Plot to Wreck America
Cliff
"The Other Plot to Wreck America "
[
THERE may not be a person in America without a strong opinion about what coulda,
shoulda been done to prevent the underwear bomber from boarding that Christmas
flight to Detroit. In the years since 9/11, we�ve all become counterterrorists.
But in the 16 months since that other calamity in downtown New York � the crash
precipitated by the 9/15 failure of Lehman Brothers � most of us are still
ignorant about what Warren Buffett called the �financial weapons of mass
destruction� that wrecked our economy. Fluent as we are in Al Qaeda and body
scanners, when it comes to synthetic C.D.O.�s and credit-default swaps, not so
much.
What we don�t know will hurt us, and quite possibly on a more devastating scale
than any Qaeda attack. Americans must be told the full story of how Wall Street
gamed and inflated the housing bubble, made out like bandits, and then left
millions of households in ruin. Without that reckoning, there will be no public
clamor for serious reform of a financial system that was as cunningly breached
as airline security at the Amsterdam airport. And without reform, another
massive attack on our economic security is guaranteed. Now that it can count on
government bailouts, Wall Street has more incentive than ever to pump up its
risks � secure that it can keep the bonanzas while we get stuck with the losses.
.....
]
Naturally the rethugs will lie .... and demand even more deregulation &
tax cuts for their bestest $$ buddies ....
--
Cliff
Bill McKee
"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
news:o6ank55ma2nr9cf9j...@4ax.com...
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/opinion/10rich.html
> "The Other Plot to Wreck America "
> [
> THERE may not be a person in America without a strong opinion about what
> coulda,
> shoulda been done to prevent the underwear bomber from boarding that
> Christmas
> flight to Detroit. In the years since 9/11, we've all become
> counterterrorists.
> crash
> precipitated by the 9/15 failure of Lehman Brothers - most of us are still
> ignorant about what Warren Buffett called the "financial weapons of mass
> destruction" that wrecked our economy. Fluent as we are in Al Qaeda and
> body
> scanners, when it comes to synthetic C.D.O.'s and credit-default swaps,
> not so
> much.
>
> What we don't know will hurt us, and quite possibly on a more devastating
> scale
> than any Qaeda attack. Americans must be told the full story of how Wall
> Street
> gamed and inflated the housing bubble, made out like bandits, and then
> left
> millions of households in ruin. Without that reckoning, there will be no
> public
> clamor for serious reform of a financial system that was as cunningly
> breached
> as airline security at the Amsterdam airport. And without reform, another
> massive attack on our economic security is guaranteed. Now that it can
> count on
> government bailouts, Wall Street has more incentive than ever to pump up
> its
> .....
> ]
>
> Naturally the rethugs will lie .... and demand even more deregulation &
> tax cuts for their bestest $$ buddies ....
> --
> Cliff
Dipshit. It was Clinton who signed the deregulation proposed by his buddy
Robert Rubin. Get your facts straight you ignorant asshole.
Van Chocstraw
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/opinion/10rich.html
> "The Other Plot to Wreck America "
Plot? It was a Bush success! Ran the ship of state aground like he
fucked up everything else he has done all his life.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:o6ank55ma2nr9cf9j...@4ax.com:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/opinion/10rich.html
> "The Other Plot to Wreck America "
> [
> THERE may not be a person in America without a strong opinion about
> what coulda, shoulda been done to prevent the underwear bomber from
> boarding that Christmas flight to Detroit.
I don't have a strong opinion on it cuz I'm one of the few ppl with enough
sense to realize terrorism is a microscopic problem. Bee stings kill more
americans.
robert bowman
> Dipshit. It was Clinton who signed the deregulation proposed by his buddy
> Robert Rubin. Get your facts straight you ignorant asshole.
You might add that Larry Summers, who has been seen flitting around the
throne, was another cheerleader for the GLB bill.
Gerald Abrahamson
<bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Dipshit. It was Clinton who signed the deregulation proposed by his buddy
>Robert Rubin. Get your facts straight you ignorant asshole.
Gramm (R), Leach (R), and Bliley (R) attached their
self-written financial de-regulation as an amendment to a
much larger"must pass" bill at the end of a Congressional
session. Thus, Clinton did NOT have the option of vetoing
the Republican't financial de-regulation as a separate bill.
Please stop trying to change history with your made-up
claims. Found those WMDs in Iraq yet?
RD (The Sandman)
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/opinion/10rich.html
Except it wasn't all Republicans. Both sides of the aisle were involved
but some folks still have to be so partisan that they won't admit that.
--
Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it or allowed bipartisan input,
signed by a president who hasn't read it or provided the public with the
C-Span overview of the plan or the process, with funding administered by
a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes because he didn't understand
TurboTax, overseen by an obese Surgeon General and financed by a country
that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong?
Ed Huntress
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CFE73CAB...@216.196.97.130...
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
> news:o6ank55ma2nr9cf9j...@4ax.com:
>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/opinion/10rich.html
>> "The Other Plot to Wreck America "
>> [
>> THERE may not be a person in America without a strong opinion about
>> what coulda, shoulda been done to prevent the underwear bomber from
>> boarding that Christmas flight to Detroit. In the years since 9/11,
>> we've all become counterterrorists. But in the 16 months since that
>> 9/15 failure of Lehman Brothers - most of us are still ignorant about
>> what Warren Buffett called the "financial weapons of mass destruction"
>> that wrecked our economy. Fluent as we are in Al Qaeda and body
>> scanners, when it comes to synthetic C.D.O.'s and credit-default
>> swaps, not so much.
>>
>> What we don't know will hurt us, and quite possibly on a more
>> devastating scale than any Qaeda attack. Americans must be told the
>> full story of how Wall Street gamed and inflated the housing bubble,
>> made out like bandits, and then left millions of households in ruin.
>> Without that reckoning, there will be no public clamor for serious
>> reform of a financial system that was as cunningly breached as airline
>> security at the Amsterdam airport. And without reform, another massive
>> attack on our economic security is guaranteed. Now that it can count
>> on government bailouts, Wall Street has more incentive than ever to
>> stuck with the losses. .....
>>]
>>
>> Naturally the rethugs will lie .... and demand even more
>> deregulation &
>> tax cuts for their bestest $$ buddies ....
>
> Except it wasn't all Republicans. Both sides of the aisle were involved
> but some folks still have to be so partisan that they won't admit that.
Putting the party labels on it just confuses the series of events, and makes
it either unintelligible or nearly impossible to sort out.
It was a long run of "neoliberal" (in other words, conservative) economic
ideas, which began to be implemented when Carter was in office, but which
were sparked by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School economists. It is
what is now known, worldwide, as "The Washington Consensus" of economics.
Much of it is what we now call Reaganomics -- cutting taxes, free trade,
free markets, cutting taxes, free flow of capital and labor around the
world, low interest rates, cutting taxes, and big, big deregulation. Oh, and
cutting taxes. Reagan gave Friedman the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Clinton bought into it big-time, as did most of those in government who had
some economic or regulatory authority. Alan Greenspan was the guru who
picked up the torch and carried it into the previous decade.
People like Phil Gramm were the torch-carriers in Congress, and they added
some other conservative twists -- dergulation of credit-card companies,
freedom to share personal data on private citizens among financial
corporations -- the usual libertarian self-immolations in the name of
liberty.
So it's quite true that it has not been a Democrat-versus-Republican issue
for years, at least since the early '70s. It's a conservative-economics
versus liberal-economics issue. The conservatives won. Then their house of
cards collapsed.
--
Ed Huntress
Jeff M
That's a pretty good summary.
Doug Miller
>Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>> So it's quite true that it has not been a Democrat-versus-Republican issue
>> for years, at least since the early '70s. It's a conservative-economics
>> versus liberal-economics issue. The conservatives won. Then their house of
>> cards collapsed.
>
>That's a pretty good summary.
Sure it is. It just ignores a handful of inconvenient facts, first and
foremost that this country hasn't had a conservative economic policy since the
late 1980s (and arguably not since long before that). George W. Bush was *not*
an economic conservative. Then there's also the inconvenient fact that things
didn't *really* go to hell until after the 2006 elections... when liberal
Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress.
Bill McKee
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b4cc32d$0$31267$607e...@cv.net...
The problem during Reagans time was the cutting taxes etc, stimulated the
economy, but Congress went on a spending spree. Just like during the
Clinton era. We should have been able to pay off a huge part of the
National Debt, but Congress tried to spend all of the dot.bomb money coming
in. Clinton looked good, as they failed in keeping up the spending end. We
are also paying for that spending now, as they committed spending in to the
future and since they use "Base_Line" budgeting, there is a big kick in
spending planned every year. California did the same thing, but since they
can not print money, they are bankrupt. Saying cutting government spending
and cutting taxes is not the best, argues that increasing government
spending and taxes will make all rich. Did not work in the USSR and will
not work anywhere else.
Bill McKee
"Gerald Abrahamson" <jer...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:jq0pk5dq5ackv2egg...@4ax.com...
Sure he had the option of vetoing the bill. We have found the WMD's in the
current Congress and Executive branches.
Cliff
wrote:
>
Rethug bill no doubt. With enough rethug votes to be veto-proof.
But that was just the start of the rethug damages.
Gramm�Leach�Bliley Act
Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.
Phil Gramm *Republican* from Texas
Jim Leach *Republican* from Iowa
Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. *Republican* from Virginia
http://thestrangedeathofliberalamerica.com/the-tragedy-of-robert-rubin-the-fall-of-citigroup-and-the-financial-crisis-continued.html
[
Rubin and Glass-Steagall
Unfortunately many have blamed the repeal of Glass-Steagall solely on the
Democrats, when in fact it was not a Democratic Party idea. In the mid-1980s a
Federal Reserve Board stocked with Republican Reagan-Bush appointees began
reinterpreting Glass-Steagall in a series of actions that slowly expanded the
ability of banks to engage in other financial operations.
The actual bill that repealed Glass-Steagall has the name of John McCain�s
principal financial advisor Phil Gramm: the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Here is
what Gramm said at the signing ceremony for Glass-Steagall:
{
We are here today to repeal Glass-Steagall because we have learned that
government is not the answer. We have learned that freedom and competition are
the answers. We have learned that we promote economic growth and we promote
stability by having competition and freedom.
I am proud to be here because this is an important bill; it is a deregulatory
bill. I believe that that is the wave of the future, and I am awfully proud to
have been a part of making it a reality.
}
So how did Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin get involved in what had been largely a
Republican attempt to gut Glass-Steagall?
]
Get your facts straight.
--
Cliff
Cliff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act
[
The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1st
by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (|Republicans 205�16; Democrats 138�69;
Independent/Socialist 0�1), two months after the Senate had already passed its
version of the bill on May 6th by a much-narrower 54�44 vote along
basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats
opposed)
]
Ed Huntress
"Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message
news:hiil6d$72r$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <z_ydnRE9KIhvXtHW...@giganews.com>, Jeff M
> <nos...@nothanks.org> wrote:
>>Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>> So it's quite true that it has not been a Democrat-versus-Republican
>>> issue
>>> for years, at least since the early '70s. It's a conservative-economics
>>> versus liberal-economics issue. The conservatives won. Then their house
>>> of
>>> cards collapsed.
>>
>>That's a pretty good summary.
>
> Sure it is. It just ignores a handful of inconvenient facts, first and
> foremost that this country hasn't had a conservative economic policy since
> the
> late 1980s (and arguably not since long before that).
And what is the "conservative economic policy" that we had until the late
'80s? Deficit spending? What would one be now?
> George W. Bush was *not*
> an economic conservative. Then there's also the inconvenient fact that
> things
> didn't *really* go to hell until after the 2006 elections... when liberal
> Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress.
That's ridiculous, Doug. We had the S&L crisis, the Long-Term Capital
Management collapse, the Dot.com bubble, and a variety of other warnings
that the system was overleveraged and underregulated. The housing bubble was
ready to burst for over five years before it let go and many economists were
yelling about it even longer than that.
Deregulation set the stage for it. Here's one example of what many economic
experts were saying:
=================================
Another failure seemed possible or likely this fall, especially as Senate
Banking Chair Phil Gramm, R-Texas, refused to compromise on privacy and
community development issues. [The bill he and Rubin supports will reverse
the Glass-Steagall Act, and]:
* Pave the way for a new round of record-shattering financial industry
mergers, dangerously concentrating political and economic power;
* Create too-big-to-fail institutions that are someday likely to drain the
public treasury as taxpayers bail out imperiled financial giants to protect
the stability of the nation's banking system;
* Leave financial regulatory authority spread among a half dozen federal and
50 state agencies, all uncoordinated, that will be overmatched by the
soon-to-be financial goliaths
Robert Rubin helped deliver this ticking time bomb of a bill to Wall Street,
first while in Treasury and then while in negotiations to land a top spot at
the finance industry's largest and highest-profile company. He may well
escape unscathed yet again, but it is sure to blow up on the rest of us.
=================================
That was written by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman, editors of
financial and corporate watchdog publications. Serious economists of various
stripes were saying the same thing. But the conservative news organizations
were berating Paul Krugman, for example, when he said the same things, and
particularly when he warned about the housing bubble, gently in 2001, and
then yelling loud about it in 2005.
BTW, the article above was written in NOVEMBER, 1999.
--
Ed Huntress
Cliff
wrote:
>
>"Gerald Abrahamson" <jer...@visi.com> wrote in message
>news:jq0pk5dq5ackv2egg...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:40:18 -0800, "Bill McKee"
>> <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Dipshit. It was Clinton who signed the deregulation proposed by his buddy
>>>Robert Rubin. Get your facts straight you ignorant asshole.
>>
>> Gramm (R), Leach (R), and Bliley (R) attached their
>> self-written financial de-regulation as an amendment to a
>> much larger"must pass" bill at the end of a Congressional
>> session. Thus, Clinton did NOT have the option of vetoing
>> the Republican't financial de-regulation as a separate bill.
>>
>> Please stop trying to change history with your made-up
>> claims. Found those WMDs in Iraq yet?
>
>Sure he had the option of vetoing the bill.
Which would have then been passed anyway.
> We have found the WMD's in the
>current Congress and Executive branches.
Find those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff
Ed Huntress
"Bill McKee" <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:_tqdnZpvm5c9QdHW...@earthlink.com...
Not really. Defense spending went up $105 billion/year between '82 and '88,
Social Security went up by $65 billion, and interest on the national debt
likewise went up by $65 billion. Most other categories didn't change very
much.
But SS is an old entitlement that Congress couldn't touch (neither could
Reagan), and interest was the result of Reagan's deficit spending -- or lack
of tax revenue, if you prefer. The big budget killer was defense spending,
which set peacetime records.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf (page 52)
> Just like during the Clinton era. We should have been able to pay off a
> huge part of the National Debt, but Congress tried to spend all of the
> dot.bomb money coming in. Clinton looked good, as they failed in keeping
> up the spending end.
Again, not true. See page 53 of the document above. The big increases in
outlays, again, were Medicare and SS -- long-term entitlements -- and the
interest on the national debt.
> We are also paying for that spending now, as they committed spending in to
> the future and since they use "Base_Line" budgeting, there is a big kick
> in spending planned every year.
We're paying for spending now because Reagan and G.W. Bush ran big deficits
in years when the economy is expanding. That's simply stupid. You run
deficits when the economy is shrinking, not the other way around.
> California did the same thing, but since they can not print money, they
> are bankrupt. Saying cutting government spending and cutting taxes is not
> the best, argues that increasing government spending and taxes will make
> all rich. Did not work in the USSR and will not work anywhere else.
Bill, I think you'll find it useful to look at some actual numbers.
--
Ed Huntress
RD (The Sandman)
news:9fnpk513g2bdqobpa...@4ax.com:
And your point is? Do you think that the Financial Services Act of 1999
was the precipient cause of economy falling on its ass? Or do you think
that your cite shows that partisanship does or does not exist?
Hawke
The "spending spree" congress went on during Reagan's tenure was on the
military so it was not the same as during Clinton's term. Unlike Reagan,
Clinton shrank the size of the government and at least on paper brought
the budget into balance. Never once since 1980 has any republican
administration ever failed to spend more than they took in. That's not
fiscal conservatism in anyone's book.
Ed is right in that it is conservative economic policies that have
caused us all the trouble even if some Democrats voted in favor of it.
It's always been the conservative's baby. It's all about less government
intrusion and deregulation of the markets. The whole idea of
conservatives, which he enumerated above, is as simple as the government
permitting an unregulated free market. Conservatives always wanted that
for America, and the new idea is for it to go global. Total freedom of
business to do business worldwide and to have virtually no regulations,
oh, and pay no taxes. That is the conservative idea of economic policy
in a nutshell. That is what we have been operating under for quite a
while now. Unfortunately, their economic theory has finally met reality
and it's clear to see what the results from the application of their
theory are. What's scary is that there is no doubt that conservatives
have learned nothing from the debacle as shown by their desire to do the
same thing all over again. To me, the only question is does the
government let them, when they now know what will happen if they do?
That is the question.
Hawke
RD (The Sandman)
news:agopk5pl28qusrvqd...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:36:19 -0800, "Bill McKee"
> <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Gerald Abrahamson" <jer...@visi.com> wrote in message
>>news:jq0pk5dq5ackv2egg...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:40:18 -0800, "Bill McKee"
>>> <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dipshit. It was Clinton who signed the deregulation proposed by his
>>>>buddy Robert Rubin. Get your facts straight you ignorant asshole.
>>>
>>> Gramm (R), Leach (R), and Bliley (R) attached their
>>> self-written financial de-regulation as an amendment to a
>>> much larger"must pass" bill at the end of a Congressional
>>> session. Thus, Clinton did NOT have the option of vetoing
>>> the Republican't financial de-regulation as a separate bill.
>>>
>>> Please stop trying to change history with your made-up
>>> claims. Found those WMDs in Iraq yet?
>>
>>Sure he had the option of vetoing the bill.
>
> Which would have then been passed anyway.
Would have to have been some Democrats' votes to do so. Republicans did
not have a veto proof majority in either house, IIRC.
Stuart Wheaton
Doug, I'd like to hear more about this, can you tell me what votes were
taken by the Democrat controlled congress to trigger this mess? If they
stymied something that would have nipped it in the bud, let me know
about that too. Thanks.
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
If you don't know what you are posting about why do it?
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:agopk5pl28qusrvqd...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:36:19 -0800, "Bill McKee"
>> <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Gerald Abrahamson" <jer...@visi.com> wrote in message
>>>news:jq0pk5dq5ackv2egg...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:40:18 -0800, "Bill McKee"
>>>> <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Dipshit. It was Clinton who signed the deregulation proposed by his
>>>>>buddy Robert Rubin. Get your facts straight you ignorant asshole.
>>>>
>>>> Gramm (R), Leach (R), and Bliley (R) attached their
>>>> self-written financial de-regulation as an amendment to a
>>>> much larger"must pass" bill at the end of a Congressional
>>>> session. Thus, Clinton did NOT have the option of vetoing
>>>> the Republican't financial de-regulation as a separate bill.
>>>>
>>>> Please stop trying to change history with your made-up
>>>> claims. Found those WMDs in Iraq yet?
>>>
>>>Sure he had the option of vetoing the bill.
>>
>> Which would have then been passed anyway.
>
>Would have to have been some Democrats' votes to do so. Republicans did
>not have a veto proof majority in either house, IIRC.
>
Dems can be idiots & wingers too.
They just don't usually march in lock step to do it.
--
Cliff
Doug Miller
Start by examining the roles played by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in failing
to regulate the financial industry -- and look at the extent to which said
industry contributed to them.
John R. Carroll
The Reagan administration pumped 100 billion dollars (1982 Dollars) cash
into the S&L industry directly.
That administration also signed Garne-St. Germaine into law and that single
piece of legislation has been as expensive, at least, as WWII and the Nam
combined as far as the American middle class is concerned.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
Wait a minute, Doug: When Bear Stearns was bailed out by the Bush
administration, the Democrats had only been in the majority for a year.
Lehman Bros. tanked a few months later, and the financial crash was off and
running. Most experts say the housing bubble was punctured in 2006 and bled
out until it caused the crisis in securitized mortgages.
Mike Oxley (R-OH) was Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee
until 2007; before him it was Jim Leach (R-IA). So, how did the Dems
"trigger this mess"?
--
Ed Huntress
Stuart Wheaton
So, Doug, are you saying that the system was running just fine while the
Republicans controlled congress, but because Frank and Dodd failed to
act Immediately upon taking control, the system crashed?
By 2007 the toxic mortgages had already been written by the predatory
lenders, and the unregulated CDO's and CDS's had already been written,
the house of cards was sitting on a foundation of sand, and the craks
were starting to appear.
All it would take is one good shock. Mortgages were starting to reset,
banks were starting to teeter, mass real estate speculation was hitting
zenith.
Given how long it takes to get any legislation past the party of No,
what could they have passed to avert the crisis?
Please, give me specifics.
Martin H. Eastburn
Dan
Right. The entire economic landscape changed overnight with a large
Republican obstructionist minority and a Republican Resident...
Do you even have a clue how our form of government works? Best you turn
off the radio and pick up a 5th grade civics book, and begin the
learning process.
Whether you agree with Republicans, Democrats, both, or neither, you
should have some clue about American government before you open your
mouth and make your simpleminded foolishness apparent to all who can read.
Seriously, your statement above makes zero sense...
Dan
robert bowman
> Gramm (R), Leach (R), and Bliley (R) attached their
> self-written financial de-regulation as an amendment to a
> much larger"must pass" bill at the end of a Congressional
> session. Thus, Clinton did NOT have the option of vetoing
> the Republican't financial de-regulation as a separate bill.
>
> Please stop trying to change history with your made-up
> claims. Found those WMDs in Iraq yet?
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/ls241.htm
This is a transcript of the love fest Clinton and the boys had at the
signing of the Financial Modernization Bill of 1999, emceed by Larry
Summers. The bill had been passed with an overwhelming majority in both
houses and could have been passed over Clinton's veto had he exercised it.
However,
"It will guarantee that our financial system will continue to meet the needs
of underserved communities, something that the vice president and I have
tried to do through the empowerment zones, the enterprise communities, the
community-development financial institutions, but something which has been
largely done through the private sector in honoring the Community
Reinvestment Act. The legislation I sign today establishes the principles
that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of that
act. In order to take advantage of the new opportunities created by the
law, we must first show a satisfactory record of meeting the needs of all
the communities a financial institution serves. I want to thank Senator
Sarbanes and Congressman LaFalce for their leadership on the CRA issue. I
want to applaud the, literally, hundreds of dedicated community groups all
around our country, that work so hard to make sure the CRA brings more hope
and capital to hard-pressed areas."
William Clinton, 12 November 1999
John R. Carroll
PayGo expired at the end of the Clinton's second term. The Bush
administration, and the Republican controlled Congress, ripped any vestige
of it out root and branch within the first two years of coming into office.
--
John R. Carroll
Doug Miller
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <z_ydnRE9KIhvXtHW...@giganews.com>, Jeff M
> <nos...@nothanks.org> wrote:
>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> So it's quite true that it has not been a Democrat-versus-Republican issue
>>>> for years, at least since the early '70s. It's a conservative-economics
>>>> versus liberal-economics issue. The conservatives won. Then their house of
>>>> cards collapsed.
>>> That's a pretty good summary.
>>
>> Sure it is. It just ignores a handful of inconvenient facts, first and
>> foremost that this country hasn't had a conservative economic policy since the
>> late 1980s (and arguably not since long before that). George W. Bush was *not*
>> an economic conservative. Then there's also the inconvenient fact that things
>> didn't *really* go to hell until after the 2006 elections... when liberal
>> Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress.
>
>Right. The entire economic landscape changed overnight with a large
>Republican obstructionist minority and a Republican Resident...
>
>Do you even have a clue how our form of government works? Best you turn
>off the radio and pick up a 5th grade civics book, and begin the
>learning process.
Perhaps you should begin to think, instead of parroting slogans. The principal
point is that the current debacle can't be blamed on "conservative-economics"
as Ed Huntress claims -- because we haven't *had* a conservative economic
policy in this country for decades.
And if people want to pin the blame on whatever party is in power when things
go south .... then pin it on the ones that were in power. Not the ones that
weren't.
Ed Huntress
But you haven't told us what a "conservative" economic policy would be, if
it's true we haven't had one in recent years.
Decades ago, tax rates were higher. There was more trade protectionism.
Banks were more tightly regulated. Welfare requirements were looser.
Interest rates were generally higher.
Just what is it that you think was more "conservative" about our economic
policies decades ago?
--
Ed Huntress
Jeff M
[snip]
>
> But you haven't told us what a "conservative" economic policy would be, if
> it's true we haven't had one in recent years.
I think Haiti is one example of a place with minimal regulation, largely
unfettered capitalism, low taxes, and small government. All in all, it
should be a conservative's paradise.
Michael A. Terrell
Ed Huntress
"Jeff M" <nos...@nothanks.org> wrote in message
news:z4KdnZy5zJYxRtDW...@giganews.com...
Hmm...maybe if they're short-sellers. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
Dan
> In article <ocb3n.23037$AO4....@newsfe02.iad>, Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>> In article <z_ydnRE9KIhvXtHW...@giganews.com>, Jeff M
>> <nos...@nothanks.org> wrote:
>>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> So it's quite true that it has not been a Democrat-versus-Republican issue
>>>>> for years, at least since the early '70s. It's a conservative-economics
>>>>> versus liberal-economics issue. The conservatives won. Then their house of
>>>>> cards collapsed.
>>>> That's a pretty good summary.
>>> Sure it is. It just ignores a handful of inconvenient facts, first and
>>> foremost that this country hasn't had a conservative economic policy since the
>>> late 1980s (and arguably not since long before that). George W. Bush was *not*
>>> an economic conservative. Then there's also the inconvenient fact that things
>>> didn't *really* go to hell until after the 2006 elections... when liberal
>>> Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress.
>> Right. The entire economic landscape changed overnight with a large
>> Republican obstructionist minority and a Republican Resident...
>>
>> Do you even have a clue how our form of government works? Best you turn
>> off the radio and pick up a 5th grade civics book, and begin the
>> learning process.
>
> Perhaps you should begin to think, instead of parroting slogans.
Please to indicate the slogan I have EVER parroted. I'll wait.
> The principal
> point is that the current debacle can't be blamed on "conservative-economics"
> as Ed Huntress claims -- because we haven't *had* a conservative economic
> policy in this country for decades.
But, then, the elections of 2006 did not usher in any significant number
of "liberal Democrats," either, let alone the mythical "...liberal
Democrats gained control..." of anything.
The economics that were brought into play by Reagan were not, as you
say, "conservative," except by the political pseudodefinitions we have
to live with these days. I prefer more traditional definitions, such as
Republican (which Party has embraced the disastrous laissez-faire
economic system that has led directly to the current meltdown) and
Democratic (which Party a significant number of members have signed onto
the disastrous laissez-faire economic system that has led directly to
the current meltdown).
Me, I'm a liberal conservative. Bush and cohort were radical ideologues.
> And if people want to pin the blame on whatever party is in power when things
> go south... then pin it on the ones that were in power. Not the ones that
> weren't.
True, which is why I suggest you investigate the way our legislative
process works. Even today, with the obstructionist monolithic
Republican Party of No and the wide variety of Democrats, antiRepublican
proAmerican legislation has a VERY tough time getting through (witness
the long timeline and lack of effectiveness of Health Care Reform). The
pervasiveness of corporate money in the legislation process (thanks more
to the Republicans and Republican Court than to Democratic Reform,
though the Dems are certainly not blameless) means we, the people, are
really not in control any more (and probably never were).
The Democrats, bad as they are, are our only hope for survival. The
Republicans, since Nixon (and he was persuaded by the people and a
Democratic Congress to sign some very good legislation, and, to be fair,
took the step, unavailable for political purposes to Democrats, of
recognizing China), have not had our interests at heart.
The chances of our coming out of this mess intact are slim, but if
Republicans regain power, they are virtually nonexistent, unless by some
miracle the Republican hierarchy sees the light and seeks true reform of
many failed and on-the-brink-of-failure institutions in this country.
Given their track record, I'm not too optimistic about that scenario...
Dan
Doug Miller
Haiti is a place with *no* government to speak of -- not exactly my idea of a
paradise. I agree with Jefferson: "all men ... are endowed by their Creator
with certain inalienable rights ... that governments are instituted among men
to secure these rights" -- where there is *no* government, there is no
protection of anyone's rights.
Doug Miller
"... turn off the radio ..." First line in the liberal playbook: accuse anyone
who disagrees with you of getting all his ideas from talk radio.
>
>> The principal
>> point is that the current debacle can't be blamed on "conservative-economics"
>> as Ed Huntress claims -- because we haven't *had* a conservative economic
>> policy in this country for decades.
>
>But, then, the elections of 2006 did not usher in any significant number
>of "liberal Democrats," either, let alone the mythical "...liberal
>Democrats gained control..." of anything.
In a word -- bullshit. Nancy Pelosi is now the Speaker of the House. Need more
examples?
>
>The economics that were brought into play by Reagan were not, as you
>say, "conservative," except by the political pseudodefinitions we have
>to live with these days. I prefer more traditional definitions, such as
>Republican (which Party has embraced the disastrous laissez-faire
>economic system that has led directly to the current meltdown) and
>Democratic (which Party a significant number of members have signed onto
>the disastrous laissez-faire economic system that has led directly to
>the current meltdown).
"More traditional definitions" my ass -- they're definitions you're making up
to suit your own purposes.
>
>Me, I'm a liberal conservative.
An obvious oxymoron.
> Bush and cohort were radical ideologues.
More definitions made up to suit your own purposes.
>
>> And if people want to pin the blame on whatever party is in power when thing
>> go south... then pin it on the ones that were in power. Not the ones that
>> weren't.
>
>True, which is why I suggest you investigate the way our legislative
>process works. Even today, with the obstructionist monolithic
>Republican Party of No and the wide variety of Democrats, antiRepublican
>proAmerican legislation has a VERY tough time getting through (witness
>the long timeline and lack of effectiveness of Health Care Reform).
So now you're referring to legislation that is opposed by a majority of the
American people as "proAmerican." Most of us don't see it that way -- which is
why it isn't getting through Congress.
> The
>pervasiveness of corporate money in the legislation process (thanks more
>to the Republicans and Republican Court than to Democratic Reform,
>though the Dems are certainly not blameless) means we, the people, are
>really not in control any more (and probably never were).
>
>The Democrats, bad as they are, are our only hope for survival. The
>Republicans, since Nixon (and he was persuaded by the people and a
>Democratic Congress to sign some very good legislation, and, to be fair,
>took the step, unavailable for political purposes to Democrats, of
>recognizing China), have not had our interests at heart.
>
>The chances of our coming out of this mess intact are slim, but if
>Republicans regain power, they are virtually nonexistent, unless by some
>miracle the Republican hierarchy sees the light and seeks true reform of
>many failed and on-the-brink-of-failure institutions in this country.
>Given their track record, I'm not too optimistic about that scenario...
>
>Dan
>
>
Wow. Can I have some of what you're smoking? Must be some pretty good sh*t.
I'm done with you. There's no point in attempting to reason with someone who
is as far out of contact with reality as to think that "The Democrats ... are
Bill McKee
Overall the tax rates were much lower. Much, much lower. The average
person got to deduct car loan interest payments, credit card interest, sales
tax, etc. 1953 the average tax bite for a family was 22% total. Fed,
state, local. Now it is about 45%. Business regulation was much more
friendly to creating and running a business. Get a clue Ed. You are an
Obama supporter, what ever he does you will justify. Both parties are at
fault in overspending. And both parties have been taken over by extreme
wings.
RD (The Sandman)
news:dh3qk5942v3lir6pj...@4ax.com:
I know what I posted, mon ami. Apparently you had trouble understanding
it. Try reading the sequence of posts in context, little man.
RD (The Sandman)
news:1k3qk5dvv816udh9t...@4ax.com:
Yep. And the current economy is the fault of both sides of the aisle.
> They just don't usually march in lock step to do it.
They certainly did in the Senate.....of course, some of them had to be
promised big things to get their vote. Kind of a "for sale" vote rather
than one on principle or trying to do the right thing, wouldn't you say?
;)
Ed Huntress
Here come the dueling statistics. <g>
We'll have to let Doug cherry-pick his years, but here's the result of a
pretty good study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, regarding
federal income taxes:
""The median-income family of four paid only 5.9 percent of its income in
federal individual income taxes in 2007, slightly higher than the all-time
low of 5.3 percent in 2003 (see Figure 1), according to the Urban
Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center (which updated a Treasury
Department study). The effective tax rate for the median-income family was
lower in 2007 than in any year between 1956 and 2002."
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=139
If you prefer the Tax Institute, there's this:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=226
As they say, for a family, the marginal tax rate today is lower than it was
in 1955, and the average tax rate is about the same.
Regarding your figures for the *total* tax bite in 1953, I'm curious about
where you got that number. What's your reference?
Since we're talking about the economic policy of the US, I'm not sure how
tangled we want to get with states, which vary widely (and always have).
However, I'd like to see some reliable totals that precede 1970.
> Business regulation was much more friendly to creating and running a
> business.
