The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Pittsburgh
Next: Incompatible jpeg?
From: Bill Graham on 19 Sep 2009 01:42 "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:4ab30806$0$1615$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > stephe_k(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> But massive deficit spending did affect all of this. You can't spend >> BILLIONS on a war and at the same time LOWER taxes. You blame the dem for >> "Tax and spend" but ignore the effects of "Tax rebate but spend a lot >> more". That is EXACTLY what Regan AND both Bush's did. > > Well to be fair, George H.W. Bush did have to clean up the mess Reagan > made with the S&L's, and he did agree to a tax increase to reduce deficit > spending slightly. And no doubt this was behind his loss for re-election. > George H.W. Bush also correctly called Reaganomics, "voo-doo economics." > >> And where exactly do you think we borrowed this money to go to war while >> lowering taxes came from? > > The deficits run up by the tax cuts for the wealthy exceed the cost of the > health care proposals. > > People complain a lot about George W. Bush because not only was his > presidency a failure in terms of domestic and foreign policy, but he also > was personally unpopular, and not well-spoken. Reagan was more dangerous > because his policy failures were not as well understood or publicized > because he was personally very popular. It's only in the past couple of > years that everyone is beginning to realize the damage Reagan wrought. Speak for yourself and your communist blogger friends.....I don't think, "everyone is beginning to realize" any such thing at all. Regan is still one of the most popular presidents of all time. And for good reason.
From: Bill Graham on 19 Sep 2009 02:25 "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4ab33be9$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... > Bill Graham wrote: >> >> "wrbrown13" <wrbrown3(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message >> news:xz99h2s243hc$.9skloajqavx8.dlg(a)40tude.net... >>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:36:20 -0700, Bill Graham wrote: >>> >>>> "Bob G" <mrbobjames(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:adbcdb79-6c7f-4021-8fc0-3adf608d7083(a)w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... >>>>> Republicans would rather get jerked around by the corporations than by >>>>> the government. Wait until you get a horrible diseaase and your health >>>>> insurance company drops you like a hot potato. >>>>> >>>>> The fact is that this nation is now an oligarchy (and has been for >>>>> some time) and not a democracy. >>>>> >>>>> How does that go, from the corporations, by the corporations, and for >>>>> the corporations? >>>> >>>> That is what litigation is supposed to correct.....You still have the >>>> right >>>> to sue. But I never said that government couldn't regulate. Your health >>>> insurance policy should list the stuff it doesn't cover, in large ten >>>> point >>>> type.......I would vote for a law like that. >>> >>> >>> Now there's a thought. Sue a large corporation who has any number of >>> lawyers on their staff and can drag litigation out intil you don't have >>> a >>> penny to your name. Great in theory, but a joke in reality. >> >> They usually settle out of court. Why? Because juries are very >> sympathetic to the little guy, and have been known to award many millions >> of the big companies money to him. > > After years of litigation, during which the plaintiff may have died of > their illness. Better yet....Then his poor widow collects even more money....
From: Ray Fischer on 19 Sep 2009 02:26 mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: >"John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message >> I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but my impression was that the >> Great Depression is what happened last time the big banks and >> companies were allowed to fail. >> >Banks were not allowed to fail, from >http://americanhistory.about.com/od/greatdepression/tp/greatdepression.htm >Throughout the 1930s over 9,000 banks failed. Bank deposits were uninsured >and thus as banks failed people simply lost their savings. What's wrong with this picture? mikey says "Banks were not allowed to fail" and then provides a cite which says "over 9,000 banks failed". Stupidity? Insanity? -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 19 Sep 2009 02:29 mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: ><stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:h916ml$lne$3(a)news.albasani.net... >> mikey4 wrote: >>> People are pissed because "they" have finely woke up to the fact that the >>> "government" is out of control and has been for a very long time. >> >> Well I was pissed watching GWB spending BILLIONS on a war while giving >> MASSIVE tax breaks to the wealthy. I was pissed watching him do NOTHING >> other than watching the economy fail. Were you? Some of us didn't just >> "wake up" because a republican wasn't in the white house. If Obama had >> been handed a healthy country and done this, I'd be pissed right there >> with ya, but that isn't what happened. >> Stephanie > >My point here Stephanie is that this entire mess is a result of *both* >parties screwing the pooch for *years and years and years*. It is a fundamental policy of republicans to cut taxes for the rich and reduce or eliminate government regulation while allowing corporations free reign. Those policies cause this current economic climate. Lack of regulation allowed the finanicial collapse. Cutting taxes for the rich left the middle class further in debt. Free reign for corporations allowed them to cut worker salaries in order to give countless millions to execs. And when the middle class doesn't have money to spend, and when the financial industry collapses, and when the rich ship their money out of the country, then you get an economy that's in the toilet. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 19 Sep 2009 02:30
mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: > >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >news:4ab3c1c3$0$1619$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: >>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>> Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>Yep. In Australia, the government pumped a ton of cash into stimulus >>>>>payments for just about everybody, & told us to go spend it. We did, & >>>>>it kept us out of a recession by the skin of our teeth. In fact, we're >>>>>the only G20 nation that has avoided recession. The only thing Obama has >>>>>done wrong is not give /enough/ money to people who'd go straight out & >>>>>spend it. >>>> >>>> What the rightards and politicians don't seem to grasp is that giving >>>> tons of money to rich people doesn't do squat for the economy, and >>>> most likely makes things even worse because they often ship their >>>> money out of the country. Give stimulus money to the poor and middle >>>> classes and the money will get spent and will get spent in the >>>> country. >>>> >>>So what do the lefttards do? They throw it at big business, banks, etc >> >> 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. >> mikey in <h8rvun$1hb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> >> >ROFL........ Ray, there is nothing funnier than a schmuk on mommy's pc You're really not that funny. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |