another explosive issue--slavery. When Martin of Maryland
proposed a tax on slave importation, the convention was thrust into a
strident discussion of the institution of slavery and its moral and
economic relationship to the new government. Rutledge of South
Carolina, asserting that slavery had nothing at all to do with
morality, declared, "Interest alone is the governing principle with
nations." Sherman of Connecticut was for dropping the tender issue
altogether before it jeopardized the convention. Mason of Virginia
expressed concern over unlimited importation of slaves but later
indicated that he also favored federal protection of slave property
already held. This nagging issue of possible federal intervention in
slave traffic, which Sherman and others feared could irrevocably split
northern and southern delegates, was settled by, in Mason's words, "a
bargain." Mason later wrote that delegates from South Carolina and
Georgia, who most feared federal meddling in the slave trade, made a
deal with delegates from the New England states. In exchange for the
New Englanders' support for continuing slave importation for 20 years,
the southerners accepted a clause that required only a simple majority
vote on navigation laws, a crippling blow to southern economic
interests.
The bargain was also a crippling blow to those working to abolish
slavery. Congregationalist minister and abolitionist Samuel Hopkins of
Connecticut charged that the convention had sold out: "How does it
appear . . . that these States, who have been fighting for liberty and
consider themselves as the highest and most noble example of zeal for
it, cannot agree in any political Constitution, unless it indulge and
authorize them to enslave their fellow men . . . Ah! these unclean
spirits, like frogs, they, like the Furies of the poets are spreading
discord, and exciting men to contention and war." Hopkins considered
the Constitution a document fit for the flames.
On August 31 a weary George Mason, who had 3 months earlier written so
expectantly to his son about the "great Business now before us,"
bitterly exclaimed that he "would sooner chop off his right hand than
put it to the Constitution as it now stands." Mason despaired that the
convention was rushing to saddle the country with an ill-advised,
potentially ruinous central authority He was concerned that a "bill of
rights," ensuring individual liberties, had not been made part of the
Constitution. Mason called for a new convention to reconsider the
whole question of the formation of a new government. Although Mason's
motion was overwhelmingly voted down, opponents of the Constitution
did not abandon the idea of a new convention. It was futilely
suggested again and again for over 2 years.
One of the last major unresolved problems was the method of electing
the executive. A number of proposals, including direct election by the
people, by state legislatures, by state governors, and by the national
legislature, were considered. The result was the electoral college, a
master stroke of compromise, quaint and curious but politically
expedient. The large states got proportional strength in the number of
delegates, the state legislatures got the right of selecting
delegates, and the House the right to choose the president in the
event no candidate received a majority of electoral votes. Mason later
predicted that the House would probably choose the president 19 times
out of 20.
In the early days of September, with the exhausted delegates anxious
to return home, compromise came easily. On September 8 the convention
was ready to turn the Constitution over to a Committee of Style and
Arrangement. Gouverneur Morris was the chief architect. Years later he
wrote to Timothy Pickering: "That Instrument was written by the
Fingers which wrote this letter." The Constitution was presented to
the convention on September 12, and the delegates methodically began
to consider each section. Although close votes followed on several
articles, it was clear that the grueling work of the convention in the
historic summer of 1787 was reaching its end.
Before the final vote on the Constitution on September 15, Edmund
Randolph proposed that amendments be made by the state conventions and
then turned over to another general convention for consideration. He
was joined by George Mason and Elbridge Gerry. The three lonely allies
were soundly rebuffed. Late in the afternoon the roll of the states
was called on the Constitution, and from every delegation the word was
"Aye."
On September 17 the members met for the last time, and the venerable
Franklin had written a speech that was delivered by his colleague
James Wilson. Appealing for unity behind the Constitution, Franklin
declared, "I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with
confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the
builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation,
only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's
throats." With Mason, Gerry, and Randolph withstanding appeals to
attach their signatures, the other delegates in the hall formally
signed the Constitution, and the convention adjourned at 4 o'clock in
the afternoon.
Weary from weeks of intense pressure but generally satisfied with
their work, the delegates shared a farewell dinner at City Tavern. Two
blocks away on Market Street, printers John Dunlap and David Claypoole
worked into the night on the final imprint of the six-page
Constitution, copies of which would leave Philadelphia on the morning
stage. The debate over the nation's form of government was now set for
the larger arena.
As the members of the convention returned home in the following days,
Alexander Hamilton privately assessed the chances of the Constitution
for ratification. In its favor were the support of Washington,
commercial interests, men of property, creditors, and the belief among
many Americans that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate.
Against it were the opposition of a few influential men in the
convention and state politicians fearful of losing power, the general
revulsion against taxation, the suspicion that a centralized
government would be insensitive to local interests, and the fear among
debtors that a new government would "restrain the means of cheating
Creditors."
The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists
Because of its size, wealth, and influence and because it was the
first state to call a ratifying convention, Pennsylvania was the focus
of national attention. The positions of the Federalists, those who
supported the Constitution, and the anti-Federalists, those who
opposed it, were printed and reprinted by scores of newspapers across
the country. And passions in the state were most warm. When the
Federalist-dominated Pennsylvania assembly lacked a quorum on
September 29 to call a state ratifying convention, a Philadelphia mob,
in order to provide the necessary numbers, dragged two anti-Federalist
members from their lodgings through the streets to the State House
where the bedraggled representatives were forced to stay while the
assembly voted. It was a curious example of participatory democracy.
On October 5 anti-Federalist Samuel Bryan published the first of his
"Centinel" essays in Philadelphia's Independent Gazetteer. Republished
in newspapers in various states, the essays assailed the sweeping
power of the central government, the usurpation of state sovereignty,
and the absence of a bill of rights guaranteeing individual liberties
such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. "The United States
are to be melted down," Bryan declared, into a despotic empire
dominated by "well-born" aristocrats. Bryan was echoing the fear of
many anti-Federalists that the new government would become one
controlled by the wealthy established families and the culturally
refined. The common working people, Bryan believed, were in danger of
being subjugated to the will of an all-powerful authority remote and
inaccessible to the people. It was this kind of authority, he
believed, that Americans had fought a war against only a few years
earlier.
The next day James Wilson, delivering a stirring defense of the
Constitution to a large crowd gathered in the yard of the State House,
praised the new government as the best "which has ever been offered to
the world." The Scotsman's view prevailed. Led by Wilson, Federalists
dominated in the Pennsylvania convention, carrying the vote on
December 12 by a healthy 46 to 23.
The vote for ratification in Pennsylvania did not end the rancor and
bitterness. Franklin declared that scurrilous articles in the press
were giving the impression that Pennsylvania was "peopled by a set of
the most unprincipled, wicked, rascally and quarrelsome scoundrels
upon the face of the globe." And in Carlisle, on December 26, anti-
Federalist rioters broke up a Federalist celebration and hung Wilson
and the Federalist chief justice of Pennsylvania, Thomas McKean, in
effigy; put the torch to a copy of the Constitution; and busted a few
Federalist heads.
In New York the Constitution was under siege in the press by a series
of essays signed "Cato." Mounting a counterattack, Alexander Hamilton
and John Jay enlisted help from Madison and, in late 1787, they
published the first of a series of essays now known as the Federalist
Papers. The 85 essays, most of which were penned by Hamilton himself,
probed the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and the need
for an energetic national government. Thomas Jefferson later called
the Federalist Papers the "best commentary on the principles of
government ever written."
Against this kind of Federalist leadership and determination, the
opposition in most states was disorganized and generally inert. The
leading spokesmen were largely state-centered men with regional and
local interests and loyalties. Madison wrote of the Massachusetts anti-
Federalists, "There was not a single character capable of uniting
their wills or directing their measures. . . . They had no plan
whatever." The anti-Federalists attacked wildly on several fronts: the
lack of a bill of rights, discrimination against southern states in
navigation legislation, direct taxation, the loss of state
sovereignty. Many charged that the Constitution represented the work
of aristocratic politicians bent on protecting their own class
interests. At the Massachusetts convention one delegate declared,
"These lawyers, and men of learning and moneyed men, that . . . make
us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill . . . they will
swallow up all us little folks like the great Leviathan; yes, just as
the whale swallowed up Jonah!" Some newspaper articles, presumably
written by anti-Federalists, resorted to fanciful predictions of the
horrors that might emerge under the new Constitution pagans and deists
could control the government; the use of Inquisition-like torture
could be instituted as punishment for federal crimes; even the pope
could be elected president.
One anti-Federalist argument gave opponents some genuine difficulty--
the claim that the territory of the 13 states was too extensive for a
representative government. In a republic embracing a large area, anti-
Federalists argued, government would be impersonal, unrepresentative,
dominated by men of wealth, and oppressive of the poor and working
classes. Had not the illustrious Montesquieu himself ridiculed the
notion that an extensive territory composed of varying climates and
people, could be a single republican state? James Madison, always
ready with the Federalist volley, turned the argument completely
around and insisted that the vastness of the country would itself be a
strong argument in favor of a republic. Claiming that a large republic
would counterbalance various political interest groups vying for
power, Madison wrote, "The smaller the society the fewer probably will
be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the
distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be
found of the same party and the more easily will they concert and
execute their plans of oppression." Extend the size of the republic,
Madison argued, and the country would be less vulnerable to separate
factions within it.
Ratification
By January 9, 1788, five states of the nine necessary for ratification
had approved the Constitution--Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Georgia, and Connecticut. But the eventual outcome remained uncertain
in pivotal states such as Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia. On
February 6, withFederalists agreeing to recommend a list of amendments
amounting to a bill of rights, Massachusetts ratified by a vote of 187
to 168. The revolutionary leader, John Hancock, elected to preside
over the Massachusetts ratifying convention but unable to make up his
mind on the Constitution, took to his bed with a convenient case of
gout. Later seduced by the Federalists with visions of the vice
presidency and possibly the presidency, Hancock, whom Madison noted as
"an idolater of popularity," suddenly experienced a miraculous cure
and delivered a critical block of votes. Although Massachusetts was
now safely in the Federalist column, the recommendation of a bill of
rights was a significant victory for the anti-Federalists. Six of the
remaining states later appended similar recommendations.
When the New Hampshire convention was adjourned by Federalists who
sensed imminent defeat and when Rhode Island on March 24 turned down
the Constitution in a popular referendum by an overwhelming vote of 10
to 1, Federalist leaders were apprehensive. Looking ahead to the
Maryland convention, Madison wrote to Washington, "The difference
between even a postponement and adoption in Maryland may . . .
possibly give a fatal advantage to that which opposes the
constitution." Madison had little reason to worry. The final vote on
April 28 63 for, 11 against. In Baltimore, a huge parade celebrating
the Federalist victory rolled. through the downtown streets,
highlighted by a 15-foot float called "Ship Federalist." The
symbolically seaworthy craft was later launched in the waters off
Baltimore and sailed down the Potomac to Mount Vernon.
On July 2, 1788, the Confederation Congress, meeting in New York,
received word that a reconvened New Hampshire ratifying convention had
approved the Constitution. With South Carolina's acceptance of the
Constitution in May, New Hampshire thus became the ninth state to
ratify. The Congress appointed a committee "for putting the said
Constitution into operation."
In the next 2 months, thanks largely to the efforts of Madison and
Hamilton in their own states, Virginia and New York both ratified
while adding their own amendments. The margin for the Federalists in
both states, however, was extremely close. Hamilton figured that the
majority of the people in New York actually opposed the Constitution,
and it is probable that a majority of people in the entire country
opposed it. Only the promise of amendments had ensured a Federalist
victory.
The Bill of Rights
The call for a bill of rights had been the anti-Federalists' most
powerful weapon. Attacking the proposed Constitution for its vagueness
and lack of specific protection against tyranny, Patrick Henry asked
the Virginia convention, "What can avail your specious, imaginary
balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks
and contrivances." The anti-Federalists, demanding a more concise,
unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the right
of the people and limitations of the power of government, claimed that
the brevity of the document only revealed its inferior nature. Richard
Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect "those
essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist."
Trading the old government for the new without such a bill of rights,
Lee argued, would be trading Scylla for Charybdis.
A bill of rights had been barely mentioned in the Philadelphia
convention, most delegates holding that the fundamental rights of
individuals had been secured in the state constitutions. James Wilson
maintained that a bill of rights was superfluous because all power not
expressly delegated to thenew government was reserved to the people.
It was clear, however, that in this argument the anti-Federalists held
the upper hand. Even Thomas Jefferson, generally in favor of the new
government, wrote to Madison that a bill of rights was "what the
people are entitled to against every government on earth."
By the fall of 1788 Madison had been convinced that not only was a
bill of rights necessary to ensure acceptance of the Constitution but
that it would have positive effects. He wrote, on October 17, that
such "fundamental maxims of free Government" would be "a good ground
for an appeal to the sense of community" against potential oppression
and would "counteract the impulses of interest and passion."
Madison's support of the bill of rights was of critical significance.
One of the new representatives from Virginia to the First Federal
Congress, as established by the new Constitution, he worked tirelessly
to persuade the House to enact amendments. Defusing the anti-
Federalists' objections to the Constitution, Madison was able to
shepherd through 17 amendments in the early months of the Congress, a
list that was later trimmed to 12 in the Senate. On October 2, 1789,
President Washington sent to each of the states a copy of the 12
amendments adopted by the Congress in September. By December 15, 1791,
three-fourths of the states had ratified the 10 amendments now so
familiar to Americans as the "Bill of Rights."
Benjamin Franklin told a French correspondent in 1788 that the
formation of the new government had been like a game of dice, with
many players of diverse prejudices and interests unable to make any
uncontested moves. Madison wrote to Jefferson that the welding of
these clashing interests was "a task more difficult than can be well
conceived by those who were not concerned in the execution of it."
When the delegates left Philadelphia after the convention, few, if
any, were convinced that the Constitution they had approved outlined
the ideal form of government for the country. But late in his life
James Madison scrawled out another letter, one never addressed. In it
he declared that no government can be perfect, and "that which is the
least imperfect is therefore the best government."
The Document Enshrined
The fate of the United States Constitution after its signing on
September 17, 1787, can be contrasted sharply to the travels and
physical abuse of America's other great parchment, the Declaration of
Independence. As the Continental Congress, during the years of the
revolutionary war, scurried from town to town, the rolled-up
Declaration was carried along. After the formation of the new
government under the Constitution, the one-page Declaration, eminently
suited for display purposes, graced the walls of various government
buildings in Washington, exposing it to prolonged damaging sunlight.
It was also subjected to the work of early calligraphers responding to
a demand for reproductions of the revered document. As any visitor to
the National Archives can readily observe, the early treatment of the
now barely legible Declaration took a disastrous toll. The
Constitution, in excellent physical condition after more than 200
years, has enjoyed a more serene existence. By 1796 the Constitution
was in the custody of the Department of State along with the
Declaration and traveled with the federal government from New York to
Philadelphia to Washington. Both documents were secretly moved to
Leesburg, VA, before the imminent attack by the British on Washington
in 1814. Following the war, the Constitution remained in the State
Department while the Declaration continued its travels--to the Patent
Office Building from 1841 to 1876, to Independence Hall in
Philadelphia during the Centennial celebration, and back to Washington
in 1877. On September 29, 1921, President Warren Harding issued an
Executive order transferring the Constitution and the Declaration to
the Library of Congress for preservation and exhibition. The next day
Librarian of Congress Herbert Putnam, acting on authority of Secretary
of State Charles Evans Hughes, carried the Constitution and the
Declaration in a Model-T Ford truck to the library and placed them in
his office safe until an appropriate exhibit area could be
constructed. The documents were officially put on display at a
ceremony in the library on February 28, 1924. On February 20, 1933, at
the laying of the cornerstone of the future National Archives
Building, President Herbert Hoover remarked, "There will be aggregated
here the most sacred documents of our history--the originals of the
Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution of the United
States." The two documents however, were not immediately transferred
to the Archives. During World War II both were moved from the library
to Fort Knox for protection and returned to the library in 1944. It
was not until successful negotiations were completed between Librarian
of Congress Luther Evans and Archivist of the United States Wayne
Grover that the transfer to the National Archives was finally
accomplished by special direction of the Joint Congressional Committee
on the Library.
On December 13, 1952, the Constitution and the Declaration were placed
in helium-filled cases, enclosed in wooden crates, laid on mattresses
in an armored Marine Corps personnel carrier, and escorted by
ceremonial troops, two tanks, and four servicemen carrying submachine
guns down Pennsylvania and Constitution avenues to the National
Archives. Two days later, President Harry Truman declared at a formal
ceremony in the Archives Exhibition Hall.
"We are engaged here today in a symbolic act. We are enshrining these
documents for future ages. This magnificent hall has been constructed
to exhibit them, and the vault beneath, that we have built to protect
them, is as safe from destruction as anything that the wit of modern
man can devise. All this is an honorable effort, based upon reverence
for the great past, and our generation can take just pride in it."

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 12, 4:32 pm, "Scout"

<me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
>

> news:a08ca9dd-7a48-4c1f...@c3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 11, 10:50 pm, "Scout"
> > <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> >> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
> >> message
>
> >>news:d26751e4-e1fc-492f...@g8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Jun 11, 5:59 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> Ryanator wrote:
> >> >> > On Jun 11, 3:46 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> Just when we thought that the words "California" and "surplus"
> >> >> >> could
> >> >> >> not be used in the same sentence...
>
> >> >> >> -Ramon
>
> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------
>

> >> >> different language than I do. And, as a result, it is impossible for
> >> >> me
> >> >> to

> >> >> discuss anything with them. We live in entirely different worlds.
> >> >> Unfortunately, they cointrol the value (buying power) of my money, so
> >> >> I
> >> >> have
> >> >> to live in fear of (real) bankrupsy at any time.
>
> >> > reagan proved that deficits do not matter, snicker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >> And Obama took that ball and ran with it.........
>

> > yes its all bushs fault, and american knows it.
>
> Really? America thinks Bush is still President?
>
> ROFL

ROTFLOL!!!!!!!! you are so stupid you do not realize americans know
who caused this mess, and that it will take many many years to clean
it up. yes its all bushs fault, and americans know it.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 12, 4:35 pm, "Scout"

<me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> "Bret Cahill" <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>

> news:897a6ca3-fc96-4762...@g9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...

> > Obama could balance the budget for a tax hike economic boom just like
> > California.
>
> > Just amend the U. S. Consitution so voters decide fiscal policy.
>
> > Of course, if you are a cowardly winger, by definition you oppose
> > voters and democratic freedom and don't want voters deciding anything.
>

> On the contrary, I'm all in favor of removing the government's power to
> impose or increase taxes.
>

> IMO, that should ALL be decided by public referendum of net tax payers and
> the government isn't allowed to spend more than their income unless
> authorized by public referendum.
>

> Looks like you're going to have to reconsider your bigotry.

that would be unconstitutional.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 12, 4:36 pm, "Scout"

<me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> "Bret Cahill" <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>

> news:335d53f0-fc56-493b...@v10g2000pbv.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > Obama could balance the budget for a tax hike economic boom just like
> >> > California.
>
> >> > Just amend the U. S. Consitution so voters decide fiscal policy.
>
> >> > Of course, if you are a cowardly winger, by definition you oppose
> >> > voters and democratic freedom and don't want voters deciding anything.
>

> >> I'm afraid many liberal states have lost their way.  I live in
> >> Washington state.  We've had Tim Eyman initiatives for years.
> >> The focus is always on the tax side.  Sure we have groups that
> >> want to tax coffee to pay for daycare but those initiatives tend
> >> to fail.  Just cutting taxes without saying how services will be
> >> affected appears to be a winning technique.
>
> > 75% of Americans including red & blue states support hiking taxes on
> > the rich
>
> > This is increasing by 1% a year.
>
> And then we wonder why businesses and the rich are moving their operations
> and investments overseas......

yea, china, the "CONSERVATIVES" best friends, your nothing more than
a commie lover.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 12, 5:49 pm, FirstPost <AIOE_posters_are_all_li...@AIOE.org>
wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:24:40 -0500, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >On 6/12/13 4:35 PM, Scout wrote:
>
> >> "Bret Cahill" <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> >>> Obama could balance the budget for a tax hike economic boom just like
> >>> California.
>
> >>> Just amend the U. S. Consitution so voters decide fiscal policy.
>
> >>> Of course, if you are a cowardly winger, by definition you oppose
> >>> voters and democratic freedom and don't want voters deciding anything.
>

