| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Michael Price
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:22 am Post subject: Re: B.O.M.B. (Beee-ooo, the Monkey Boy) bringing back slaver |
 |
|
On Nov 16, 8:56 pm, MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 16, 1:27 am, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 16, 1:52 pm, MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 12, 3:22 am, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 11, 2:25 pm, MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 3:38 am, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 2:20 pm, MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 9, 11:44 am, "Dennis" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
FROM POLITICAL LORE.COM
HEAD: Obama Requires Community Service and Removes his Agenda from Website
After Scrutiny.
There has been many arguments this past week over whether the president
elect, Obama, will require students to do community service.. Some are saying
this is slave labor, some say because college discounts will be given it is
worth it, some are saying it is for the better of the Country.
If you missed it, Obama has created change.gov, "The Official Web Site of
the U.S. Presidential Transition." On this website Obama lays out his agenda
for what he is going to change in this country. Now since the conversation
began about what the agenda section of the site actually contained, it looks
like it has been removed due to scrutiny. It appears as if it was taken down
to be reworded. Now all we have left is the text below:
"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal
that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community
service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who
conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully
refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college
education is completely free."
Luckily, with the creation of the Internet, history cannot be changed so
easily. This is the first quote on the site, which appears to have been
removed as of last night:
"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a
plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high
school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."
This has obviously been changed due to public scrutiny, something presidents
get a lot of. Obama will have plenty of time to get used to it before he is
sworn in. Due to this scrutiny he took down his whole agenda section of the
site.let's see what he replaces it with. We finally had a glimpse of what
the President-Elect wanted to accomplish, and now that glimpse is gone as
soon as we started scrutinizing the specifics..
I do not like this ending as much as you do, but the story has not yet been
finished. Obama has the next move. In the meantime, what do you think about
Obama's "change" and his plan? Is this forced labor, or is this better the
American youth and Country? Does this say anything about Obama's character
and his ability to deal with criticism? How will this affect his presidency?
Your thoughts below.
Comment by LiveFreeOrDie on 9 November 2008:
There is no way in the world I would permit my children to participate in
this socialist's plan to enslave the country or to form an "Obama Youth
Brigade" that bears a shocking similarity to the Hitler Youth that I thought
we had consigned to the trash bin of history.
Comment by mike on 9 November 2008:
if you google change.gov and any of the agenda topics, you can still get to
the cached items before they disappeared to be "changed"
Comment by Yo on 9 November 2008:
Obama's requirement for community service from Jr. High School through High
School will be a difficult thing to accomplish. Children have after school
sports, dance, theater and other obligations that enhance their life
learning. Although, it is only one hour a week, it should be considered that
these obligations should be close to home; maybe cleaning up their own
schools (conflict with janitorial unions)or planting and weeding the school's
landscape. Travel to do service will require parental involvement and most
likely won't work out with the people holding down two or more jobs in order
to pay the Obama taxes.
Comment by Jules Hamil on 9 November 2008:
Well folks, it's just the beginning. All the morons and zombies that voted
for "The One" will wake up to find Amerika is changing. Isn't that what they
voted for? However, is this the "change" they thought it was going to be? I
didn't vote for him but my family will reap his tearing my Country apart.
Stick around friends, it's gonna be a wild, rough ride.
**********
Just another way of my saying I predict voter regret within six months of
B.O.M.B. (Beee-ooo, the Monkey
Boy) occupying Da Honky Crib in Da Hood (formerly the White House). Check
out left wing-nut blogs...it's already starting, and B.O.M.B (Beee-ooo, the
Monkey Boy), he ain't even done swored on de bible yet.
I grieve for my Republic
Dionysus
People will not suddenly have to work 2 jobs to pay taxes. With the
Obama plan, most people will not see taxes raised. Only rich people
making over 250 thousand will see their taxes raised, and if they got
that much money they can certainly afford it. So go cry me a river
biotch!
Of course with the bailout plan (a McCain AND Obama policy)
destroying
the financial structure of the US government hyperinflation could
make
250,000 the starting salary at McDonald's.
No, not really. All the bailout money is going to the careless
muthafuckas who got us in this mess!
It's not where it's going it's where it's coming from. I mean the
US is in
debt right? And they're not going to raise taxes on the middle class
which
is where most of the people who don't know how to hide money are. So
who's
going to poney up the dosh, the magic money fairy? Well yes, although
the
technical term is the Federal Reserve Bank. Do enough of that and
thousand
dollar bills become parking meter change.
I wouldn't suggest that! All I'm saying is it's time for the greedy
rich rat bastards to pay their fair share of taxes.
Why? Wouldn't it be easier to simply stop shovelling money to them?
To this point we haven't been "shoveling" money to them.