Specifically, what are you talking about here, Bill? Most observers feel
that the '40s through the '60s were the high-point years for US business
regulation, with a wind-down and deregulation starting in the '70s,
beginning in the Ford administration and accelerating with Reagan. So, do
you have some specifics in mind?
> Get a clue Ed.
Oh, Ok. Where are you getting your clues, Bill?
> You are an Obama supporter, what ever he does you will justify.
Nope.
> Both parties are at fault in overspending. And both parties have been
> taken over by extreme wings.
Not yet, but the Republicans are in some danger of that right now.
--
Ed Huntress
Dan
Well, where did you get your "ideas" from if not talk radio? Perhaps
the internet...
Really, you show a total lack of understanding about how our government
works, and of the political Parties now holding sway, as to cause me to
question where you get your posting material. There is no way a person
could come to the conclusions you come to without taking the information
as a piece from someone else.
So, what is your source, if not the radio?
>>> The principal
>>> point is that the current debacle can't be blamed on "conservative-economics"
>>> as Ed Huntress claims -- because we haven't *had* a conservative economic
>>> policy in this country for decades.
>> But, then, the elections of 2006 did not usher in any significant number
>> of "liberal Democrats," either, let alone the mythical "...liberal
>> Democrats gained control..." of anything.
>
> In a word -- bullshit. Nancy Pelosi is now the Speaker of the House. Need more
> examples?
One would do.
HINT: Democrat <> liberal, any more than Republican = conservative.
So, name the majority of both houses that are liberals.
>> The economics that were brought into play by Reagan were not, as you
>> say, "conservative," except by the political pseudodefinitions we have
>> to live with these days. I prefer more traditional definitions, such as
>> Republican (which Party has embraced the disastrous laissez-faire
>> economic system that has led directly to the current meltdown) and
>> Democratic (which Party a significant number of members have signed onto
>> the disastrous laissez-faire economic system that has led directly to
>> the current meltdown).
>
> "More traditional definitions" my ass -- they're definitions you're making up
> to suit your own purposes.
Um, no. Definitions used are given below:
Conservative = someone who wishes to keep the status quo ("If it ain't
broke, don't fix it."). Republicans hardly fit this bill.
Liberals are people who are open-minded, free from bigotry or prejudice,
characterized by generosity, not strict, rigorous, or literal.
Most people fit the description of conservative, so much so that it is
not a meaningful delineator. The opposite of conservative is radical.
The opposite of liberal is ideologue.
You were saying, what, again?
>> Me, I'm a liberal conservative.
>
> An obvious oxymoron.
I am very conservative in most things, while I achieve conservatism by
being open-minded, free from bigotry or prejudice, characterized by
generosity, not strict, rigorous, or literal. I look at all sides I
can, then decide (with the default being conservatism).
Hm. Maybe you ARE correct - I think I might actually be a conservative
liberal...
>> Bush and cohort were radical ideologues.
>
> More definitions made up to suit your own purposes.
Oh? They proposed sweeping and poorly thought out changes to the
economic and social systems of the county (radical), and were impervious
to challenges to their radical ideas (idoleogues).
Did you have something to actually say to counter the obvious?
>>> And if people want to pin the blame on whatever party is in power when thing
>>> go south... then pin it on the ones that were in power. Not the ones that
>>> weren't.
>> True, which is why I suggest you investigate the way our legislative
>> process works. Even today, with the obstructionist monolithic
>> Republican Party of No and the wide variety of Democrats, antiRepublican
>> proAmerican legislation has a VERY tough time getting through (witness
>> the long timeline and lack of effectiveness of Health Care Reform).
>
> So now you're referring to legislation that is opposed by a majority of the
> American people as "proAmerican."
The bill that made it through Congress, after being shredded by
Republicans intent on stopping any such legislation, is not as popular
as it could be (with all the advertising dollars and time spent by
Republicans to make it seem other than it is).
The legislation of Health Care Reform is VERY popular, and was a
significant factor in electing Obama over Clinton and McCain.
> Most of us don't see it that way -- which is
> why it isn't getting through Congress.
You are entitled to your opinion. Hopefully it will get through
Congress so we can begin to make inroads on reforming one of the worst
examples of the destructive effects of Capitalism.
And, no, I did NOT say Capitalism was destructive (though I'm pretty
sure you will attempt to make that claim).
>> The
>> pervasiveness of corporate money in the legislation process (thanks more
>> to the Republicans and Republican Court than to Democratic Reform,
>> though the Dems are certainly not blameless) means we, the people, are
>> really not in control any more (and probably never were).
>>
>> The Democrats, bad as they are, are our only hope for survival. The
>> Republicans, since Nixon (and he was persuaded by the people and a
>> Democratic Congress to sign some very good legislation, and, to be fair,
>> took the step, unavailable for political purposes to Democrats, of
>> recognizing China), have not had our interests at heart.
>>
>> The chances of our coming out of this mess intact are slim, but if
>> Republicans regain power, they are virtually nonexistent, unless by some
>> miracle the Republican hierarchy sees the light and seeks true reform of
>> many failed and on-the-brink-of-failure institutions in this country.
>> Given their track record, I'm not too optimistic about that scenario...
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
> Wow. Can I have some of what you're smoking?
Just fresh air. You should try it some time.
> Must be some pretty good sh*t.
No thanks to Republicans, who would outlaw it (fresh air).
> I'm done with you.
That is a strong statement that you know what I say is true.
> There's no point in attempting to reason with someone who
> is as far out of contact with reality as to think that "The Democrats ... are
> our only hope for survival."
Sad as that statement is, it is verifiably true. Or do you think the
people who got us into this mess will miraculously have a change of
heart (despite their showing in Congress and the airwaves for the last
100 years) and start to make this country a better place to live???
The only proposal for a new party recently has been one that is even
MORE radical and ideological than the Republicans - hardly a promising
state of affairs to turn this mess around.
I would LOVE to have a liberal party, but none is in the offing.
Dan
Stuart Wheaton
So, Doug, imagine that you and your wife took a trip out west...Driving
a stretch of back road 30 miles from anything, you become tired, and
pull off the road, your wife takes over, and 30 seconds after she pulls
back onto the road the car sputters and dies. The fuel guage is on 'E'.
I presume it is all her fault that the car ran out of gas?
The Dems are not blameless, they should have been screaming about the
lax oversight, and Dodd should be severely punished for his mortgage
deal, but they were not in charge when the problem could have been
corrected. Once the bad deals are done, it is hard to undo them, even
if it becomes clear that they will have serious bad effects in 5 years.
Doug Miller
[snip]
>The Dems are not blameless, they should have been screaming about the
>lax oversight, and Dodd should be severely punished for his mortgage
>deal, but they were not in charge when the problem could have been
>corrected. Once the bad deals are done, it is hard to undo them, even
>if it becomes clear that they will have serious bad effects in 5 years.
The problems go back a little farther than the previous administration.
Stuart Wheaton
I note that you are very short on specifics of what the Dems should have
done Jan '07 to solve this.
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:agopk5pl28qusrvqd...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:36:19 -0800, "Bill McKee"
>> <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Gerald Abrahamson" <jer...@visi.com> wrote in message
>>>news:jq0pk5dq5ackv2egg...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:40:18 -0800, "Bill McKee"
>>>> <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Dipshit. It was Clinton who signed the deregulation proposed by his
>>>>>buddy Robert Rubin. Get your facts straight you ignorant asshole.
>>>>
>>>> Gramm (R), Leach (R), and Bliley (R) attached their
>>>> self-written financial de-regulation as an amendment to a
>>>> much larger"must pass" bill at the end of a Congressional
>>>> session. Thus, Clinton did NOT have the option of vetoing
>>>> the Republican't financial de-regulation as a separate bill.
>>>>
>>>> Please stop trying to change history with your made-up
>>>> claims. Found those WMDs in Iraq yet?
>>>
>>>Sure he had the option of vetoing the bill.
>>
>> Which would have then been passed anyway.
>
>Would have to have been some Democrats' votes to do so. Republicans did
>not have a veto proof majority in either house, IIRC.
But the rethug's bill did.
You forget that the dems don't march in lockstep like rethugs & wingers.
Some, such as Clinton, are moderate conservatives & others will go
all sorts of ways & many might as well be rethugs.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
But what gets removed or altered in committee?
Time will tell. We needed universal single-payer.
Where were the rethugs?
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
I read them.
Have some of crazy banquer's little voices emigrated?