> >> On the contrary, I'm all in favor of removing the government's power to
> >> impose or increase taxes.
>
> >> IMO, that should ALL be decided by public referendum of net tax payers
> >> and the government isn't allowed to spend more than their income unless
> >> authorized by public referendum.
>

> >Breathtaking in its ignorance.  I think I'll have to invent a new level
> >of award.  Perhaps, dumber than a switching yard full of unit trains
> >loaded with crates of ball-peen hammers.
>
> >Answer me this.  You're a loser.  You need those services that
> >government provides.  Why do you carry water for the people who want to
> >cut you off at the knees?  What is that?  Some form of Stockholm Syndrome?
>

> You mean services like these?http://money.msn.com/investing/12-examples-of-government-waste
>
> Or these:http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/Government...
>
> Or all of these:http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/03/28/insane-governmen...
>
> Seems you're the ones that are so desperate to carry the water for
> those that are truly taking money out of your pocket you pathetic
> lying loser.
>
> How much have you benefited from the billions spent in the links I
> posted above idiot?
>
> It is simply amazing at the level of sheer stupidity demonstrated by
> liberal fools here on a daily basis.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Looks like you're going to have to reconsider your bigotry.

yea, markets are perfect, and they never produce failures. in 2008
labor bailed out capitalism.

[Nickname unavailable]

why do we have to pay off our debts? in fact, adam smith understood
this well, as well as thomas paine, george washington, madison,
hamilton and others.

adam smith understood it well; On balance, the overall public debt
rarely needs to be paid down. As Adam Smith noted in The Wealth of
Nations, no government in history ever has paid off its public debt:
Government Debt and Deficits Are Not the Problem, Private Debt Is

[Nickname unavailable]

no,

the american liberal lion Thomas Paine advocated free universal
education. a social agenda be paid for through income tax, praised
national debt, No nation ought to be without a debt. A national debt
is a national bond



http://revrob.com/politics-topmenu-48/124-thomas-paine-an-american-liberal-lion

Thomas Paine - An American Liberal Lion
Thomas Paine - An American Liberal Lion
Written by Rev. Robert A. Vinciguerra Saturday, 04 July 2009 01:26

America is facing a crisis, though unlike the crisis she faced when
the Quaker pamphleteer wrote "The Crisis" in 1776, the United States
born out of that crisis faces ones of poverty, inequality, debt, under-
education education, and tyrannical opposition to personal freedoms.
Once again, these are the times that try men's souls.

First, the author of this article would like to underscore that he is
aware of conservative movements to garner Paine as their own hero;
recalling a forgotten American revolutionary and conjuring up the
great man as a bastion of conservative ideals.
I say nay to the those who would paint the great Thomas Paine as a
sympathizer with the cause of modern conservatism, and specifically I
cast shame unto one Bob Basso, a man who is not a great pamphleteer
who writes for the benefit of all mankind, but one who is a horrid
jester, a propagator of lies, and performs for the musings of those
who purposely contort Paine's spirit like so many decrepit whores.
I extend this condemnation also to Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Newt
Gingrich, and all other similar manner of infinite intellectuals whose
goal it is to willfully pervert the message and sprit of Paine through
willful and calculated deception.

On The Liberalism of Thomas Paine
The conservatives who tout Paine's name today are the very ideological
kin of those who defamed him over 220 years ago for rattling the cages
of the establishment. They are the kith of men such as Edmund Burke,
as British Parliamentarian who condemned Paine's views of "The Rights
of Man" in favor of ideals which conserved the political norm.
Indeed, in fact, in truth, and in all right, Thomas Paine is the kin
of modern liberals. Not liberals such as William Jefferson Clinton or
Harry Reid. No, I think he would have thought them to be too
conservative in their actions and too dispassionate in their politics.
Paine is in the lineage of liberals who are far more left than the
nation’s acceptable upper echelon.
Paine would consider Franklin Delano Roosevelt as his brethren. Yes,
the same man who conservatives love to hate, Paine would have had an
acute sense of brotherhood towards. After all, it was FDR who
established the national minimum wage of 25 cents in 1938.
Furthermore, it was again FDR who implemented Social Security, an
ideal which Paine was an advocate for in his 1796 work "Agrarian
Justice."
I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is to create
a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person,
when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds
sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her
natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed
property:

And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every
person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as
they shall arrive at that age.

In his full throated defense of the French Revolution in "The Rights
of Man," Thomas Paine also advocated free, universal education. He
proposed that his social agenda be paid for through income tax, just
as much of it is today.
While conservatives blast liberal policies that include universal
healthcare, universal education, social security, and workers right
due to the increasing national debt, Paine saw it differently. Paine
praised national debt in first, and perhaps most famous pamphlet,
"Common Sense":
The debt we may contract doth not deserve our regard if the work be
but accomplished. No nation ought to be without a debt. A national
debt is a national bond; and when it bears no interest, is in no case
a grievance.

What was true in Paine's mind then is also true today. If America's
bond is a well educated population, free from the fear of
debilitating, life threatening diseases that conventional HMOs refuse
to cover, then it is worth every penny of debt that America incurs to
provide that level of medical freedom.
Imagine for a moment if the equal to Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein,
or Paine himself were alive today, living in poverty, without the
medical insurance to cure them from fatal, but preventable diseases.
Would we have them die and sacrifice their lives and the glorious
wonders of invention and discovery that they would bestow upon us all
in the dawn of the 21st century? I should hope, not, but the enemies
of Paine who today masquerade in his image would have exactly that be
the case.
On the subject of Paine's religious convictions, those same ma
squerading opponents of Paine's ideology would have all believe that
Thomas Paine was a Christian as well as a conservative, however,
nothing could be further from the truth. Paine was a devout Deist.
Deists believed that a creator deity made the world, humans, and have
mankind a destiny that included rights to the world, but later ceased
to intervene in the lives of men. Another famous Thomas and founding
father, Jefferson , also subscribed to this philosophy, as did several
other of America's founders.
Paine's quintessential work on the subject, "The Age of Reason,"
details his views on religion, including Christianity, which were so
unpopular in his time that he was ostracized for them. He died a poor
and obscure death; his bones where defiled, and his only remaining
friend in the United States was Jefferson.
In the first chapter of his 1795 work, "Age of Reason," Paine defined
in no unclear terms what his true religious beliefs are, and left any
repercussions to be damned.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or
Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify
and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

Thomas Paine and America in the 21st Century
Would Thomas Paine be disappointed in today's American government?
Yes, but not because the President is perusing an agenda which will
provide universal healthcare to all citizens, but because the country
when he risked his life to create did not come to the basic conclusion
that heath care is a "natural right" (as he would've called it) 200
years prior.
Moreover, Paine would be so infuriated by the way that his own good
name has been used against his very philosophies, that he would
undoubtedly be inspired to write the greatest pamphlet of his career,
and in doing so becoming the mortal enemy of those propagandists who
defile his name for their conservative cause today.
When celebrating the birth of this greatest of all nations, this year
and any other year, remember the courage of Thomas Paine's
convictions, and recall them accurately, and not through the
narcissistic delusions of his ideological enemies.