So I guess I was just imagining billions of dollars going to |
agribusiness,
protectionism for politically influential manufacturing firms, the
Federal Reserve
inflating currency for decades to help out the big banks, deposit
guarantees for
institutions that create nothing valuable. Really get in the game and
learn something.
| Quote: | Why go to the effort of grabbing money back from people you're only
going to shovel it back to them with the other hand?
huh?
Yeah that sums you up. Look the US government has been giving the |
rich
lots of money (effectively) for years. Why go to the bother of taking
it from
them if you're just going to give back with the other hand.
| Quote: | There is a finite amount of money and if you allow the top 2% of Amiericans
to have 70% of the money there most certainly will be alot of poverty..
The problem is not "allowing" the top 2% of people to have 70% of
the money (and how much they really have is actually someone murkier) the
problem is using the State to give money to the top 2%, who would never be able
to continue to make the right decisions to preserve their wealth without
State help.
Are you drunk? OR Stoned? How much they have is someone murkier?
|
Sorry should have said something murkier. An intelligent person
would have
figure that out from context.
| Quote: | Huh?
The problem is that with so much money in so few hands the money
doesn't circulate at all.
|
Wow, you're so ignorant it's unbelievable. What have the rich been
doing
with their money for years now? They've been circulating it to other
people
in the form of loans. As it happens, often bad loans.
| Quote: | Above a certain amount of money people don't need more money and they
just horde it and sit on it.
|
If that were true, who cares? The reduction in the effective amount
of money
would reduce prices and help all those who weren't sitting on their
money.
In fact of course it's not true as shown by how many rich people
have done
a lot of deals circulating their money. Or rather attempting to
circulate it,
it hasn't really come back as much as it should.
| Quote: | If the middle class had more money it would circulate more because the middle
class spends a greater portion of their take-home pay to buy goods and
services.
|
Ummm... no. They spend more of their money to buy _consumer_ goods
and
services and less to buy capital.
| Quote: | And as far as your concern that investing in our
manufacturing of American cars being a waste, do you really wanna see
over a million new unemployed workers?
|
I'd rather see them unemployed than have to pay their wages for
unproductive
work. They can get new jobs if they are actually worth employing.
These jobs
will produce stuff I might actually want, something unlikely as long
as they remain
on the payroll of the big three. Of course whether they become
unemployed at
all is not known. Other carmakers will doubtless buy the plants and
they need
someone to run them.
| Quote: | That's why I suggest that the
only possible way I would support this bailout thing is if the CEO's
of the big 3 lose their jobs, and there will be serious oversight (the
opposite of overlooking) of retoolling of the plants to get us headed
toward financial stability and eventual profit.
|
Why bother making it a condition of a bailout that CEOs lose their
jobs? I mean if you don't bail them out they're certain to lose their
jobs. And since when is the government good at deciding how to retool
a car plant?
| Quote: | It's gonna be hard
work, but this is the USA, we've done it before, and we can do it
again!
|
It didn't work last time. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Michael Price
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:24 am Post subject: Re: B.O.M.B. (Beee-ooo, the Monkey Boy) bringing back slaver |
|
|
On Nov 17, 3:16 am, "Dennis" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "ray" <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:gfpboa0vmb@news1.newsguy.com...
In article
5db9b703-d45f-4626-b730-a83523205...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
There is a finite amount of money and if you allow the top 2% of
Amiericans
to have 70% of the money there most certainly will be alot of
poverty.
The problem is not "allowing" the top 2% of people to have 70% of
the money
(and how much they really have is actually someone murkier) the
problem is
using the State to give money to the top 2%, who would never be able
to
continue to make the right decisions to preserve their wealth without
State
help.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Are you drunk? OR Stoned? How much they have is someone murkier?
Huh?
The problem is that with so much money in so few hands the money
doesn't circulate at all. Above a certain amount of money people
don't need more money and they just horde it and sit on it. If the
middle class had more money it would circulate more because the middle
class spends a greater portion of their take-home pay to buy goods and
services. And as far as your concern that investing in our
manufacturing of American cars being a waste, do you really wanna see
over a million new unemployed workers? That's why I suggest that the
only possible way I would support this bailout thing is if the CEO's
of the big 3 lose their jobs, and there will be serious oversight (the
opposite of overlooking) of retoolling of the plants to get us headed
toward financial stability and eventual profit. It's gonna be hard
work, but this is the USA, we've done it before, and we can do it
again!
I don't know where you liberals get your ideas from. The liberal
mentality is that there is this big pile of money, and when somebody
takes too much of that money, other people won't get their share.
The truth is that there is wealth for everybody in this country. You
may have to get an education, start a business or cut down on a lot of
extras, but you are not limited as to how much money you can make.
I don't know what you are doing in a free country when you hold a belief
that the government should take away all the money of a person after
they exceed X amount. That's not what a free country is all about,
that's what a communist or dictator country is about. And when wealthy
people have more money, they invest it. This is why the Bush tax cut
was so successful. When people invest money, other people have to work
to make that money grow.
If Joe Billionaire buys stock in the Widget Company, the Widget Company
has more capital to expand their business, purchase new machines, hire
more people, open up another outlet, hire more salesmen. When this
happens, it stimulates the economy. People have to build those
machines, construction workers have to build that new building, truck
drivers have to pickup and deliver their goods to warehouses and
outlets. New tow motors are needed. More office people are needed for
the additional paperwork.
When you get a clown like this Obama guy in who promises to take wealth
away from those with money, they don't invest in the market because they
know it's heading for the basement. That means the Widget Company will
lose it's capital. That means they can't improve their services or
products which means less people working. It could mean they have to
close their doors altogether. And this is why the market has been on a
nearly consistent decline since Obama was elected.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan
********
Ray, you and I are just too rational and logical for the loons hereabouts,
eh! I especially liked his writing, "How much they have is someone murkier?"
|
Oh a typo flame! So much more logical than you usually get.
| Quote: | Typical of them.
I predict voter regret within six months of B.O.M.B. (Beee-ooo, the Monkey
Boy) occupying Da Honky Crib in Da Hood (formerly the White House). Check
out left wing-nut blogs...it's already starting, and B.O.M.B (Beee-ooo, the
Monkey Boy), he ain't even done swored on de bible yet.
I grieve for my Republic
Dionysus
|
The regret for electing Obama is nothing like the regret John the
Dishonourable
would have generated. Not that they're much different. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Michael Price
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:25 am Post subject: Re: B.O.M.B. (Beee-ooo, the Monkey Boy) bringing back slaver |
|
|
On Nov 17, 5:39 am, MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 16, 8:16 am, "Dennis" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
"ray" <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:gfpboa0vmb@news1.newsguy.com...
In article
5db9b703-d45f-4626-b730-a83523205...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
There is a finite amount of money and if you allow the top 2% of
Amiericans
to have 70% of the money there most certainly will be alot of
poverty.
The problem is not "allowing" the top 2% of people to have 70% of
the money
(and how much they really have is actually someone murkier) the
problem is
using the State to give money to the top 2%, who would never be able
to
continue to make the right decisions to preserve their wealth without
State
help.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Are you drunk? OR Stoned? How much they have is someone murkier?
Huh?
The problem is that with so much money in so few hands the money
doesn't circulate at all. Above a certain amount of money people
don't need more money and they just horde it and sit on it. If the
middle class had more money it would circulate more because the middle
class spends a greater portion of their take-home pay to buy goods and
services. And as far as your concern that investing in our
manufacturing of American cars being a waste, do you really wanna see
over a million new unemployed workers? That's why I suggest that the
only possible way I would support this bailout thing is if the CEO's
of the big 3 lose their jobs, and there will be serious oversight (the
opposite of overlooking) of retoolling of the plants to get us headed
toward financial stability and eventual profit. It's gonna be hard
work, but this is the USA, we've done it before, and we can do it
again!
I don't know where you liberals get your ideas from. The liberal
mentality is that there is this big pile of money, and when somebody
takes too much of that money, other people won't get their share.
The truth is that there is wealth for everybody in this country. You
may have to get an education, start a business or cut down on a lot of
extras, but you are not limited as to how much money you can make.
I don't know what you are doing in a free country when you hold a belief
that the government should take away all the money of a person after
they exceed X amount. That's not what a free country is all about,
that's what a communist or dictator country is about. And when wealthy
people have more money, they invest it. This is why the Bush tax cut
was so successful. When people invest money, other people have to work
to make that money grow.
If Joe Billionaire buys stock in the Widget Company, the Widget Company
has more capital to expand their business, purchase new machines, hire
more people, open up another outlet, hire more salesmen. When this
happens, it stimulates the economy. People have to build those
machines, construction workers have to build that new building, truck
drivers have to pickup and deliver their goods to warehouses and
outlets. New tow motors are needed. More office people are needed for
the additional paperwork.
When you get a clown like this Obama guy in who promises to take wealth
away from those with money, they don't invest in the market because they
know it's heading for the basement. That means the Widget Company will
lose it's capital. That means they can't improve their services or
products which means less people working. It could mean they have to
close their doors altogether. And this is why the market has been on a
nearly consistent decline since Obama was elected.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan
********
Ray, you and I are just too rational and logical for the loons hereabouts,
eh! I especially liked his writing, "How much they have is someone murkier?"
Typical of them.
I predict voter regret within six months of B.O.M.B. (Beee-ooo, the Monkey
Boy) occupying Da Honky Crib in Da Hood (formerly the White House). Check
out left wing-nut blogs...it's already starting, and B.O.M.B (Beee-ooo, the
Monkey Boy), he ain't even done swored on de bible yet.
I grieve for my Republic
Dionysus- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
That "someone murkier" comment was made by a Republitard eh!
|
Fuck off moron I've never been a Republican and going on about a
typo makes
you look like the idiot you are. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Michael Price
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:29 am Post subject: Re: B.O.M.B. (Beee-ooo, the Monkey Boy) bringing back slaver |
|
|
On Nov 18, 1:31 pm, MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 17, 6:20 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
In article
2a81c959-d203-43e5-bd5a-8f5d3d250...@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 16, 2:25 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
In article
f5989272-1f32-460b-9606-d7a729ede...@d10g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 16, 6:46 am, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
In article
5db9b703-d45f-4626-b730-a83523205...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
There is a finite amount of money and if you allow the top 2% of
Amiericans
to have 70% of the money there most certainly will be alot of
poverty.
The problem is not "allowing" the top 2% of people to have 70% of
the money
(and how much they really have is actually someone murkier) the
problem is
using the State to give money to the top 2%, who would never be
able
to
continue to make the right decisions to preserve their wealth
without
State
help.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Are you drunk? OR Stoned? How much they have is someone murkier?
Huh?
The problem is that with so much money in so few hands the money
doesn't circulate at all. Above a certain amount of money people
don't need more money and they just horde it and sit on it. If the
middle class had more money it would circulate more because the
middle
class spends a greater portion of their take-home pay to buy goods
and
services. And as far as your concern that investing in our
manufacturing of American cars being a waste, do you really wanna see
over a million new unemployed workers? That's why I suggest that the
only possible way I would support this bailout thing is if the CEO's
of the big 3 lose their jobs, and there will be serious oversight
(the
opposite of overlooking) of retoolling of the plants to get us headed
toward financial stability and eventual profit. It's gonna be hard
work, but this is the USA, we've done it before, and we can do it
again!
I don't know where you liberals get your ideas from. The liberal
mentality is that there is this big pile of money, and when somebody
takes too much of that money, other people won't get their share.
The truth is that there is wealth for everybody in this country.. You
may have to get an education, start a business or cut down on a lot of
extras, but you are not limited as to how much money you can make.
I don't know what you are doing in a free country when you hold a
belief
that the government should take away all the money of a person after
they exceed X amount. That's not what a free country is all about,
that's what a communist or dictator country is about. And when wealthy
people have more money, they invest it. This is why the Bush tax cut
was so successful. When people invest money, other people have to work
to make that money grow.
If Joe Billionaire buys stock in the Widget Company, the Widget Company
has more capital to expand their business, purchase new machines, hire
more people, open up another outlet, hire more salesmen. When this
happens, it stimulates the economy. People have to build those
machines, construction workers have to build that new building, truck
drivers have to pickup and deliver their goods to warehouses and
outlets. New tow motors are needed. More office people are needed for
the additional paperwork.
When you get a clown like this Obama guy in who promises to take wealth
away from those with money, they don't invest in the market because
they
know it's heading for the basement. That means the Widget Company will
lose it's capital. That means they can't improve their services or
products which means less people working. It could mean they have to
close their doors altogether. And this is why the market has been on a
nearly consistent decline since Obama was elected.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, but we've tried it your way for the last 28 years since Reagan
became president. Reaganomics has NOT worked. The trickle down
theory is a failure. I don't know what has happened to all this money
that you claim the wealthy and billionaires are investing, but IT HAS
NOT TRICKLED DOWN! Has NOT led to new job growth or expansion of the
economy. You Republicans have always had the misguided theory that
the way to judge the wealth of the country is to measure how much
money the top 1 or 2% have. Throughout the history of our country
there has been these periods of extreme corporatism such as we have
had since Reagan took office. These periods generally last 25 to 30
years. It has been 28 years, and look what just happened. Americans
are saying ENOUGH! It's time we get back to being a country of the
People! Even Teddy Roosevelt recognized this over a hundred years ago
when the country had gone through a failed period of Corporatism. He
said we need a strong middle class, because having more people with
more money is the key to a strong economy.
This depends on what your definition of "trickle down" is. Trickle Down
means that as investors invest, it creates jobs which is money in your
pocket. If you thought trickle down meant that someday you too will be
wealthy by having a standard job, then you fooled yourself.
GW and RR both cut taxes and that stimulated the economy; that's fact.
Back in the Reagan days, you couldn't even get a McDonalds job things
were so bad. GW took on the economy in spite of 911. And if Obama has
one ounce of common sense, he too will announce that not only will he
cut taxes for the wealthy, he will also sign a continuance of the Bush
tax cut set to expire in 2010.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You are assuming that investors always create jobs. I couldn't
disagree more! And NO, we don't need 4 more years of the last 28.
Reagan chose a direction for this country which was to outsource most
manufacturing jobs, and deregulate the hell out of everything. There
is no accountability for anything anymore. I believe it was
Eisenhower who taxed the richest 2% of people 70%. Our economy was
growing and booming during that time because we had such a strong
middle class of people with some expendable income, and they bought
things.