--
Cliff
Cliff
It's not the people that were red-lined that caused the problems.
But you know that so I smell bigotry, winger.
Nor was it Clinton that later deregulated more & even ignored enforcing
regulations.
HTH
--
Cliff
Jeff M
Haiti does have a government, a small one, with limited scope and power,
which accords with the conservative's claimed vision for America. Of
course, when the Right speaks of "limited government" they usually just
mean government "limited to Right wingers only." But, with such a
limited government, low taxes, minimal regulation, and wide open
Darwinian capitalism, why isn't Haiti flourishing?
John R. Carroll
They actually conform more closely to the Libertarian model.
Doesn't look so good in practice, does it.
The only difference betwen Haiti and Afghanistan is heroin.
I'm truly surprised that Al Quaeda hasn't exploited that, in Haiti that is.
Perhaps they have and we just don't know it yet.
--
John R. Carroll
Hawke
>>>> that things
>>>> didn't *really* go to hell until after the 2006 elections... when
>>>> liberal Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress.
>>> were taken by the Democrat controlled congress to trigger this mess?
>>> If they stymied something that would have nipped it in the bud, let
>>> me know about that too. Thanks.
>>
>> Start by examining the roles played by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in
>> failing to regulate the financial industry -- and look at the extent
>> to which said industry contributed to them.
>
> So, Doug, are you saying that the system was running just fine while the
> Republicans controlled congress, but because Frank and Dodd failed to
> act Immediately upon taking control, the system crashed?
>
> By 2007 the toxic mortgages had already been written by the predatory
> lenders, and the unregulated CDO's and CDS's had already been written,
> the house of cards was sitting on a foundation of sand, and the craks
> were starting to appear.
>
> All it would take is one good shock. Mortgages were starting to reset,
> banks were starting to teeter, mass real estate speculation was hitting
> zenith.
>
> Given how long it takes to get any legislation past the party of No,
> what could they have passed to avert the crisis?
>
> Please, give me specifics.
This is a perfect example of how things the government does works. We
didn't just have a financial meltdown all of a sudden and all by itself.
The seeds of it were planted years before we got the end result. That's
why it is fair for Obama to continue to blame Bush for his problems, the
groundwork for the trouble was laid long ago and the clean up takes a
long time to do.
The reason for the financial crisis was that the election of republicans
to all branches of the government set things in motion. When you elect a
government whose philosophy is that government is bad, and that it can't
do anything right, and that it should therefore do as little as
possible, you set in motion an economy that has no rudder and no brakes.
It's going to go wherever the market takes it. In this case it was to
gamble with the banking system's money and at high risk. This would not
have happened under a party that didn't believe that the market needed
no regulating. So the right wing philosophy of deregulation was put in
place early in Bush's first term. By the time 2006 rolled around we got
to see how deregulation worked. It didn't. By not controlling the market
we got what we are paying for now. The Democrats are not to blame even
though some of them mistakenly went along with the republicans. Now it's
the Democrats turn to put their policies in place. In a few years we
will know if they are better or worse than the republicans were, which
is unlikely. The point is it takes time from when you put the policies
in place until you see what they do. By 2012 we'll know if Obama did
things right or not. Blaming him so soon because things aren't all fixed
is stupid.
Hawke
Hawke
Why do you say the government is overspending when the spending they do
is what the public is asking them to do? Except for the wars the
government is spending on things Americans want, and apparently they
want the wars too. So why blame the government for spending money the
people want spent?
Don't you know the people want the government to spend like mad on
everything they want? They just don't want to pay any taxes though. It's
like workers who want a paycheck but don't want to work for it. It's
their fault. So blame the American people.
Hawke
Doug Miller
Possibly because you don't have the first idea what you're talking about.
Here, learn something:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti
Bill McKee
I said the total tax rate. Not the Federal 1040. Look at all the taxes!
State, local, Sales tax in California is 9.5-10.25% on just about everything
but food and labor. Excise taxes on tires, gas, phones. Add up all the
taxes. Look at when Tax Freedom day is. And if you doubt the Democrats
have not been taken over by an extreme group, you have your head in the
metal shavings.
Bill McKee
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hilrtq$4er$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
Blame the Dem's these days. Blame the Republicans 3 years ago. We elect
Federal representatives. They are supposed to look after the general
welfare of the people. Overspending and piling debt on us and our
grandchildren is not looking after the general welfare of the people. How
many people wanted the war? Percentage wise. How much pork was added to
the war funding bills for pet projects that have zero to do with Federal
concerns? Since I am 66, I may not be alive when the shit hits the rotating
mechanism, but my kids and granddaughter and 2 grandkids due this year will
see the crap hit the mechanism. Both parties have let most of the
manufacturing be exported. They allow a machine to be exported, and then
cloned with no patent penalty, and those machines used to make stuff for 15%
of what it costs us to make the same thing as we have EPA rules, OSHA rules,
fair wage rules, and that item is then imported to the USA and sold for 85%
of it costs to make here. No dumping complaints, no requirements that the
other side play fair if they want in the game. Neither party is looking out
for the general welfare of the public. The Chairman of Goldman Sacks Us did
not even thank the Congress for all the money they are paying out in bonus
money. And refused to even acknowedge that they helped cause the financial
meltdown.
Ed Huntress
Ok, that's a good idea. Why don't you look first?
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr165.pdf
You'll find 1953 on page 3, and 2009 on page 4. The average total (federal,
state, and local, including all payroll taxes) is in the right column, right
after Tax Freedom Day for each year.
Let us know what you find. Oh, and if Doug wants to compare today's total
tax rate to the late '80s, which he said was the last time we had a
conservative economic policy, he'll find those years on page 4, as well.
We'll be waiting in nervous anticipation, so please let us know soon. d8-)
> And if you doubt the Democrats have not been taken over by an extreme
> group, you have your head in the metal shavings.
Jeez, who was it? The 700 Club? <g>
--
Ed Huntress
William Wixon
>
>
> I said the total tax rate. Not the Federal 1040. Look at all the taxes!
> State, local, Sales tax in California is 9.5-10.25% on just about
> everything but food and labor. Excise taxes on tires, gas, phones. Add
> up all the taxes. Look at when Tax Freedom day is. And if you doubt the
> Democrats have not been taken over by an extreme group, you have your head
> in the metal shavings.
>
if anything i'd think it's a pendulum swing (towards the left, from a
radical swing to the right). and i've been thinking our president is trying
to dampen the swings, by appointing right wingers to his cabinet, etc. NOT
going for a radical left wing agenda, TRYING to get bipartisan support, etc.
b.w.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
>news:hilrtq$4er$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Why do you say the government is overspending when the spending they do is
>> what the public is asking them to do? Except for the wars the government
>> is spending on things Americans want, and apparently they want the wars
>> too. So why blame the government for spending money the people want spent?
>>
>> Don't you know the people want the government to spend like mad on
>> everything they want? They just don't want to pay any taxes though. It's
>> like workers who want a paycheck but don't want to work for it. It's their
>> fault. So blame the American people.
>>
>> Hawke
>
>Blame the Dem's these days. Blame the Republicans 3 years ago. We elect
>Federal representatives. They are supposed to look after the general
>welfare of the people. Overspending and piling debt on us and our
>grandchildren is not looking after the general welfare of the people.
That is the simplistic view of the Palins of the world, who also
believed <snorf> that a bridge to nowhere was a great way to "invest".
> How many people wanted the war? Percentage wise.
75%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq
Have you forgotten about "freedom fries" already? Bloody hell, some of
the people I raised an objection with basically accused me of being an
enemy sympathizer. Now they'd like to deny their support, much the
same as it's hard to find anybody who admits to participating in the
Y2K hysteria.
> How much pork was added to
>the war funding bills for pet projects that have zero to do with Federal
>concerns?
Way too much. But as Hawke explained, it all boils down to what voters
demand of their reps. For example, in my area there are people
lobbying to pave 30 miles of dirt road that has very little traffic.
Most of these people couldn't tell you how many thousands are in a
million, but they think that "grant" money should get them whatever
they want, along with lower taxes of course. And they laugh at
California's budget woes, even though Arizona's are nearly as bad
per-capita.
> Since I am 66, I may not be alive when the shit hits the rotating
>mechanism, but my kids and granddaughter and 2 grandkids due this year will
>see the crap hit the mechanism. Both parties have let most of the
>manufacturing be exported.
Blaming the "parties" is pointless. Unless you can get your friends
and neighbors to admit that they need to make genuine sacrifices, and
vote for politicians who have the guts to push in that direction, then
expect a lot more of the same. I ask people which they want, a giant
military, or healthcare. Most of them say "both". It's hard to fix
things when so many people prefer to deny that there's a problem,
healthcare being just the latest example.
Wayne
Larry Jaques
<nos...@nothanks.org> scrawled the following:
If you had been beaten, raped, taxed, and had most of your life stolen
while watching half your family being killed by the gov't for the past
30 years, I'd like to see you flourish after a few years of decent
gov't, Jeff. First, they have to recover: mentally, physically, and
economically. And you libtards wonder -why- we exclude you? Ha!
'Course, a massive quake doesn't help any of that, either, does it?
I wonder what the temps are in Haiti right now. From an email I
received this morning: "P.S. Did you hear it snowed here in the FL for
the first time since the Ice Age? I had to teach the local residents
not to eat yellow snow."
--
What helps luck is a habit of watching for opportunities, of
having a patient, but restless mind, of sacrificing one's
ease or vanity, of uniting a love of detail to foresight, and
of passing through hard times bravely and cheerfully.
-- Charles Victor Cherbuliez
tankfixer
Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
>
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:06:14 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"> >news:agopk5pl28qusrvqd...@4ax.com:
> >> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:36:19 -0800, "Bill McKee"
> >> <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"Gerald Abrahamson" <jer...@visi.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:jq0pk5dq5ackv2egg...@4ax.com...
> >>>> <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Dipshit. It was Clinton who signed the deregulation proposed by his
> >>>>>buddy Robert Rubin. Get your facts straight you ignorant asshole.
> >>>>
> >>>> self-written financial de-regulation as an amendment to a
> >>>> much larger"must pass" bill at the end of a Congressional
> >>>> session. Thus, Clinton did NOT have the option of vetoing
> >>>> the Republican't financial de-regulation as a separate bill.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please stop trying to change history with your made-up
> >>>> claims. Found those WMDs in Iraq yet?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Which would have then been passed anyway.
> >
> >Would have to have been some Democrats' votes to do so. Republicans did
> >not have a veto proof majority in either house, IIRC.
> >
>
> Dems can be idiots & wingers too.
You misspelled "are"
> They just don't usually march in lock step to do it.
I take it you havn't been paying attention over the last 12 months...
RD (The Sandman)
news:g1lsk5tvb2ae4vqmk...@4ax.com:
Why do we need that? 84% of the people were happy with the healthcare
that they have.
> Where were the rethugs?
--
RD (The Sandman)
news:vrksk5hd53uv8fbt2...@4ax.com:
It didn't get any veto proof majority made up of Republicans. It took
some Democrats to get in there also. Both sides of the aisle.
> You forget that the dems don't march in lockstep like rethugs &
> wingers. Some, such as Clinton, are moderate conservatives & others
> will go
> all sorts of ways & many might as well be rethugs.
IOW, the current crisis was not entirely the fault of one side of the
aisle.
tankfixer
Sandman)" says...
He just cant admit one of his hero's signed it into law...
Morton Davis
"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
news:vrksk5hd53uv8fbt2...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:06:14 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>news:agopk5pl28qusrvqd...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:36:19 -0800, "Bill McKee"
>>> <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Gerald Abrahamson" <jer...@visi.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:jq0pk5dq5ackv2egg...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:40:18 -0800, "Bill McKee"
>>>>> <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Dipshit. It was Clinton who signed the deregulation proposed by his
>>>>>>buddy Robert Rubin. Get your facts straight you ignorant asshole.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gramm (R), Leach (R), and Bliley (R) attached their
>>>>> self-written financial de-regulation as an amendment to a
>>>>> much larger"must pass" bill at the end of a Congressional
>>>>> session. Thus, Clinton did NOT have the option of vetoing
>>>>> the Republican't financial de-regulation as a separate bill.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please stop trying to change history with your made-up
>>>>> claims. Found those WMDs in Iraq yet?
>>>>
>>>>Sure he had the option of vetoing the bill.
>>>
>>> Which would have then been passed anyway.
>>
>>Would have to have been some Democrats' votes to do so. Republicans did
>>not have a veto proof majority in either house, IIRC.
>
> But the rethug's bill did.
The REPUBLICANS never had a veto proof majority. They did it with
bipartisanship. The Democrats are 100% partisan.
Cliff
>> They just don't usually march in lock step to do it.
>
>I take it you havn't been paying attention over the last 12 months...
Watch some of the rethugs in dem clothing ....
--
Cliff
Cliff
So let the rethugs fillibuster til blue in the face.
Probably be a lot fewer of them in a year or so.
--
Cliff
Cliff
Plus guess who was lying & trying to impeach him?
--
Cliff
tankfixer
Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
Once more you show just how confused you are..
Tell us which one of those three was President..
tankfixer
Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
You arn't big on taking responsibility for things are you ?
RD (The Sandman)
news:3o30l51cqmtvfqq95...@4ax.com:
Who cares? That wasn't the subject.
Cliff
Find those "WMDs" yet?
Payment for the 11+ trillion in rethug debts & defcits?
A way to stop winger lies?
--
Cliff
Cliff
Gee, tell us WHOSE BILL IT WAS !!
Does "Gramm (R), Leach (R), and Bliley (R)" ring a bell?
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
Wingers lie.
What else do we really need to know when we spot them?
"Gramm (R), Leach (R), and Bliley (R)"
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
And wingers lie, right?
More like the ~57% that have their employers paying for it .... and
have never had any major need of it.
Or were you thinking of all those getting Socialized government medical
care (Medicare, State plans, Medicaid, federal employees, GIs & etc)?
>
>> Where were the rethugs?
Deadbeat welfare queen gummer is happy, right?
--
Cliff
tankfixer
Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
Last time I checked the president can veto any bill he choses..
Since none of the three you mentioned were president that means final
responsibility rests with Clinton.
tankfixer
Cliff
CLUE: None of those were mine nor were "Gramm (R), Leach (R), and Bliley (R)".
They seem to be yours.
You aren't big on taking responsibility for things, are you?
Nor spelling, grammer or the English language.
--
Cliff
tankfixer
Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
>
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:09:09 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <pak4l5p2jefguh3mt...@4ax.com>,
> >Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
> >>
> >> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:19:33 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <ur20l5h20aamcamt9...@4ax.com>,
> >> >Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:48:02 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> They just don't usually march in lock step to do it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I take it you havn't been paying attention over the last 12 months...
> >> >>
> >> >> Watch some of the rethugs in dem clothing ....
> >> >
> >> >You arn't big on taking responsibility for things are you ?
> >>
> >> Find those "WMDs" yet?
> >> Payment for the 11+ trillion in rethug debts & defcits?
> >> A way to stop winger lies?
> >
> >You arn't big on taking responsibility for things are you ?
>
> CLUE: None of those were mine nor were "Gramm (R), Leach (R), and Bliley (R)".
> They seem to be yours.
So you think that Senators and Congressmen just pass laws and thats it ?
>
> You aren't big on taking responsibility for things, are you?
> Nor spelling, grammer or the English language.
So says the poug who makes up nonsense words...
Cliff
>In article <drq4l5hhj1tn59c45...@4ax.com>,
>Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
>>
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:09:09 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <pak4l5p2jefguh3mt...@4ax.com>,
>> >Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:19:33 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <ur20l5h20aamcamt9...@4ax.com>,
>> >> >Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:48:02 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> They just don't usually march in lock step to do it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I take it you havn't been paying attention over the last 12 months...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Watch some of the rethugs in dem clothing ....
>> >> >
>> >> >You arn't big on taking responsibility for things are you ?
>> >>
>> >> Find those "WMDs" yet?
>> >> Payment for the 11+ trillion in rethug debts & defcits?
>> >> A way to stop winger lies?
>> >
>> >You arn't big on taking responsibility for things are you ?
>>
>> CLUE: None of those were mine nor were "Gramm (R), Leach (R), and Bliley (R)".
>> They seem to be yours.
>
>So you think that Senators and Congressmen just pass laws and thats it ?
DANG !!!
So "Gramm (R), Leach (R), and Bliley (R)" never had a law they
wanted to pass?
>> You aren't big on taking responsibility for things, are you?
>> Nor spelling, grammer or the English language.
>
>So says the poug who makes up nonsense words...
You have no foorp of that.
What word was "made up"" in "You aren't big on taking responsibility for
things, are you?"?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Last time I checked the president can veto any bill he choses..
Who did you "check" with?
Rush, Faux or Palin?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tXjeqViyfE
They got you first.
--
Cliff
tankfixer
Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
I accept your surrender.
RD (The Sandman)
news:ggk4l5tfdujhaksve...@4ax.com:
So what? That wasn't the subject.
RD (The Sandman)
news:cjk4l55oh4908ra2o...@4ax.com:
Be that as it may, 84% of them are happy with what they have...why fuck
with it?
> Or were you thinking of all those getting Socialized government
medical
> care (Medicare, State plans, Medicaid, federal employees, GIs & etc)?
It was a survey of those with private healthcare.
>>> Where were the rethugs?
>
> Deadbeat welfare queen gummer is happy, right?
--
Cliff
The problem is that you either lied, know about nothing of the US Constitution
or just plain lied, as usual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto
"If the Congress overrides the veto by a two-thirds majority in each house, it
becomes law without the President's signature."
IOW He cannot veto it.
"A bill can also become law without the President's signature if, after it is
presented to him, he simply fails to sign it within the ten days noted."
No veto.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> "Gramm (R), Leach (R), and Bliley (R)"
>>>> Plus guess who was lying & trying to impeach him?
>>>
>>>Who cares? That wasn't the subject.
>>
>> Wingers lie.
>> What else do we really need to know when we spot them?
>>
>> "Gramm (R), Leach (R), and Bliley (R)"
>
>So what? That wasn't the subject.
"Gramm (R), Leach (R), and Bliley (R)"
HTH
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>Why do we need that? 84% of the people were happy with the healthcare
>>>that they have.
>>
>> And wingers lie, right?
>> More like the ~57% that have their employers paying for it .... and
>> have never had any major need of it.
>
>Be that as it may, 84% of them are happy with what they have...why fuck
>with it?
>
>> Or were you thinking of all those getting Socialized government
>medical
>> care (Medicare, State plans, Medicaid, federal employees, GIs & etc)?
>
>It was a survey of those with private healthcare.
So "84% of the people were happy with the healthcare
that they have." is a lie on the face of it & does not even count
those without adequate insurance & probably not the dead either.
--
Cliff
tankfixer
Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
>
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:14:04 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <v2c6l5h4bfts19c56...@4ax.com>,
> >Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
> >>
> >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:07:48 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Last time I checked the president can veto any bill he choses..
> >>
> >> Who did you "check" with?
> >> Rush, Faux or Palin?
> >>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tXjeqViyfE
> >> They got you first.
> >
> >I accept your surrender.
>
> The problem is that you either lied, know about nothing of the US Constitution
> or just plain lied, as usual.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto
> "If the Congress overrides the veto by a two-thirds majority in each house, it
> becomes law without the President's signature."
Overrides the veto.
That would indicate a veto took place.
So you are lying saying that he wasn't able to..
>
> IOW He cannot veto it.
Sure he can, if Clinton had the balls to oppose it.
Instead he signed it into law...
>
> "A bill can also become law without the President's signature if, after it is
> presented to him, he simply fails to sign it within the ten days noted."
>
> No veto.
Clinton didn't do that, did he ?
He signed it and championed how great the bill was.
Again, your surrender is accepted..
RD (The Sandman)
news:hlgdl5ldo9h396ed2...@4ax.com:
Here, you need to see another poll:
Which of these describes your health insurance costs?
Expensive - 27.3%
Fairly priced - 42.5%
Low cost - 25.5%
Don't know - 4.7%
Source: USA Today and Opinion Research Corp. Survey of 1,003 adults Dec
4-7.
Why fix what isn't as broke as some would have you believe?
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Some points to ponder:
Why is it good if a vacuum cleaner really sucks?
Why is the third hand on a clock called the "second hand"?
Why did Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?
Why do we sing "Take me out to the ballgame" when we are already
there?
Cliff
>> IOW He cannot veto it.
>
>Sure he can, if Clinton had the balls to oppose it.
>Instead he signed it into law...
Clinton was a moderate conservative and you want to blame him
for Gramm (R), Leach (R), and Bliley (R) !!
And the holy goals of the rethugs.
LOL ...
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
http://www.healthcare-now.org/another-poll-shows-majority-support-for-single-payer/
[
A New York Times/CBS News poll released last week shows, yet again, that the
majority of Americans support national health insurance.
The poll, which compares answers to the same questions from 30 years ago, finds
that, �59% [of Americans] say the government should provide national health
insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical
problems.�
Only 32% think that insurance should be left to private enterprise.
]
HTH
--
Cliff
RD (The Sandman)
news:liggl5pc7l2a471ar...@4ax.com:
I know, it is not a Democrat voting poll.
> http://www.healthcare-now.org/another-poll-shows-majority-support-for-s
> ingle-payer/ [
> A New York Times/CBS News poll released last week shows, yet again,
> that the majority of Americans support national health insurance.
Probably why Coakley swept to an overwhelming victory in Massachusetts
Tuesday. ;)
> The poll, which compares answers to the same questions from 30 years
> ago, finds that, �59% [of Americans] say the government should provide
> national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should
> cover all medical problems.�
>
> Only 32% think that insurance should be left to private enterprise.
>]
Yep, probably why Brown lost so heavily on Tuesday.
Ed Huntress
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9D07A0254...@216.196.97.130...
RD, it isn't like you to play games like this. Did you read the Opinion
Research survey you're quoting? It says that 79% of those surveyed don't pay
for their insurance themselves! Of COURSE they think it's "fairly priced."
Free or heavily subsidized is a VERY nice price. d8-)
>>
>> "So "84% of the people were happy with the healthcare
>> that they have." is a lie on the face of it & does not even count
>> those without adequate insurance & probably not the dead either."
>
> I know, it is not a Democrat voting poll.
>
>> http://www.healthcare-now.org/another-poll-shows-majority-support-for-s
>> ingle-payer/ [
>> A New York Times/CBS News poll released last week shows, yet again,
>> that the majority of Americans support national health insurance.
>
> Probably why Coakley swept to an overwhelming victory in Massachusetts
> Tuesday. ;)
No, they probably supported Brown because they haven't read past the first
1,000 pages <gag!> of the health reform bill and they're being fed
misleading baloney like what you posted above.
>
>> The poll, which compares answers to the same questions from 30 years
>> ago, finds that, "59% [of Americans] say the government should provide
>> national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should
>> cover all medical problems."
>>
>> Only 32% think that insurance should be left to private enterprise.
>>]
>
> Yep, probably why Brown lost so heavily on Tuesday.
>
>
> --
> Sleep well tonight,
>
> RD (The Sandman)
Jeez. Please read polls before you post selected numbers from them. You
could get big surprises.
--
Ed Huntress
Morton Davis
"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
news:rbggl5970h1edrvnn...@4ax.com...
This is a transcript of the love fest Clinton and the boys had at the
signing of the Financial Modernization Bill of 1999, emceed by Larry
Summers. The bill had been passed with an overwhelming majority in both
houses and could have been passed over Clinton's veto had he exercised it.
However,
"It will guarantee that our financial system will continue to meet the needs
of underserved communities, something that the vice president and I have
tried to do through the empowerment zones, the enterprise communities, the
community-development financial institutions, but something which has been
largely done through the private sector in honoring the Community
Reinvestment Act. The legislation I sign today establishes the principles
that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of that
act. In order to take advantage of the new opportunities created by the
law, we must first show a satisfactory record of meeting the needs of all
the communities a financial institution serves. I want to thank Senator
Sarbanes and Congressman LaFalce for their leadership on the CRA issue. I
want to applaud the, literally, hundreds of dedicated community groups all
around our country, that work so hard to make sure the CRA brings more hope
and capital to hard-pressed areas."
William Clinton, 12 November 1999
John R. Carroll
Welcome to Dufus America Ed.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:0_ednZyM4sTxY8XW...@giganews.com...
I've lived in Dufus America for over 60 years. <g> However, RD is not a
dufus. He just slipped. 'Probably rushing the job...
--
Ed Huntress
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> Find those "WMDs" yet?
>
> Hillary told us they were there and I'm sure she can look much harder
> now that she is 0bama's Secretary of State instead of a Senator.
>
>> Payment for the 11+ trillion in rethug debts & defcits?
>
>
>> A way to stop winger lies?
>
> elections and the rest by 2012. Can't keep you off your soapboxes so,
> no, we can't stop your lies, just ignore them.
We'll be in the streets alright with torches and pitch forks and you can
hope there aren't Socialists swinging from the street lights.
--