Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in news:J_O4k.4311$WH.301@trndny05:

> CharlesTheCurmudgeon wrote:
>>
>> "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:f2e654lbbfmbuqd2hgjgscml4jm0gfmt1e@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:59:34 GMT, still just me
>>> <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:22:08 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You've fallen for the big con.
>>>>>
>>>>> The cut of the top rate from 70% down to 28%, by Reagan, did
>>>>> stimulate the economy, but it was too far of a cut and Reagan
>>>>> eventually raised taxes, as did Bush Sr, and Clinton. The result
>>>>> was an eventual balancing
>>>>> of the budget during the Clinton administration. Bush Sr. can
>>>>> blame his very minor tax increase on his loss in 1992.
>>>>
>>>>> Just how low do you think taxes should be cut? Do you believe that
>>>>> there
>>>>> a lower limit where they no longer produce any stimulus? Or do you
>>>>> believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the country
>>>>> through massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take.
>>>>
>>>> Silly boy. Don't you know that Reagan and Bush II were _forced_
>>>> into the massive, record setting, deficit spending by the
>>>> Democrats? Just check the RNC blogs and talk shows - it's all
>>>> there.
>>>
>>> There was a time when they could have convinced the general public
>>> of this, but people seem to be waking up. Nothing like $4 gas and
>>> the prospect of job and healthcare loss coming on the same day to
>>> clear the mind.
>>>
>>>>> I suggest you read _THE BIG CON_ The True Story of How Washington
>>>>> Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics, by Jonathan
>>>>> Chait.
>>>>
>>>> I'd disagree that it's "crackpot economics" but the "con" is
>>>> massive. There's a clear group of powerful neo-cons at/influencing
>>>> the RNC/party who clearly know there's nothing to their alleged
>>>> economic "theories". They're smart people, they can read
>>>> statistics. But, they put hold up a good front and have the most
>>>> remarkable marketing and sales team ever.
>>>>
>>>> Their only goal is to put more money in their already fat
>>>> robber-baron like pockets through massive government spending
>>>> economically directed to them and through tax and regulatory
>>>> policies designed to put billions into their pockets (not ours).
>>>> They don't give two hoots about the USA and will sell the country
>>>> out in a NY second if it benefits them personally (examples
>>>> available).
>>>
>>> Watch for them to flee the country with their money as soon as they
>>> think taxes might rise for them.
>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, their marketeers and sales staff cleverly sell these tax
>>>> cuts as benefitting the small guy (they do, but in a very small
>>>> relative way). They also sell to various other causes & crowds
>>>> through alleged social and patriotic goals, none of which are
>>>> really important to them as long as they can fill their pockets
>>>> fuller. Note how they are willing to sell out any principle
>>>> (patriotism, liberty, conservatism, loyalty, honesty, etc, etc) if
>>>> it will make more money from them.
>>>
>>> One sign that you are being lied to is when the rationale changes
>>> but the proposed action doesn't. When Bush ran for President, he
>>> favored a big tax cut because the budget was running a surplus and
>>> it was only fair to give the money back (never mind the huge
>>> Republican debt.) When the economy weakened and the surplus
>>> vanished, we had to have a big tax cut to stimulate the economy.
>>> Even though the tax cut was long term and the economists (with
>>> conservative blessing) had long disparaged use of fiscal policy to
>>> regulate the economy.
>>>
>>>> But, unfortunately most people don't read and certainly aren't
>>>> clever enough to read between the lines. Not to mention, the
>>>> Democrats are hardly a viable alternative to the neo-consfor most
>>>> folks - being beleaguered by well meaning, but often mis-guided,
>>>> ideological goals at the expense of pragmatism (at least they're
>>>> sincere though :-)
>>>
>>> I am a firm proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is
>>> less evil.
>>
>> And I'm a proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is
>> still EVIL. Bill Clinton was the most morally deficient president
>> we've had in my lifetime.
>
> He didn't send thousands of US troops to their deaths in Iraq. Nor did
> his actions lead to disruption of millions of lives of Americans and
> their families who had to fight in Iraq, had family members (husbands,
> wives, brothers, sisters, parents) go to Iraq multiple times, nor did
> he disrupt a country based on shaky intelligence.

WOW apparently you can`t remember crap. Clinton put us into more
military situtations than any other pres has ever done. We are still in
most of then too. none of them were for our defence. He was getting a
blow job at the same time he was on the phone sending troups into harms
way for Fuc*ing nothing to do with our defence. he cut military spending
at the very same time he was deploying more troups than since the viet
nam screwup. KB

>
>> As I often said, the best president Chinese money could
>> buy. The only reason he actually was able to pay down the debt was
>> the Republican-controlled Congress finally refused to spend money on
>> entitlement programs without limit. (Thanks, LBJ for bankrupting the
>> country financially and morally. The SECOND worst president in my
>> lifetime.) The US Government is not supposed to be a sow with 250
>> million teats. Please reread the Preamble. Provide for the COMMON
>> defense, promote the GENERAL welfare.
>>
>> Charles the Curmudgeon
>



--
THUNDERSNAKE #9

Protect your rights or "Lose" them
The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:47:13 -0400, David Starr
<davestarr@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:02:16 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Bill Putney wrote:
>>> SMS wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...Or do you believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the
>>>> country through massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take.
>>>
>>> Why yes - we believe that bankrupting the country is the answer.
>>
>>Please vote for more Republicans if you like uncontrolled spending
>>without the revenue to fund it.
>
>Or vote for the Democrats for uncontrolled spending AND taxation.

At least it is more fiscally responsible and you get some benefit from
it.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:34:51 -0500, "CharlesTheCurmudgeon"
<CharlesTheCurmudgeon@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:f2e654lbbfmbuqd2hgjgscml4jm0gfmt1e@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:59:34 GMT, still just me
>> <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:22:08 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>You've fallen for the big con.
>>>>
>>>>The cut of the top rate from 70% down to 28%, by Reagan, did stimulate
>>>>the economy, but it was too far of a cut and Reagan eventually raised
>>>>taxes, as did Bush Sr, and Clinton. The result was an eventual balancing
>>>>of the budget during the Clinton administration. Bush Sr. can blame his
>>>>very minor tax increase on his loss in 1992.
>>>
>>>>Just how low do you think taxes should be cut? Do you believe that there
>>>>a lower limit where they no longer produce any stimulus? Or do you
>>>>believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the country through
>>>>massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take.
>>>
>>>Silly boy. Don't you know that Reagan and Bush II were _forced_ into
>>>the massive, record setting, deficit spending by the Democrats? Just
>>>check the RNC blogs and talk shows - it's all there.
>>
>> There was a time when they could have convinced the general public of
>> this, but people seem to be waking up. Nothing like $4 gas and the
>> prospect of job and healthcare loss coming on the same day to clear
>> the mind.
>>
>>>>I suggest you read _THE BIG CON_ The True Story of How Washington Got
>>>>Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics, by Jonathan Chait.
>>>
>>>I'd disagree that it's "crackpot economics" but the "con" is massive.
>>>There's a clear group of powerful neo-cons at/influencing the
>>>RNC/party who clearly know there's nothing to their alleged economic
>>>"theories". They're smart people, they can read statistics. But, they
>>>put hold up a good front and have the most remarkable marketing and
>>>sales team ever.
>>>
>>>Their only goal is to put more money in their already fat robber-baron
>>>like pockets through massive government spending economically directed
>>>to them and through tax and regulatory policies designed to put
>>>billions into their pockets (not ours). They don't give two hoots
>>>about the USA and will sell the country out in a NY second if it
>>>benefits them personally (examples available).
>>
>> Watch for them to flee the country with their money as soon as they
>> think taxes might rise for them.
>>
>>>Meanwhile, their marketeers and sales staff cleverly sell these tax
>>>cuts as benefitting the small guy (they do, but in a very small
>>>relative way). They also sell to various other causes & crowds through
>>>alleged social and patriotic goals, none of which are really important
>>>to them as long as they can fill their pockets fuller. Note how they
>>>are willing to sell out any principle (patriotism, liberty,
>>>conservatism, loyalty, honesty, etc, etc) if it will make more money
>>>from them.
>>
>> One sign that you are being lied to is when the rationale changes but
>> the proposed action doesn't. When Bush ran for President, he favored
>> a big tax cut because the budget was running a surplus and it was only
>> fair to give the money back (never mind the huge Republican debt.)
>> When the economy weakened and the surplus vanished, we had to have a
>> big tax cut to stimulate the economy. Even though the tax cut was
>> long term and the economists (with conservative blessing) had long
>> disparaged use of fiscal policy to regulate the economy.
>>
>>>But, unfortunately most people don't read and certainly aren't clever
>>>enough to read between the lines. Not to mention, the Democrats are
>>>hardly a viable alternative to the neo-consfor most folks - being
>>>beleaguered by well meaning, but often mis-guided, ideological goals
>>>at the expense of pragmatism (at least they're sincere though :-)
>>
>> I am a firm proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is
>> less evil.
>
>And I'm a proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is still
>EVIL. Bill Clinton was the most morally deficient president we've had in my
>lifetime. As I often said, the best president Chinese money could buy. The
>only reason he actually was able to pay down the debt was the
>Republican-controlled Congress finally refused to spend money on entitlement
>programs without limit.

You really don't know WTF you are talking about. Entitlement
programs, by definition, are immune to the whims of the Congressional
appropriation process. These include Social Security and Medicare.
The only significant change to these benefits in recent years was the
Republican directed Medicare Drug Plan which provides meager and
confusing benefits at outrageous cost to the taxpayer and obscene
profits to the drug companies. Even the Republicans wouldn't have
voted for this if the Bust Administration hadn't lied about the cost
and twisted their arms to the breaking point.

> (Thanks, LBJ for bankrupting the country
>financially and morally. The SECOND worst president in my lifetime.) The
>US Government is not supposed to be a sow with 250 million teats. Please
>reread the Preamble. Provide for the COMMON defense, promote the GENERAL
>welfare.

If everyone in America is a piglet by your analogy, then it sounds
like the GENERAL welfare is being promoted.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:47:13 -0400, David Starr
> <davestarr@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:02:16 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>>> SMS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ...Or do you believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the
>>>>> country through massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take.
>>>> Why yes - we believe that bankrupting the country is the answer.
>>> Please vote for more Republicans if you like uncontrolled spending
>>> without the revenue to fund it.
>> Or vote for the Democrats for uncontrolled spending AND taxation.
>
> At least it is more fiscally responsible and you get some benefit from
> it.

The benefit is...?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:34:51 -0500, "CharlesTheCurmudgeon"
> <CharlesTheCurmudgeon@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:f2e654lbbfmbuqd2hgjgscml4jm0gfmt1e@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:59:34 GMT, still just me
>>> <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:22:08 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You've fallen for the big con.
>>>>>
>>>>> The cut of the top rate from 70% down to 28%, by Reagan, did stimulate
>>>>> the economy, but it was too far of a cut and Reagan eventually raised
>>>>> taxes, as did Bush Sr, and Clinton. The result was an eventual balancing
>>>>> of the budget during the Clinton administration. Bush Sr. can blame his
>>>>> very minor tax increase on his loss in 1992.
>>>>> Just how low do you think taxes should be cut? Do you believe that there
>>>>> a lower limit where they no longer produce any stimulus? Or do you
>>>>> believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the country through
>>>>> massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take.
>>>> Silly boy. Don't you know that Reagan and Bush II were _forced_ into
>>>> the massive, record setting, deficit spending by the Democrats? Just
>>>> check the RNC blogs and talk shows - it's all there.
>>> There was a time when they could have convinced the general public of
>>> this, but people seem to be waking up. Nothing like $4 gas and the
>>> prospect of job and healthcare loss coming on the same day to clear
>>> the mind.
>>>
>>>>> I suggest you read _THE BIG CON_ The True Story of How Washington Got
>>>>> Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics, by Jonathan Chait.
>>>> I'd disagree that it's "crackpot economics" but the "con" is massive.
>>>> There's a clear group of powerful neo-cons at/influencing the
>>>> RNC/party who clearly know there's nothing to their alleged economic
>>>> "theories". They're smart people, they can read statistics. But, they
>>>> put hold up a good front and have the most remarkable marketing and
>>>> sales team ever.
>>>>
>>>> Their only goal is to put more money in their already fat robber-baron
>>>> like pockets through massive government spending economically directed
>>>> to them and through tax and regulatory policies designed to put
>>>> billions into their pockets (not ours). They don't give two hoots
>>>> about the USA and will sell the country out in a NY second if it
>>>> benefits them personally (examples available).
>>> Watch for them to flee the country with their money as soon as they
>>> think taxes might rise for them.
>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, their marketeers and sales staff cleverly sell these tax
>>>> cuts as benefitting the small guy (they do, but in a very small
>>>> relative way). They also sell to various other causes & crowds through