[Bret Cahill]

>  > Then support an amendment to the U. S. Constitution
>  > to provide for referenda on tax rates.
>  >
>  > Bret Cahill
>
> Sorry.

No need to apologize for you ignorance of the political classics the
influenced the framers. Just read _Spirit of Laws_ and _The Republic_
and then get back here with some quotes.

> That would be Democracy and the founders (starting with Jimmy
> Madison) were adamantly against it.

What makes you think the framers were for [rich white man controlled]
middle man [white man] politicians always deciding _fiscal_ policy?

(Here's where the quotes will come in handy.)

They had just fought a war to keep rich white man George III from
deciding fiscal policy.

The only reason they were using rich white middle man politicians to
decide fiscal policy was because communications moved at the speed of
a horse. If they had widespread instant electronic communications
back then they would have had the middle men politicians deciding
imPOOORant issues like Monicagate and Benkindoflazy scandals and leave
boring fiscal and monetery policy to the plebs.

Even more, assuming you find a quote where Madison supports [rich
white] middle man politicians always deciding all tax rates --
admittedly a bad assumption --, please explain why the dominion of the
majority on fiscal policy works here in California but not at the
nat'l level.

What is it that is so scarey about referenda _on fiscal and monetary
policy_ at the national level where you start babbling _the very same
nonsense_ as a bagger?

Now, to be sure, referenda should _only_ be on economic policy. I've
posted many times that Prop. 8 would be a trifecta of Madison's worst
nightmares come true. That's the real reason I voted against it.
Under no circumstances should the majority _ever_ vote on [non
economic] minority rights.

Once upon a time the legacy media would try to pull that teabag
looneytarian scam: the rich were a minority that needs protection.

Even Maureen Dowd won't try that one anymore. She knows she'll get
outed as a Koch shill by Krugman.

> The last thing we need is ignorant baggers (or the resentful like you)
> deciding on such important policies:

Why do you think baggers would be deciding _anything_ with referenda
on fiscal policy?

You think tax cuts on the rich are popular?

75% support tax hikes on the rich and that number is increasing by 1%
a year.

That's why baggers cut 'n run almost as fast as the legacy media when
it comes to referenda on fiscal policy.

Here's the real question that the legacy media and tea baggers always
dodge:

If you think your citizens are too ignorant/foolish to vote on a
simple number why do you think they are smart enough to not get
swindled by politicians?

A number cannot flip flop or lie or start quagmires of mass
distraction like a politician.

As Guv. Brown pointed out, an anti-referenda politician has an
internal contradiction:

"Vote for me because I think you are too dumb to vote in your own best
interest."


Bret Cahill


"I can't figger out why I get paid so much to not know what is going
on."

-- any senile old white man legacy media publisher or broadcaster

[Scout]

"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:9109de45-ec15-4f7a...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

>> >> >> >> >> California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget
>> >> >> >> >> surplus
>>

>> >> >> >> >> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) � California Governor Jerry Brown and

Wow, you must have been the slowest student in the 'special' classes.

PS: Trying some reading comprehension dipshit.

[Bret Cahill]

Why not let the people decide?

Why do you think you can persuade posters here of your reasoning but
not the majority of voters every time they go to a referendum on
economic policy?

You think the posters here are brighter and more influential than
average?


Bret Cahill

[Scout]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:19598e4a-dc45-4d29...@20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

> On Jun 12, 4:32 pm, "Scout"
> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
>> message
>>
>> news:a08ca9dd-7a48-4c1f...@c3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 11, 10:50 pm, "Scout"
>> > <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> >> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
>> >> message
>>
>> >>news:d26751e4-e1fc-492f...@g8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Jun 11, 5:59 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> Ryanator wrote:
>> >> >> > On Jun 11, 3:46 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> Just when we thought that the words "California" and "surplus"
>> >> >> >> could
>> >> >> >> not be used in the same sentence...
>>
>> >> >> >> -Ramon
>>
>> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------
>>
>> >> >> >> California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget surplus
>>

>> >> >> >> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) � California Governor Jerry Brown and

Yea, Clinton, Bush, Republicans and Democrats.

>and that it will take many many years to clean
> it up.

That isn't what Obama said way back in 2007. Was he lying?

>yes its all bushs fault, and americans know it.

No, actually the educated Americans know that Clinton was the primary
President responsible and Bush continued it for a bit but by 2001 he was
giving Congress warnings of the dangers of inflating a housing bubble. He
was ignored by Congress. Both Republicans and Democrats largely supported
the deregulation under Clinton, and both Republicans and Democrats largely
ignored Bush's warnings. So, no it's not Bush's fault. Indeed if Congress
had heeded his warnings the collapse may have been adverted or mitigated.
However, that doesn't excuse Obama spending money like a drunken sailor in a
whore house with a credit card....not at this late date.

But rest assured the government is even now reworking their math to make it
look like the economy is suddenly recovering....even if things remain
unchanged.

[Scout]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:3592d7f9-7fa5-4b2a...@o8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

> On Jun 12, 4:35 pm, "Scout"
> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> "Bret Cahill" <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:897a6ca3-fc96-4762...@g9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget surplus
>>

>> >> >> >> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) � California Governor Jerry Brown and

Somehow I doubt your having to reconsider your bigotry is Unconstitutional.

[Scout]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:07e4f37f-e763-47e1...@g8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

Well in that case let the government borrow enough money to pay off all
Private debt and suddenly everything will be right with the world.

Shouldn't take more than 24 hours to go from economic depression to economic
boom. So what's taking Obama so long?

[Scout]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:da9fd7f7-bef4-4444...@g8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

IOW, you couldn't refute my observation, so instead you attempt to distract
attention by using lame childish attempts at insult.

[Bret Cahill]

> >> >> > Obama could balance the budget for a tax hike economic boom just
> >> >> > like
> >> >> > California.
>
> >> >> > Just amend the U. S. Consitution so voters decide fiscal policy.
>
> >> >> > Of course, if you are a cowardly winger, by definition you oppose
> >> >> > voters and democratic freedom and don't want voters deciding
> >> >> > anything.
>
> >> >> I'm afraid many liberal states have lost their way.  I live in
> >> >> Washington state.  We've had Tim Eyman initiatives for years.
> >> >> The focus is always on the tax side.  Sure we have groups that
> >> >> want to tax coffee to pay for daycare but those initiatives tend
> >> >> to fail.  Just cutting taxes without saying how services will be
> >> >> affected appears to be a winning technique.
>
> >> > 75% of Americans including red & blue states support hiking taxes on
> >> > the rich
>
> >> > This is increasing by 1% a year.
>
> >> And then we wonder why businesses and the rich are moving their
> >> operations
> >> and investments overseas......
>

> > Why would they move overseas when they won't even move across state
> > lines?
>

> Except they are moving.

Looneytarian teabaggers notice it because you guys cannot compete in
an information age globalized economy.

Even Koch isn't gonna toss you a biscuit because you cannot bs your
way out of a wet paper bag.

Your problem isn't Obama but reality.

[Bill Graham]

All I am saying is that limiting how much the government can take from the
people in taxes isn't good enough. If they can borrow as much as they please
for future generations to pay back, then all bets are off. And that is the
way things are right now.

[Bret Cahill]

> >> >> >> >> >> California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget
> >> >> >> >> >> surplus
>

> >> >> >> >> >> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California Governor Jerry Brown and

Simple minds say "wow" to anything.

Here, try again:

Why are you afraid of an amendment to the U. S. Constitution to
provide for referenda on tax rates?

Remember, the more you dodge the more it'll get reposted.

[Scout]

"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:14c25042-9ad4-4354...@x4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

>> >> >> > Obama could balance the budget for a tax hike economic boom just
>> >> >> > like
>> >> >> > California.
>>
>> >> >> > Just amend the U. S. Consitution so voters decide fiscal policy.
>>
>> >> >> > Of course, if you are a cowardly winger, by definition you oppose
>> >> >> > voters and democratic freedom and don't want voters deciding
>> >> >> > anything.
>>
>> >> >> I'm afraid many liberal states have lost their way. I live in
>> >> >> Washington state. We've had Tim Eyman initiatives for years.
>> >> >> The focus is always on the tax side. Sure we have groups that
>> >> >> want to tax coffee to pay for daycare but those initiatives tend
>> >> >> to fail. Just cutting taxes without saying how services will be
>> >> >> affected appears to be a winning technique.
>>
>> >> > 75% of Americans including red & blue states support hiking taxes on
>> >> > the rich
>>
>> >> > This is increasing by 1% a year.
>>
>> >> And then we wonder why businesses and the rich are moving their
>> >> operations
>> >> and investments overseas......
>>
>> > Why would they move overseas when they won't even move across state
>> > lines?
>>
>> Except they are moving.
>
> Looneytarian teabaggers notice it because you guys cannot compete in
> an information age globalized economy.

So are you suggesting we effectively reduce our population to little more
than slave labor like China so we can be more competitive??

[deadrat]

On 6/12/13 5:49 PM, FirstPost wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:24:40 -0500, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/12/13 4:35 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>

>>> "Bret Cahill" <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>>> news:897a6ca3-fc96-4762...@g9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...

>>>> Obama could balance the budget for a tax hike economic boom just like
>>>> California.
>>>>
>>>> Just amend the U. S. Consitution so voters decide fiscal policy.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, if you are a cowardly winger, by definition you oppose
>>>> voters and democratic freedom and don't want voters deciding anything.
>>>

>>> On the contrary, I'm all in favor of removing the government's power to
>>> impose or increase taxes.
>>>

>>> IMO, that should ALL be decided by public referendum of net tax payers
>>> and the government isn't allowed to spend more than their income unless
>>> authorized by public referendum.
>>

>> Breathtaking in its ignorance. I think I'll have to invent a new level
>> of award. Perhaps, dumber than a switching yard full of unit trains
>> loaded with crates of ball-peen hammers.
>>
>> Answer me this. You're a loser. You need those services that
>> government provides. Why do you carry water for the people who want to
>> cut you off at the knees? What is that? Some form of Stockholm Syndrome?
>
> You mean services like these?
> http://money.msn.com/investing/12-examples-of-government-waste
>
> Or these:

> http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/Government-waste-adds-up-45000-empty-government-owned-buildings-800000-on-bottled-water
>
> Or all of these:
> http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/03/28/insane-government-waste-and-use-of-taxpayer-money-n1551772

>
> Seems you're the ones that are so desperate to carry the water for
> those that are truly taking money out of your pocket you pathetic
> lying loser.
>
> How much have you benefited from the billions spent in the links I
> posted above idiot?
>
> It is simply amazing at the level of sheer stupidity demonstrated by
> liberal fools here on a daily basis.

Oh, look! An ignoramus calls me a liar, an idiot, and a fool.

Let's actually examine one of your links, the first one. I can pretty
much guarantee that you didn't look into it, because ignoramuses like
you never do. They swallow whole anything they're told that they agree
with.

Now, first of all, let me say that I'm not denying there's government
waste. Government is a human institution, and given what we know about
human beings, you can be sure that a certain amount of stupidity,
incompetence, and greed will accompany any sufficiently large human
endeavor.

Secondly, the list is Tom Coburn's. The Senator from Oklahoma is one of
the most egregious clowns in the Senate. No surprise that you'll follow
him anywhere.

Thirdly, you may think the government shouldn't be spending tax money on
foreign aid, basic scientific research, local libraries, or small
businesses. But these are strategic or popular programs and complaints
about the money spent on them usually amounts to whining about the
decisions made by the recipients.

Finally, in none of these examples is the money burnt. It all goes into
a local economy.

Here are the 12 examples:

1. US AID grant to Morocco. $27M. According to the list, the IG says
the money was ill spent. OK

2. DOE's Initiative for Proliferation Prevention, which funds projects
to employ former Soviet nuclear engineers in non-weapons related work.
The work is overseen by Argonne National Labs, which lists projects in
new batteries, biofuel, medical isotopes, and nuclear shielding. Seems
like $15M well spent, but perhaps it's actually a boondoggle.
Impossible to tell from the list. Let's call this one unproven.

3. Grant to a brewery in NH for $750,790. Actually, the grant was for
$250,790 (which was to go for a new sewer line) and the original project
estimate was $500,000. The brewery will match the funds and agreed to
pay for any overage. The town is in favor, as the brewery will bring in
jobs and commerce. Can't count this one.

4. Pentagon spending $1.5 to develop a "roll up" beef jerky. Sounds
funny, right? Can't find anything about it except derision generated by
Oklahoma's clown Senator. But no doubt the Pentagon spends money on
field rations. Is this a bad one? Can't tell. Unproven.

5. Community Development Block Grant. $500K to a company that makes pet
products. Sorry, complain about block grants if you want, but given
that there are such things, what difference does it make what kind of
company gets the grants?

6. $450K goes to an airport in OK that averages one flight per month.
But the money doesn't go to the airport; it's redistributed to other
Oklahoma projects. Are those projects a waste? Can't tell; the list
doesn't say. Not proven.

7. Robo-squirrel. $325K to UC Davis. Turns out that the robot in
question cost a couple of hundred dollars. The rest of the grant was
spent training biology and engineering students.

8. Smokey the Bear promotions for about $50K, including STB signs that
say "Extreme Fire Danger Today!" Is fire prevention not part of the US
Forest Service responsibility?

9. The Fullerton CA public library gets $35K to install a book vending
machine in a commuter train station. Here's Coburn's take: 3000
commuters go through the train station every day. The machine costs
$35,000. That's less than $12 per commuter so it would be cheaper to
give each commuter a gift card to purchase the book. Of course, the
value of the machine is the number of books it lends, not the capacity
of the station. Coburn plays the clown while he plays you for a fool.
Is supporting a local public library a waste of money? Sure, let's give
you this one.

10. $25K for the travel expenses of Alabama's Watermelon Queen, to
promote the consumption of watermelons grown in Alabama. Yeah, I'll go
with that. I'll just note that this is more of red state conservatives
sucking on the public teat while they decry federal spending.

11. National Endownment for the Arts, $20K for circus-arts. Hey! Why
not employ Coburn to teach clown classes? Here again, if you're against
funding the NEA, fine, but your fellow citizens aren't.

12. Abington Public Library used $365 from a grant to host a Star Wars
event. I'm gonna call bullshit on this one. It was an event to get
kids into the library. The money was probably spend on the librarian
who's funded by the grant at $15 an hour.

You should notice two things. The first is that Coburn is lying to you
by omission. The real story on these expenditures almost always
contradicts the caricature presented. The second is the utter
triviality of the money involved. In fact for practical purposes, we
can ignore all of them except the first, which dwarfs the rest at $27M.
The 2012 budget was over $1T. That means this list represents less
than .0027% of what the fed gov spends.

Now, here's an interesting story. In 2003 and 2004, the US
shrink-wrapped $100 bills into bricks and loaded them onto C-130
Hercules transport planes and sent the money to Iraq. $6.6B of that
money went missing. Gone. Poof. Roughly 2500 times the amounts Coburn
is distracting you about. (Actually, I'll bet not all of it
disappeared. I'm sure some of it went to buy materials for IEDs.)
Didn't hear a peep out of Coburn on that one, did you?

Finally, to answer your question, I didn't benefit a dime from any of
the twelve expenditures.

[Bret Cahill]

> Somehow I doubt

Mostly you dodge issues, i.e., "what's the difference between rent and
taxes?"

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jun 13, 12:26 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >  > Then support an amendment to the U. S. Constitution
> >  > to provide for referenda on tax rates.
> >  >
> >  > Bret Cahill
>
> > Sorry.
>
> No need to apologize for you ignorance of the political classics the
> influenced the framers.  Just read _Spirit of Laws_ and _The Republic_
> and then get back here with some quotes.
>

The Federalist Papers (the most important one).

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

Q.E.D.

-Ramon

[BeamMeUpScotty]

And California was rated 6th largest economy in the world until just a
few years ago.


Looks like Socialism happened.



--



*Rumination*
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic
system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair
salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to
wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we
are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
--Adolf Hitler-- (Speech of May 1, 1927

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/13/2013 12:41 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> why do we have to pay off our debts?

Why would I buy a U.S. Bond if you're running a Ponzi scheme and calling
it National debt.


Socialists are so intelligent.

[Bret Cahill]

Then tax cuts for the rich Swartznegger destroyed the California
economy

> Looks like Socialism happened.

The Democrat, Guv. Brown and Democracy happened for a tax hike
economic boom.


Bret Cahill

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:22:36 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>Then tax cuts for the rich Swartznegger destroyed the California
>economy

Too funny.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The Constitution, the only one that counts.

[Bret Cahill]

> > >  > Then support an amendment to the U. S. Constitution
> > >  > to provide for referenda on tax rates.
> > >  >
> > >  > Bret Cahill
>
> > > Sorry.
>
> > No need to apologize for you ignorance of the political classics the
> > influenced the framers.  Just read _Spirit of Laws_ and _The Republic_
> > and then get back here with some quotes.
>
> The Federalist Papers (the most important one).
>
>    http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

Madison accurately points the reason referenda are superior to
politicians:

"It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to
adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to
the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the
helm."

The only reason the framers provided for middle man politicians
deciding _fiscal policy_ is because communications moved at the speed
of a horse. The only thing that was possible logistically was
Congress deciding monetary and fiscal policy and everything under Art.
I, Sec. 8.

If the country was wired as it is today Madison would have said,

"Prop 8 is my worst nightmare come true. Under no circumstances
should the majority be voting directly on minority rights. Those
decisions should be left to lifetime appointment judges to protect
minority rights. But there is no reason whatsoever for voters not to
be voting directly on interest rates, tax rates, borrowing and
spending."

Or do you really believe the framers considered the richest man of
their day, George III, a minority that needed federal procedural
protection?


Bret Cahill

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/13/2013 1:41 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget
>>>>>>>>>>>> surplus
>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) � California Governor Jerry Brown and

WOW... that was simple.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

They did borrow enough and they gave it to their supporters called
unions and and the bought Fannie and Freddie and a bunch of banks.


and there is still private debt, I guess they must have stolen all that
"shovel ready" money.....

[Bret Cahill]

> >Then tax cuts for the rich Swartznegger destroyed the California
> >economy

> Too funny.

Californians didn't think tax cuts for the rich destroying their
economy was funny.

That's why Meg was defeated and tax hikes were passed by referendum.

In just 2 years Guv. Brown balanced the budget.


Bret Cahill

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Two dozen companies commit to leaving California
Prop 30 triggers business backlash


Read more:
http://www.kcra.com/news/Two-dozen-companies-commit-to-leaving-California/-/11797728/18533954/-/ivlxudz/-/index.html#ixzz2W6Ys0IDg


Decades of Democrat control have made California a laughing stock.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Governator Arnold couldn't get any tax legislation past the Socialist
Legislature, Jerry Brown says he will and did.

>> Looks like Socialism happened.
>
> The Democrat, Guv. Brown and Democracy happened for a tax hike
> economic boom.

Tax hike that shrunk the economy from number 6 to number 9 and that is
billions of dollars lost. Socialism always destroys a productive economy.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/13/2013 10:03 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:48:37 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
> <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Then tax cuts for the rich Swartznegger destroyed the California
>>>> economy
>>
>>> Too funny.
>>
>> Californians didn't think tax cuts for the rich destroying their
>> economy was funny.
>>
>> That's why Meg was defeated and tax hikes were passed by referendum.
>>
>> In just 2 years Guv. Brown balanced the budget.

And taxed the state into obscurity.... they are becoming unproductive
parasites.


"Come to California and see how Parasites live"..... it just doesn't
sing to me as a tourist generating slogan.



*Socialism Happens*

[Bret Cahill]

> >>>>>>>>>>>> California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget
> >>>>>>>>>>>> surplus
>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California Governor Jerry Brown and

Again, why are Republicans afraid of an amendment to the U. S.

Constitution to provide for referenda on tax rates?

Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> >> >Then tax cuts for the rich Swartznegger destroyed the California
> >> >economy
>
> >> Too funny.
>
> >Californians didn't think tax cuts for the rich destroying their
> >economy was funny.

No response?

> >That's why Meg was defeated and tax hikes were passed by referendum.

No response?

That explains the low approval rating of the tax cut Congress.

> >In just 2 years Guv. Brown balanced the budget.

> Two dozen companies commit to leaving California
> Prop 30 triggers business backlash

"Commit?"

Is posturing the best you can do?

If any companies are leaving it certainly isn't creating any deficits.


Bret Cahill

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/13/2013 9:48 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>> Then tax cuts for the rich Swartznegger destroyed the California
>>> economy
>
>> Too funny.
>
> Californians didn't think tax cuts for the rich destroying their
> economy was funny.

That's because tax hikes are destroying it, they never realized any tax
cuts.

> That's why Meg was defeated and tax hikes were passed by referendum.

Ignorance is no excuse.

> In just 2 years Guv. Brown balanced the budget.

It's NOT balanced and taxes are shrinking the economy by 35%.


Less economic growth and you get less tax dollars to spend.... next
year the economy will shrink more and they will have even less to spend
on their Socialist utopia, and the next year will be the same and the
next and next.


The spiral downwards was predicted. Now we buy a ticket and watch the
show. All the emotions will be drawn on..... Right now there is that
great Socialist HOPE and soon the crushing despair of hopelessness.




--



*Rumination*
#44 - Love your country, but fear your Government, and when they say
we're here from the government and we're here to help.... run Forest run.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jun 13, 9:09 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> Again, why are Republicans afraid of an amendment to the
> U. S. Constitution to  provide for referenda on tax rates?
>
> Bret Cahill

"It is not only the Republicans, Mr. Cahill: It was our idea, one of
our best."

-Signed: The Founders.

ps: Since you prefer rule by the majority (otherwise known as Mob
Rule), we have great news for you. We gather that Mr. Herrera's spot
in Venezuela is available: Just tell the Chavistas that Ramon sent
you, with his compliments. He volunteered to provide you with a list
of the best restaurants in Caracas (*)


(*) But you need to get there early. Due to pervasive crime,
restaurants that used to be open well after midnight have no resource
but closing early. Same with ATMs. Same with gas stations. Those are
the direct CONSEQUENCES of the Democracy that you propose.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/13/2013 10:09 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California governor and lawmakers reach deal on budget
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surplus
>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) � California Governor Jerry Brown and

Why are you Democrats afraid of an AMENDMENT that SUNSETS each law after
it has been on the books for SEVEN YEARS?

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 13, 9:03 am, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:48:37 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
>

> <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> >> >Then tax cuts for the rich Swartznegger destroyed the California
> >> >economy
>
> >> Too funny.
>
> >Californians didn't think tax cuts for the rich destroying their
> >economy was funny.
>
> >That's why Meg was defeated and tax hikes were passed by referendum.
>
> >In just 2 years Guv. Brown balanced the budget.
>
> Two dozen companies commit to leaving California
> Prop 30 triggers business backlash
>

> Read more:http://www.kcra.com/news/Two-dozen-companies-commit-to-leaving-Califo...

>
> Decades of Democrat control have made California a laughing stock.

actually it was reagan, wilson, arnold and others that destroyed
california, but brown is reversing that:)))


ROTFLOL!!!!!! now hear is a laughing stock. KABOOM(texas) is the
laughing stock:))))

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/06/12/2145741/west-texas-fema/

West, Texas Denied FEMA Aid To Rebuild After Fertilizer Plant
Explosion
By Bryce Covert on Jun 12, 2013 at 4:00 pm

Credit: AP
The town of West, Texas, where a fertilizer plant exploded in April,
killing 15 people and injuring 160, will not receive disaster aid from
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to rebuild, the
Associated Press reports. While it will give emergency funds to
individual residents, the agency’s review of the state’s appeal for
help found that the explosion “is not of the severity and magnitude
that warrants a major disaster declaration,” according to a letter
obtained by the AP.
The mayor of West, Tommy Muska, told the AP that the town needs to
repair roads, the damaged sewer system, and a school, which will cost
$57 million. The price tag for the total property damages resulting
from the explosion could reach $100 million.
Meanwhile, the plant itself was only insured for $1 million worth of
damages. Texas doesn’t mandate the terms for insurance companies that
offer policies to fertilizer plants and therefore doesn’t require them
to have insurance that would cover the potential damage they could
cause.
FEMA announced last week that it and the Small Business Association
(SBA) have approved more than $6.5 million in federal disaster
assistance grants and loans for individuals and families in the area.
The grants are to help cover the costs of temporary housing, home
repair, and reconstruction, among other needs, and the SBA loans help
businesses and nonprofits pay for property losses. Yet West lost $29
million in taxable value in the blast, which excludes damage to
nontaxable property such as schools and infrastructure.
Meanwhile, victims have found that they may have to continue paying
property taxes on their destroyed homes. That means that they will
continue to pay out money while they rebuild, yet they won’t be able
to turn to the fertilizer company for compensation nor get enough help
from the federal government to cover the costs of the damage.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

> On Jun 13, 9:03 am, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:48:37 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
>>
>> <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>>>> Then tax cuts for the rich Swartznegger destroyed the California
>>>>> economy
>>
>>>> Too funny.
>>
>>> Californians didn't think tax cuts for the rich destroying their
>>> economy was funny.
>>
>>> That's why Meg was defeated and tax hikes were passed by referendum.
>>
>>> In just 2 years Guv. Brown balanced the budget.
>>
>> Two dozen companies commit to leaving California
>> Prop 30 triggers business backlash
>>
>> Read more:http://www.kcra.com/news/Two-dozen-companies-commit-to-leaving-Califo...
>>
>> Decades of Democrat control have made California a laughing stock.

California is a laughing "Stockton"

[BeamMeUpScotty]

> On Jun 13, 9:03 am, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:48:37 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
>>
>> <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>>>> Then tax cuts for the rich Swartznegger destroyed the California
>>>>> economy
>>
>>>> Too funny.
>>
>>> Californians didn't think tax cuts for the rich destroying their
>>> economy was funny.
>>
>>> That's why Meg was defeated and tax hikes were passed by referendum.
>>
>>> In just 2 years Guv. Brown balanced the budget.
>>
>> Two dozen companies commit to leaving California
>> Prop 30 triggers business backlash
>>
>> Read more:http://www.kcra.com/news/Two-dozen-companies-commit-to-leaving-Califo...
>>
>> Decades of Democrat control have made California a laughing stock.

California is a laughing "Stockton"

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/02/stockton-calif-is-officially-bankrupt


--



*Rumination*
#24.0.1 - All businesses strive to stay in business.... How any one will
do that is never exactly the same as the rest, because no two businesses
are exactly the same. That's why Socialism's "one size fits all" central
planning doesn't work.