From: Bill Graham on

"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
> On 2009-09-16 15:47:57 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> said:
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)> wrote in message
>> news:h8qsgm$lr5$1(a)
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:BdadncP-vJxLly3XnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d(a)
>>> [.......]
>>>> Good points, and I agree with most of them. But my problem is the
>>>> government insists on taking my tax money and giving it away to "the
>>>> poor", or anyone else who makes less than I do, and I don't know how to
>>>> stop this. It isn't their money. It's mine. But they have the power to
>>>> steal it from me under this socialized system, and I don't know how to
>>>> stop that. During election time, they advertise that if you vote for
>>>> them, they will steal money from the rich and give it to the poor, and,
>>>> since there are more who think of themselves as poor than rich, these
>>>> people vote for them, and then they deliver what they promised.
>>> [...]
>>> I think you don't understand the predominant beliefs of the US
>>> electorate
>>> very well... I think few see the election of Democrats as specifically
>>> to
>>> "steal rich people's money so more can be given to (poor) me", as the
>>> unbelievably odd (to some of us) "bill of goods" the Republicans have
>>> sold
>>> to so many for so long that "supporting the interests of the rich is
>>> best for us
>>> (the poor) because, well, someday we may also be rich - which is a
>>> fantasy,
>>> but one that is widely held by Americans, especially now with widespread
>>> popular lotteries in existence. BTW, this nonsense predates the
>>> "anything
>>> socialistic is bad" myth sold also by those on the Right, who fail to
>>> mention
>>> that much of what is taken for granted as basic services *is*
>>> socialistic...
>>> Armed with these two myths, a disreputable bunch of rascals is often
>>> able
>>> to draw roughly 50% of the electorate's votes. Pushing these myths, with
>>> repeated lies and deceptions added, works for winning elections, alas...
>>> --DR
>> Except I was able to work and support a family of 5 and still accumulate
>> a million dollars during my 40 years. Then, the democrat give away
>> artists crashed the market and stole half of it away from me,
> Now, now Bill rewriting history won't make it so. Just how did the
> Democrats "crash the market"?
> If I am not mistaken the potitical helm of this nation was controlled by
> the Bush Administration when things fell apart. Look to Wall St. for your
> loss.
>> and now they are busy trashing the value of my dollar in order to get the
>> other half. So it wasn't a myth.
> The dollar lost its shine due to the funding of a war we could not afford,
> and the economic hole the Bush administration slid us into.
>> Everyone in this country can become rich.
> Define "rich".
> They can dream of the obscene wealth of those who are the real
> beneficiaries of Republican policy, however the best most will do, is to
> be comfortable. Most will just get by.
>> They just have to protect their money from the thieving democrats
> and Republicans.
>> after they get it. (I recommend buying gold)
> I guess you have been listening to Beck again.
We have been over this ground too many times already. Let's just look at the
present and near future. How can any good come out of spending several
trillion dollars right now? You can't recover from a monetary loss by
spending more money, whether you are an individual or a country. We are on a
big path to certain doom.

From: Bill Graham on

"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)> wrote in message
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> I don't remember whether they had illegal aliens living off the dole in
>> "1984".
> Thank goodness we don't have that in the U.S. either!
> You really need to spend some time researching the facts. Start here:
> ""

Your, "report" doesn't make it clear where their "facts" come from. I don't
believe they know how many illegal aliens there are in this country, or
where their money is coming from. How could they know? - I don't know (of
course) either, but I have anecdotal knowledge of several that I have known,
and they exist here quite well, off of our system, and send their children
to our schools, and in some cases are able to collect other government money
in the form of unemployment insurance, scholarships, and other give away
programs. Several I have known are just plain criminals who deal in dope and
other illegal stuff that they manage to steal from US citizens. (and some
are very hard working people, that I admire, too)

From: Bill Graham on

"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)> wrote in message
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)> wrote in message
>> news:4ab132d8$0$1595$742ec2ed(a)
>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>> I think of it as the lesser of two evils. Right now, the government is
>>>> giving my money away to the illegal aliens in bushel baskets,
>>> Actually they're not, at least not the federal government directly. It's
>>> the states that are required to provide education, and that are not
>>> allowed to turn away anyone from emergency rooms regardless of their
>>> ability to pay or whether or not they are here legally.
>> When I use the term, "government" I mean either stste or federal. (or
>> even local county) They are all the same to me, since they all take tax
>> money from me.
> The difference is that the state and local governments have no power to
> enforce immigration laws. The federal government mandates on education and
> emergency health care are unfunded mandates that the state is forced to
> accept. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for welfare unless a state or
> locality decides to provide it, so of course you never actually saw piles
> of welfare checks that were being distributed to illegal immigrants in
> Oregon, unless you're referring to welfare that is being distributed to
> U.S. citizens that were born here to illegal immigrants. If that's the
> case I suggest that you work on changing the law to eliminate the
> provision that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen--you'd
> have a lot of support for that.

Yes. I knew a family who were illegal's, but they worked very hard, and the
guy fixed my automobiles for me, so I got along well with him. He had three
daughters here, and they were all citizens, and went to school here. they
did well in school, and two became professionals. (one became an MD) Then,
he and his wife went back to their native, (Central American) country. Since
their daughters got a good education and are today tax paying workers, I
have little beef with them. - but there are others.....

From: Bill Graham on

"mikey4" <lakediver(a)> wrote in message
> "Twibil" <nowayjose6(a)> wrote in message
> news:830abf5d-647a-4368-b71f-2c4e16ee5559(a)
> On Sep 15, 10:41 pm, rfisc...(a) (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >When you consider how many handguns are in the hands of American
>> >citizens,
>> >our firearm death rate is extremely small.....
>> A tacit admission that fewer guns would mean fewer deaths.
> Nope. Only fewer deaths by gun, if that. And with a corresponding rise
> in other causes.
> Never trust a man who's certain that he has simple solutions to
> complex problems.
> Never trust a man who gives online retorts with *no* substance.
That's right. There are some people that need to die. A gun is just a tool
to accomplish this with, like a wrench is a tool for tightening nuts. The
liberals think that, "the police are for preventing crime, and the people
don't need guns" But this is not correct. The police are for chasing down
criminals after the fact, but they don't, and can't prevent crime. It is up
to the individual to do that, and guns are a very helpful tool for that
purpose, also. It's amazing how few people here break into houses, when they
know that the occupants probably have a gun. If I were a professional house
breaker, I would go to some country where no one is allowed to own a gun.
That's just good common sense.

From: SMS on
Bill Graham wrote:

> We have been over this ground too many times already. Let's just look at
> the present and near future. How can any good come out of spending
> several trillion dollars right now? You can't recover from a monetary
> loss by spending more money, whether you are an individual or a country.
> We are on a big path to certain doom.

Spending that money will indeed devalue our currency and lead to
inflation. Thanks to W, the U.S. standard of living will be lower for
decades or even a century.

However the alternative of letting the economy go from recession to
depression would have been much worse. You have to learn to look at the
big picture.

There is a big difference between the reckless deficit spending of
Reagan and W, and the current bailout of major financial institutions
and manufacturers. The former was to enrich the wealthy at the expense
of the lower and middle class. The latter is to prevent the whole world
from going into a depression caused by the former. As distasteful as it
may be to bail out GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc., the alternative would have
been much worse.

It will take many decades to undo the problems wrought by supply-side
economics, ignoring the threat of radical Islam, ignoring environmental
degradation, and alienating most of the industrialized world in the
process, but it isn't hopeless or certain doom.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Prev: Pittsburgh
Next: Incompatible jpeg?