>>>> alleged social and patriotic goals, none of which are really important
>>>> to them as long as they can fill their pockets fuller. Note how they
>>>> are willing to sell out any principle (patriotism, liberty,
>>>> conservatism, loyalty, honesty, etc, etc) if it will make more money
>>> >from them.
>>>
>>> One sign that you are being lied to is when the rationale changes but
>>> the proposed action doesn't. When Bush ran for President, he favored
>>> a big tax cut because the budget was running a surplus and it was only
>>> fair to give the money back (never mind the huge Republican debt.)
>>> When the economy weakened and the surplus vanished, we had to have a
>>> big tax cut to stimulate the economy. Even though the tax cut was
>>> long term and the economists (with conservative blessing) had long
>>> disparaged use of fiscal policy to regulate the economy.
>>>
>>>> But, unfortunately most people don't read and certainly aren't clever
>>>> enough to read between the lines. Not to mention, the Democrats are
>>>> hardly a viable alternative to the neo-consfor most folks - being
>>>> beleaguered by well meaning, but often mis-guided, ideological goals
>>>> at the expense of pragmatism (at least they're sincere though :-)
>>> I am a firm proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is
>>> less evil.
>> And I'm a proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is still
>> EVIL. Bill Clinton was the most morally deficient president we've had in my
>> lifetime. As I often said, the best president Chinese money could buy. The
>> only reason he actually was able to pay down the debt was the
>> Republican-controlled Congress finally refused to spend money on entitlement
>> programs without limit.
>
> You really don't know WTF you are talking about. Entitlement
> programs, by definition, are immune to the whims of the Congressional
> appropriation process. These include Social Security and Medicare.
> The only significant change to these benefits in recent years was the
> Republican directed Medicare Drug Plan which provides meager and
> confusing benefits at outrageous cost to the taxpayer and obscene
> profits to the drug companies. Even the Republicans wouldn't have
> voted for this if the Bust Administration hadn't lied about the cost
> and twisted their arms to the breaking point.
>
>> (Thanks, LBJ for bankrupting the country
>> financially and morally. The SECOND worst president in my lifetime.) The
>> US Government is not supposed to be a sow with 250 million teats. Please
>> reread the Preamble. Provide for the COMMON defense, promote the GENERAL
>> welfare.
>
> If everyone in America is a piglet by your analogy, then it sounds
> like the GENERAL welfare is being promoted.

No - only that of those sucking on the teats and not those going out and
working for what they get. The term "welfare" has a bastardized meaning
today due to gubmint programs. Originally it simply meant wellbeing -
not programs of handouts.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:30:44 -0400, "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com>
wrote:

>Where do you come up with that idea? SS funds, by law from day one, have
>always been held in US government bonds, there are no SS funds

I don't know why I even bother answering your incoherent, half
comments.

There certainly are SS funds. Yes they are invested in government
bonds which is how the government funds things it can't afford like
the war in Iraq.

Do you mean to imply that the government bonds are not secure? That
may ultimately prove to be the case if the Republicans keep running
things.

>>>Want to reduce taxes? Start by eliminating some of the entitlement
>>>programs.
>>
>> Right now, Social Security is bringing in more money than it is paying
>> out. The surplus is being used to pay for (among other things) the
>> war on Iraq. If we stopped collecting social security tomorrow, we
>> would either have to borrow more money on the open market (aka the
>> Chinese) or raise other taxes to cover the shortfall. Medicare is
>> also funded by a separate tax.
>>
>> I don't know how old you are or what your financial situation is.
>> However, if you are lucky you will someday reach the age of 65. Maybe
>> you will have enough money that you won't need Social Security. But I
>> doubt you would be able to afford private health insurance, even if
>> you could get it.
>>
>> If you have at lest $10 million in the bank to self insure, your
>> position on this issue is rational. Selfish but rational. If you are
>> of more modest means, you have been drinking the neocon Koolaid. Wake
>> up.
>>

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:6biekjF39rbb2U1@mid.individual.net...
> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:34:51 -0500, "CharlesTheCurmudgeon"
>> <CharlesTheCurmudgeon@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> news:f2e654lbbfmbuqd2hgjgscml4jm0gfmt1e@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:59:34 GMT, still just me
>>>> <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:22:08 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You've fallen for the big con.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The cut of the top rate from 70% down to 28%, by Reagan, did
>>>>>> stimulate
>>>>>> the economy, but it was too far of a cut and Reagan eventually raised
>>>>>> taxes, as did Bush Sr, and Clinton. The result was an eventual
>>>>>> balancing
>>>>>> of the budget during the Clinton administration. Bush Sr. can blame
>>>>>> his
>>>>>> very minor tax increase on his loss in 1992.
>>>>>> Just how low do you think taxes should be cut? Do you believe that
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> a lower limit where they no longer produce any stimulus? Or do you
>>>>>> believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the country
>>>>>> through
>>>>>> massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take.
>>>>> Silly boy. Don't you know that Reagan and Bush II were _forced_ into
>>>>> the massive, record setting, deficit spending by the Democrats? Just
>>>>> check the RNC blogs and talk shows - it's all there.
>>>> There was a time when they could have convinced the general public of
>>>> this, but people seem to be waking up. Nothing like $4 gas and the
>>>> prospect of job and healthcare loss coming on the same day to clear
>>>> the mind.
>>>>
>>>>>> I suggest you read _THE BIG CON_ The True Story of How Washington Got
>>>>>> Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics, by Jonathan Chait.
>>>>> I'd disagree that it's "crackpot economics" but the "con" is massive.
>>>>> There's a clear group of powerful neo-cons at/influencing the
>>>>> RNC/party who clearly know there's nothing to their alleged economic
>>>>> "theories". They're smart people, they can read statistics. But, they
>>>>> put hold up a good front and have the most remarkable marketing and
>>>>> sales team ever.
>>>>>
>>>>> Their only goal is to put more money in their already fat robber-baron
>>>>> like pockets through massive government spending economically directed
>>>>> to them and through tax and regulatory policies designed to put
>>>>> billions into their pockets (not ours). They don't give two hoots
>>>>> about the USA and will sell the country out in a NY second if it
>>>>> benefits them personally (examples available).
>>>> Watch for them to flee the country with their money as soon as they
>>>> think taxes might rise for them.
>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, their marketeers and sales staff cleverly sell these tax
>>>>> cuts as benefitting the small guy (they do, but in a very small
>>>>> relative way). They also sell to various other causes & crowds through
>>>>> alleged social and patriotic goals, none of which are really important
>>>>> to them as long as they can fill their pockets fuller. Note how they
>>>>> are willing to sell out any principle (patriotism, liberty,
>>>>> conservatism, loyalty, honesty, etc, etc) if it will make more money
>>>> >from them.
>>>>
>>>> One sign that you are being lied to is when the rationale changes but
>>>> the proposed action doesn't. When Bush ran for President, he favored
>>>> a big tax cut because the budget was running a surplus and it was only
>>>> fair to give the money back (never mind the huge Republican debt.)
>>>> When the economy weakened and the surplus vanished, we had to have a
>>>> big tax cut to stimulate the economy. Even though the tax cut was
>>>> long term and the economists (with conservative blessing) had long
>>>> disparaged use of fiscal policy to regulate the economy.
>>>>
>>>>> But, unfortunately most people don't read and certainly aren't clever
>>>>> enough to read between the lines. Not to mention, the Democrats are
>>>>> hardly a viable alternative to the neo-consfor most folks - being
>>>>> beleaguered by well meaning, but often mis-guided, ideological goals
>>>>> at the expense of pragmatism (at least they're sincere though :-)
>>>> I am a firm proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is
>>>> less evil.
>>> And I'm a proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is still
>>> EVIL. Bill Clinton was the most morally deficient president we've had
>>> in my lifetime. As I often said, the best president Chinese money could
>>> buy. The only reason he actually was able to pay down the debt was the
>>> Republican-controlled Congress finally refused to spend money on
>>> entitlement programs without limit.
>>
>> You really don't know WTF you are talking about. Entitlement
>> programs, by definition, are immune to the whims of the Congressional
>> appropriation process. These include Social Security and Medicare.
>> The only significant change to these benefits in recent years was the
>> Republican directed Medicare Drug Plan which provides meager and
>> confusing benefits at outrageous cost to the taxpayer and obscene
>> profits to the drug companies. Even the Republicans wouldn't have
>> voted for this if the Bust Administration hadn't lied about the cost
>> and twisted their arms to the breaking point.
>>
>>> (Thanks, LBJ for bankrupting the country financially and morally. The
>>> SECOND worst president in my lifetime.) The US Government is not
>>> supposed to be a sow with 250 million teats. Please reread the
>>> Preamble. Provide for the COMMON defense, promote the GENERAL welfare.
>>
>> If everyone in America is a piglet by your analogy, then it sounds
>> like the GENERAL welfare is being promoted.
>
> No - only that of those sucking on the teats and not those going out and
> working for what they get. The term "welfare" has a bastardized meaning
> today due to gubmint programs. Originally it simply meant wellbeing - not
> programs of handouts.
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
> with the letter 'x')

And Gordon McScrew hasn't noticed I don't even bother to reply to his
liberal rantings. If Gordon McScrew and JoeNoBedroom are indicative of
what the average American are thinking, then as a country, we're done for.
And I'm finding more and more 'common' people are thinking like them.

Charles the Curmudgeon.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 16:13:31 -0500, Gordon McGrew
<RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:

>I don't know why I even bother answering your incoherent, half
>comments.
>
>There certainly are SS funds. Yes they are invested in government
>bonds which is how the government funds things it can't afford like
>the war in Iraq.
>
>Do you mean to imply that the government bonds are not secure? That
>may ultimately prove to be the case if the Republicans keep running
>things.

I don't think he understands the other half of the equation i.s. where
the money goes when some entity buys a gov't bond/bill.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 08:20:15 -0500, Gordon McGrew
<RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:

>I am pretty skeptical of this. Certainly hitting al Qaeda in
>Afghanistan was a no brainer and very disruptive of their operations.
>Unfortunately, instead of focusing on that, we got distracted with
>Iraq which had little to do with international terrorism.

Distracted isn't the word I would use. Afghanistan was a brilliant
move - we had almost the entire world, including most Arab countries,
united against terrorism. It was a legitimate defense of our country
and a worldwide offense against terrorism. Iraq was the polar
opposite.

>I don't buy the "flypaper" argument - that we are attracting
>terrorists to Iraq so we can fight them there. The overwhelming
>majority of who we have been fighting in Iraq are Iraqis who either
>hate us for invading their country or Shiite radicals who used to hate
>Saddam but now hate us for dominating their country. It doesn't seem
>likely that a cell of terrorists ready, willing and able to attack on
>US soil would be deterred because we are waging war in Iraq or
>Afghanistan. Most of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudis. Osama bin Laden
>is a Saudi currently living in Pakistan.

I don't know about any flypaper arguments - but the fact is that there
was no Al Queda presence in Iraq, despite what Bush, Cheney, and their
lackeys stated over and over again (and Cheney is still doing it).

>Prior to 9-11, Osama stated three objectives for his organization: 1.
>Force the US to abandon military bases in Saudi Arabia which he saw as
>a desecration of the holy land. 2. Draw the US into a war in the
>Middle East where they could be punished for their offenses against
>Islam. 3. Drive oil prices to $144 a barrel as lower prices
>constituted US/Western theft of Islamic wealth. With the help of his
>accomplice, George Bush, he has achieved goals 1 and 2 and is within a
>few dollars of achieving number 3.

Actually, he hit number 3.

>Except for the two attacks on the WTC over the last 15 years, I am
>hard pressed to think of any Islamic attacks in the US.
>Given this spotty record, it is impossible to say what effect our
>adventures in the Middle East have had or will have in the future.

I'll say this: GWB's foreign policy, Iraq certainly included, has been
the worst of any President in history. It will take 50 years to
restore our credibility and get any respect in the world. He's been a
nightmare post Afghanistan.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:34:51 -0500, "CharlesTheCurmudgeon"
<CharlesTheCurmudgeon@comcast.net> wrote:

>And I'm a proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is still
>EVIL. Bill Clinton was the most morally deficient president we've had in my
>lifetime. As I often said, the best president Chinese money could buy. The
>only reason he actually was able to pay down the debt was the
>Republican-controlled Congress finally refused to spend money on entitlement
>programs without limit. (Thanks, LBJ for bankrupting the country
>financially and morally. The SECOND worst president in my lifetime.) The
>US Government is not supposed to be a sow with 250 million teats. Please
>reread the Preamble. Provide for the COMMON defense, promote the GENERAL
>welfare.
>
>Charles the Curmudgeon

I'm no fan of the fornicator, but if you're giving the Republican
Congress the credit for balancing the budget, then you have to give
them the blame for the last 8 years of outrageous deficit spending.

I'd also be interested in why the two Presidents with the largest
deficit spending in history (Reagan and Bush) spent so much when they
enjoyed Republican Congresses for much of their dual terms.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:22:05 -0400, "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com>
wrote:

>Get real, every bill he vetoed was vetoed because of excess spending by
>non-germane amendments inserted into legislation like the defense spending
>bills

Really? You might want to do a little more reading.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:58:48 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com>
wrote:

>
>Neither of the Parties running of this country has a ing clue, we
>are just about due to blow the whole thing up and start from
>scratch...

I can agree with you on the first part. I'm not much for blowing
things up, but I'll jump in for "start from scratch".

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:56:32 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com>
wrote:

>Why bother to quote at all if you're just going to ignore wholesale
>sections of the post?
>
>As I said, Iraq (and Afghanistan) could be considered National Defense
>simply for the fact that they are keeping the Islamic Terror
>organizations too busy to come over here...
>
>Like it or not, the President declared war, and the Congress approved
>it.

The President does not declare war. he asks Congress to declare war.
In the case of Iraq, neither happened. The primary reason was that
there was no clear basis for declaring war and Bush knew it all to
well. To avoid the opposition that would certainly have been loud, he
never sought the formal declaration.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 19:28:30 -0500, "CharlesTheCurmudgeon"
<CharlesTheCurmudgeon@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
>news:6biekjF39rbb2U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:34:51 -0500, "CharlesTheCurmudgeon"
>>> <CharlesTheCurmudgeon@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:f2e654lbbfmbuqd2hgjgscml4jm0gfmt1e@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:59:34 GMT, still just me
>>>>> <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:22:08 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've fallen for the big con.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The cut of the top rate from 70% down to 28%, by Reagan, did
>>>>>>> stimulate
>>>>>>> the economy, but it was too far of a cut and Reagan eventually raised
>>>>>>> taxes, as did Bush Sr, and Clinton. The result was an eventual
>>>>>>> balancing
>>>>>>> of the budget during the Clinton administration. Bush Sr. can blame
>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>> very minor tax increase on his loss in 1992.
>>>>>>> Just how low do you think taxes should be cut? Do you believe that
>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>> a lower limit where they no longer produce any stimulus? Or do you
>>>>>>> believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the country
>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>> massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take.
>>>>>> Silly boy. Don't you know that Reagan and Bush II were _forced_ into
>>>>>> the massive, record setting, deficit spending by the Democrats? Just
>>>>>> check the RNC blogs and talk shows - it's all there.
>>>>> There was a time when they could have convinced the general public of
>>>>> this, but people seem to be waking up. Nothing like $4 gas and the
>>>>> prospect of job and healthcare loss coming on the same day to clear
>>>>> the mind.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suggest you read _THE BIG CON_ The True Story of How Washington Got
>>>>>>> Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics, by Jonathan Chait.
>>>>>> I'd disagree that it's "crackpot economics" but the "con" is massive.
>>>>>> There's a clear group of powerful neo-cons at/influencing the
>>>>>> RNC/party who clearly know there's nothing to their alleged economic
>>>>>> "theories". They're smart people, they can read statistics. But, they
>>>>>> put hold up a good front and have the most remarkable marketing and
>>>>>> sales team ever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Their only goal is to put more money in their already fat robber-baron
>>>>>> like pockets through massive government spending economically directed
>>>>>> to them and through tax and regulatory policies designed to put
>>>>>> billions into their pockets (not ours). They don't give two hoots
>>>>>> about the USA and will sell the country out in a NY second if it
>>>>>> benefits them personally (examples available).
>>>>> Watch for them to flee the country with their money as soon as they
>>>>> think taxes might rise for them.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, their marketeers and sales staff cleverly sell these tax
>>>>>> cuts as benefitting the small guy (they do, but in a very small
>>>>>> relative way). They also sell to various other causes & crowds through
>>>>>> alleged social and patriotic goals, none of which are really important
>>>>>> to them as long as they can fill their pockets fuller. Note how they
>>>>>> are willing to sell out any principle (patriotism, liberty,
>>>>>> conservatism, loyalty, honesty, etc, etc) if it will make more money
>>>>> >from them.
>>>>>
>>>>> One sign that you are being lied to is when the rationale changes but
>>>>> the proposed action doesn't. When Bush ran for President, he favored
>>>>> a big tax cut because the budget was running a surplus and it was only
>>>>> fair to give the money back (never mind the huge Republican debt.)
>>>>> When the economy weakened and the surplus vanished, we had to have a
>>>>> big tax cut to stimulate the economy. Even though the tax cut was
>>>>> long term and the economists (with conservative blessing) had long
>>>>> disparaged use of fiscal policy to regulate the economy.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But, unfortunately most people don't read and certainly aren't clever
>>>>>> enough to read between the lines. Not to mention, the Democrats are
>>>>>> hardly a viable alternative to the neo-consfor most folks - being
>>>>>> beleaguered by well meaning, but often mis-guided, ideological goals
>>>>>> at the expense of pragmatism (at least they're sincere though :-)
>>>>> I am a firm proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is
>>>>> less evil.
>>>> And I'm a proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is still
>>>> EVIL. Bill Clinton was the most morally deficient president we've had
>>>> in my lifetime. As I often said, the best president Chinese money could
>>>> buy. The only reason he actually was able to pay down the debt was the
>>>> Republican-controlled Congress finally refused to spend money on
>>>> entitlement programs without limit.
>>>
>>> You really don't know WTF you are talking about. Entitlement
>>> programs, by definition, are immune to the whims of the Congressional
>>> appropriation process. These include Social Security and Medicare.
>>> The only significant change to these benefits in recent years was the
>>> Republican directed Medicare Drug Plan which provides meager and
>>> confusing benefits at outrageous cost to the taxpayer and obscene
>>> profits to the drug companies. Even the Republicans wouldn't have
>>> voted for this if the Bust Administration hadn't lied about the cost
>>> and twisted their arms to the breaking point.
>>>
>>>> (Thanks, LBJ for bankrupting the country financially and morally. The
>>>> SECOND worst president in my lifetime.) The US Government is not
>>>> supposed to be a sow with 250 million teats. Please reread the
>>>> Preamble. Provide for the COMMON defense, promote the GENERAL welfare.
>>>
>>> If everyone in America is a piglet by your analogy, then it sounds
>>> like the GENERAL welfare is being promoted.
>>
>> No - only that of those sucking on the teats and not those going out and
>> working for what they get. The term "welfare" has a bastardized meaning
>> today due to gubmint programs. Originally it simply meant wellbeing - not
>> programs of handouts.
>>
>> Bill Putney
>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
>> with the letter 'x')
>
>And Gordon McScrew hasn't noticed I don't even bother to reply to his
>liberal rantings. If Gordon McScrew and JoeNoBedroom are indicative of
>what the average American are thinking, then as a country, we're done for.
>And I'm finding more and more 'common' people are thinking like them.
>
>Charles the Curmudgeon.

Obviously your thinking is stunted at the 7th Grade level. As for
what the average American is thinking, you found that out two years
ago and you are going to learn it again this November. Americans are
waking up to the fact that you right wing fanatics are screwing them
into the ground with your corporate-greed-is-good philosophy.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:44:50 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:47:13 -0400, David Starr
>> <davestarr@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:02:16 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>>>> SMS wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...Or do you believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the
>>>>>> country through massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take.
>>>>> Why yes - we believe that bankrupting the country is the answer.
>>>> Please vote for more Republicans if you like uncontrolled spending
>>>> without the revenue to fund it.
>>> Or vote for the Democrats for uncontrolled spending AND taxation.
>>
>> At least it is more fiscally responsible and you get some benefit from
>> it.
>
>The benefit is...?

Hopefully universal healthcare, although it will probably take ten or
twenty years to full institute.