That's because back then, there was no other place wealthy people could
go and make the same amount of wealth. Today there is. Today,
corporations are leaving our country and paying much less taxes. They
still sell their products to our country, except they don't have to deal
with the bullshit that companies anchored here do.
At one time, our workers here didn't make much more than foreigners.
Thanks to unions, we now make ten times more (in come cases) than our
foreign competitors. We priced ourselves right out of the world market,
and handed over our manufacturing industry to places like China and
India.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan
Thats why we need to put the tariffs back in place. Any American
company that wants to move their operations offshore, and then export
their cheap shit back in should pay a tariff that is equal to the
difference between what they paid to make the product, and what it
would have cost here.
|
And how would would it help Americans to have to pay more for their
cars?
I mean the whole point of a car industry is to get people cars of the
best
quality at the best price. Why keep it if you have to force people to
buy the
product at gunpoint (which is what tarrifs do). |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Michael Price
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:30 am Post subject: Re: B.O.M.B. (Beee-ooo, the Monkey Boy) bringing back slaver |
|
|
On Nov 19, 11:41 am, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
| Quote: | In article
6f19c59b-742d-4e9b-946a-a984620f8...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 17, 6:58 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
In article
7f7d8499-7395-489f-b3f5-32607e085...@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
When you get a clown like this Obama guy in who promises to
take
wealth
away from those with money, they don't invest in the market
because
they
know it's heading for the basement. That means the Widget
Company
will
lose it's capital. That means they can't improve their
services or
products which means less people working. It could mean they
have
to
close their doors altogether. And this is why the market has
been
on a
nearly consistent decline since Obama was elected.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, but we've tried it your way for the last 28 years since
Reagan
became president. Reaganomics has NOT worked. The trickle down
theory is a failure. I don't know what has happened to all this
money
that you claim the wealthy and billionaires are investing, but IT
HAS
NOT TRICKLED DOWN! Has NOT led to new job growth or expansion of
the
economy. You Republicans have always had the misguided theory
that
the way to judge the wealth of the country is to measure how much
money the top 1 or 2% have. Throughout the history of our
country
there has been these periods of extreme corporatism such as we
have
had since Reagan took office. These periods generally last 25 to
30
years. It has been 28 years, and look what just happened..
Americans
are saying ENOUGH! It's time we get back to being a country of
the
People! Even Teddy Roosevelt recognized this over a hundred
years
ago
when the country had gone through a failed period of Corporatism.
He
said we need a strong middle class, because having more people
with
more money is the key to a strong economy.
This depends on what your definition of "trickle down" is. Trickle
Down
means that as investors invest, it creates jobs which is money in
your
pocket. If you thought trickle down meant that someday you too
will be
wealthy by having a standard job, then you fooled yourself.
GW and RR both cut taxes and that stimulated the economy; that's
fact.
Back in the Reagan days, you couldn't even get a McDonalds job
things
were so bad. GW took on the economy in spite of 911. And if Obama
has
one ounce of common sense, he too will announce that not only will
he
cut taxes for the wealthy, he will also sign a continuance of the
Bush
tax cut set to expire in 2010.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You are assuming that investors always create jobs. I couldn't
disagree more! And NO, we don't need 4 more years of the last 28.
Reagan chose a direction for this country which was to outsource most
manufacturing jobs, and deregulate the hell out of everything. There
is no accountability for anything anymore. I believe it was
Eisenhower who taxed the richest 2% of people 70%. Our economy was
growing and booming during that time because we had such a strong
middle class of people with some expendable income, and they bought
things.
That's because back then, there was no other place wealthy people could
go and make the same amount of wealth. Today there is. Today,
corporations are leaving our country and paying much less taxes. They
still sell their products to our country, except they don't have to
deal
with the bullshit that companies anchored here do.
At one time, our workers here didn't make much more than foreigners.
Thanks to unions, we now make ten times more (in come cases) than our
foreign competitors. We priced ourselves right out of the world
market,
and handed over our manufacturing industry to places like China and
India.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thats why we need to put the tariffs back in place. Any American
company that wants to move their operations offshore, and then export
their cheap shit back in should pay a tariff that is equal to the
difference between what they paid to make the product, and what it
would have cost here.
Okay. So we put in these tariffs. Now who pays these taxes? The lower
income mother with three children now has a higher grocery bill than she
did before. If she shops at WallMart, she now has to pay $120.00 for
merchandise that she used to pay $100.00 for. If a middle class worker
saves his money for a new automobile for the family, he now has to pay
an extra $3,000 for a Toyota, or forced to purchase an American car.
Either way, that's $3,000 out of the family budget, and cuts will have
to be made elsewhere.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yeah, but if we put tarriffs in place fewer people will buy the
foreign cars, and other merchandise, and will create a greater market
for american made stuff, which in turn employs more american people in
jobs with better pay. Reaganomics and the whole trickle down theory
has been tried for 28 years now, and it hasn't worked. When will you
finally see the light?Things aren't getting better, except for CEO's.
Things are getting worse for main street america.
How are American manufacturers supposed to sell all this stuff when
American consumers no longer have the money to purchase these items?
|
They seem to be able to afford the imports.
| Quote: | The only thing that tariffs would do is limit the items Americans could
buy. You might not be able to afford that big screen television, but
you would be able to purchase a smaller--less quality American
television. You may purchase an American made car, but you will go
broke fixing the thing once a month and paying tow trucks to haul it to
the garage. So who benefits? Oh, that's right, the precious
multi-billion-dollar unions. That's so much better.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Michael Price
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:31 am Post subject: Re: B.O.M.B. (Beee-ooo, the Monkey Boy) bringing back slaver |
|
|
On Nov 19, 2:20 pm, MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 18, 4:41 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
In article
6f19c59b-742d-4e9b-946a-a984620f8...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 17, 6:58 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
In article
7f7d8499-7395-489f-b3f5-32607e085...@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
When you get a clown like this Obama guy in who promises to
take
wealth
away from those with money, they don't invest in the market
because
they
know it's heading for the basement. That means the Widget
Company
will
lose it's capital. That means they can't improve their
services or
products which means less people working. It could mean they
have
to
close their doors altogether. And this is why the market has
been
on a
nearly consistent decline since Obama was elected.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, but we've tried it your way for the last 28 years since
Reagan
became president. Reaganomics has NOT worked. The trickle down
theory is a failure. I don't know what has happened to all this
money
that you claim the wealthy and billionaires are investing, but IT
HAS
NOT TRICKLED DOWN! Has NOT led to new job growth or expansion of
the
economy. You Republicans have always had the misguided theory
that
the way to judge the wealth of the country is to measure how much
money the top 1 or 2% have. Throughout the history of our
country
there has been these periods of extreme corporatism such as we
have
had since Reagan took office. These periods generally last 25 to
30
years. It has been 28 years, and look what just happened.
Americans
are saying ENOUGH! It's time we get back to being a country of
the
People! Even Teddy Roosevelt recognized this over a hundred
years
ago
when the country had gone through a failed period of Corporatism.
He
said we need a strong middle class, because having more people
with
more money is the key to a strong economy.
This depends on what your definition of "trickle down" is. Trickle
Down
means that as investors invest, it creates jobs which is money in
your
pocket. If you thought trickle down meant that someday you too
will be
wealthy by having a standard job, then you fooled yourself.
GW and RR both cut taxes and that stimulated the economy; that's
fact.
Back in the Reagan days, you couldn't even get a McDonalds job
things
were so bad. GW took on the economy in spite of 911. And if Obama
has
one ounce of common sense, he too will announce that not only will
he
cut taxes for the wealthy, he will also sign a continuance of the
Bush
tax cut set to expire in 2010.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You are assuming that investors always create jobs. I couldn't
disagree more! And NO, we don't need 4 more years of the last 28.
Reagan chose a direction for this country which was to outsource most
manufacturing jobs, and deregulate the hell out of everything.. There
is no accountability for anything anymore. I believe it was
Eisenhower who taxed the richest 2% of people 70%. Our economy was
growing and booming during that time because we had such a strong
middle class of people with some expendable income, and they bought
things.
That's because back then, there was no other place wealthy people could
go and make the same amount of wealth. Today there is. Today,
corporations are leaving our country and paying much less taxes.. They
still sell their products to our country, except they don't have to
deal
with the bullshit that companies anchored here do.
At one time, our workers here didn't make much more than foreigners.
Thanks to unions, we now make ten times more (in come cases) than our
foreign competitors. We priced ourselves right out of the world
market,
and handed over our manufacturing industry to places like China and
India.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thats why we need to put the tariffs back in place. Any American
company that wants to move their operations offshore, and then export
their cheap shit back in should pay a tariff that is equal to the
difference between what they paid to make the product, and what it
would have cost here.
Okay. So we put in these tariffs. Now who pays these taxes? The lower
income mother with three children now has a higher grocery bill than she
did before. If she shops at WallMart, she now has to pay $120.00 for
merchandise that she used to pay $100.00 for. If a middle class worker
saves his money for a new automobile for the family, he now has to pay
an extra $3,000 for a Toyota, or forced to purchase an American car..
Either way, that's $3,000 out of the family budget, and cuts will have
to be made elsewhere.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yeah, but if we put tarriffs in place fewer people will buy the
foreign cars, and other merchandise, and will create a greater market
for american made stuff, which in turn employs more american people in
jobs with better pay. Reaganomics and the whole trickle down theory
has been tried for 28 years now, and it hasn't worked. When will you
finally see the light?Things aren't getting better, except for CEO's.
Things are getting worse for main street america.
How are American manufacturers supposed to sell all this stuff when
American consumers no longer have the money to purchase these items?
The only thing that tariffs would do is limit the items Americans could
buy. You might not be able to afford that big screen television, but
you would be able to purchase a smaller--less quality American
television. You may purchase an American made car, but you will go
broke fixing the thing once a month and paying tow trucks to haul it to
the garage. So who benefits? Oh, that's right, the precious
multi-billion-dollar unions. That's so much better.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I'll tell you who benefits! We all will benefit from tarriffs.
Instead of minimum wage and less workers in China shipping crap over
here we will be able to buy stuff built buy american workers in
american factories, and it will improve our economy, and our own wages
will go up because they can!
|
And they'll have to because everything will cost more. So much more
that
you'd be better off without the tarrifs.
| Quote: | You are spreading false information
about people towing american cars to a garage every month. GM puts
out cars that are at least as good as the foreign cars.
|
Not in the opinion of the buying public. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Michael Price
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:33 am Post subject: Re: B.O.M.B. (Beee-ooo, the Monkey Boy) bringing back slaver |
|
|
On Nov 18, 1:25 pm, MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 17, 6:09 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
In article
1017089a-eafe-4937-8ec0-72cb7ccba...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 16, 10:51 am, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
In article
dbb85539-eaf7-4e92-98bd-a3ae4b943...@k24g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
I wouldn't suggest that! All I'm saying is it's time for the greedy
rich rat bastards to pay their fair share of taxes. There is a finite
amount of money and if you allow the top 2% of Amiericans to have 70%
of the money there most certainly will be alot of poverty.
Why is that? Are the top 2% taking anything away from those poverty
people?
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
YES! As I stated earlier, there is a finite amount of money, and the
more money that is in the hands of fewer people OBVIOUSLY leaves less
for the rest.
You're crazy. There is enough money out there for everybody. What
wealthy guy is taking money from you? How is the wealthy guy stopping
you from making more money?
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Sigh! OK, let's run through this again! There is a finite amount of
money eh. And like if the top 2% gets overpaid for their jobs that
leaves less money for the other 98% of us. I would submit that you
would be making more money too if not for greedy rich rat bastards
like Bill Gates, and the CEO's of Ford, Chrysler, and GM.
Once again Mack, you failed to answer the question. There is no
"finite" amount of money in the United States. If Bill Gates doubled
his empire, and Warren Buffet tripled his, and Oprah quadrupled hers, I
can still go out and make as much money as I want; none of these people
are stopping me. I can still invest in real estate, still play with the
commodity markets, still open up my own business and still go to college
and further my education. Not one wealthy person is going to (or able
to) stop me from this. Who gave you this load of shit that there is a
finite amount of money? Who gave you this load of shit that some rich
guy is stopping you from increasing your income? Please explain how
that is done.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I think YOU need to explain where all this extra money is going to
come from. It doesn't just grow on trees. Are you operating a
printing plant in your basement printing up 100 dollar bills?
|
It's called wealth creation. It's why you aren't living in a cave
and
rooting for berries (I assume). |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Michael Price
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:34 am Post subject: Re: B.O.M.B. (Beee-ooo, the Monkey Boy) bringing back slaver |
|
|
On Nov 18, 1:44 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
| Quote: | In article
723103d5-94ab-4894-9681-48be84c56...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 17, 6:09 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
In article
1017089a-eafe-4937-8ec0-72cb7ccba...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 16, 10:51 am, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
In article
dbb85539-eaf7-4e92-98bd-a3ae4b943...@k24g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
I wouldn't suggest that! All I'm saying is it's time for the
greedy
rich rat bastards to pay their fair share of taxes. There is a
finite
amount of money and if you allow the top 2% of Amiericans to have
70%
of the money there most certainly will be alot of poverty.
Why is that? Are the top 2% taking anything away from those
poverty
people?
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
YES! As I stated earlier, there is a finite amount of money, and the
more money that is in the hands of fewer people OBVIOUSLY leaves less
for the rest.
You're crazy. There is enough money out there for everybody. What
wealthy guy is taking money from you? How is the wealthy guy stopping
you from making more money?
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Sigh! OK, let's run through this again! There is a finite amount of
money eh. And like if the top 2% gets overpaid for their jobs that
leaves less money for the other 98% of us. I would submit that you
would be making more money too if not for greedy rich rat bastards
like Bill Gates, and the CEO's of Ford, Chrysler, and GM.
Once again Mack, you failed to answer the question. There is no
"finite" amount of money in the United States. If Bill Gates doubled
his empire, and Warren Buffet tripled his, and Oprah quadrupled hers, I
can still go out and make as much money as I want; none of these people
are stopping me. I can still invest in real estate, still play with the
commodity markets, still open up my own business and still go to college
and further my education. Not one wealthy person is going to (or able
to) stop me from this. Who gave you this load of shit that there is a
finite amount of money? Who gave you this load of shit that some rich
guy is stopping you from increasing your income? Please explain how
that is done.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I think YOU need to explain where all this extra money is going to
come from. It doesn't just grow on trees. Are you operating a
printing plant in your basement printing up 100 dollar bills?
No need to. Not once in my entire life has somebody told me I can't
have a job because a wealthy guy has the money I was supposed to make.
Not once was I denied the purchase of property or purchase of a vehicle
because some rich guy had too much property or cars. Not once did I
ever encounter resistance from a stock or commodity broker because the
rich guy took all the opportunities. Now once was I ever denied a
second job because the rich guy has too much money, and I couldn't make
more for myself.
Rush Limbaugh said it best a couple of times. He said that as a child,
his mother used to taunt him to finish his plate because some child in
China was starving. So he asked his mother.... with respect "If I eat
everything on this plate, how does it help that child in China?"
|
We've all wondered that.
| Quote: |
Thus far, you have not given me one example from personal (or any other
for that matter) experience how a wealthy person stopped you from
increasing your income. It's never happened. You know this and I know
this. And not once in the history of this country was there a time when
there was only so much money, and others were denied the opportunity to
create wealth of their own.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Michael Price
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:36 am Post subject: Re: B.O.M.B. (Beee-ooo, the Monkey Boy) bringing back slaver |
|
|
On Nov 16, 12:16 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
| Quote: | In article
394be2c3-1ff8-4029-b0ad-237122fb7...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 3:38 am, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 2:20 pm, MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 9, 11:44 am, "Dennis" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
FROM POLITICAL LORE.COM
HEAD: Obama Requires Community Service and Removes his Agenda from
Website
After Scrutiny.
There has been many arguments this past week over whether the president
elect, Obama, will require students to do community service. Some are
saying
this is slave labor, some say because college discounts will be given
it is
worth it, some are saying it is for the better of the Country.
If you missed it, Obama has created change.gov, "The Official Web Site
of
the U.S. Presidential Transition." On this website Obama lays out his
agenda
for what he is going to change in this country. Now since the
conversation
began about what the agenda section of the site actually contained, it
looks
like it has been removed due to scrutiny. It appears as if it was taken
down
to be reworded. Now all we have left is the text below:
"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a
goal
that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of
community
service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students
who
conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully
refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college
education is completely free."
Luckily, with the creation of the Internet, history cannot be changed
so
easily. This is the first quote on the site, which appears to have been
removed as of last night:
"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by
developing a
plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high
school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."
This has obviously been changed due to public scrutiny, something
presidents
get a lot of. Obama will have plenty of time to get used to it before
he is
sworn in. Due to this scrutiny he took down his whole agenda section of
the
site.let's see what he replaces it with. We finally had a glimpse of
what
the President-Elect wanted to accomplish, and now that glimpse is gone
as
soon as we started scrutinizing the specifics..
I do not like this ending as much as you do, but the story has not yet
been
finished. Obama has the next move. In the meantime, what do you think
about
Obama's "change" and his plan? Is this forced labor, or is this better
the
American youth and Country? Does this say anything about Obama's
character
and his ability to deal with criticism? How will this affect his
presidency?
Your thoughts below.
Comment by LiveFreeOrDie on 9 November 2008:
There is no way in the world I would permit my children to participate
in
this socialist's plan to enslave the country or to form an "Obama Youth
Brigade" that bears a shocking similarity to the Hitler Youth that I
thought
we had consigned to the trash bin of history.
Comment by mike on 9 November 2008:
if you google change.gov and any of the agenda topics, you can still
get to
the cached items before they disappeared to be "changed"
Comment by Yo on 9 November 2008:
Obama's requirement for community service from Jr. High School through
High
School will be a difficult thing to accomplish. Children have after
school
sports, dance, theater and other obligations that enhance their life
learning. Although, it is only one hour a week, it should be considered
that
these obligations should be close to home; maybe cleaning up their own
schools (conflict with janitorial unions)or planting and weeding the
school's
landscape. Travel to do service will require parental involvement and
most
likely won't work out with the people holding down two or more jobs in
order
to pay the Obama taxes.
Comment by Jules Hamil on 9 November 2008:
Well folks, it's just the beginning. All the morons and zombies that
voted
for "The One" will wake up to find Amerika is changing. Isn't that what
they
voted for? However, is this the "change" they thought it was going to
be? I
didn't vote for him but my family will reap his tearing my Country
apart.
Stick around friends, it's gonna be a wild, rough ride.
**********
Just another way of my saying I predict voter regret within six months
of
B.O.M.B. (Beee-ooo, the Monkey
Boy) occupying Da Honky Crib in Da Hood (formerly the White House).
Check
out left wing-nut blogs...it's already starting, and B.O.M.B (Beee-ooo,
the
Monkey Boy), he ain't even done swored on de bible yet.
I grieve for my Republic
Dionysus
People will not suddenly have to work 2 jobs to pay taxes. With the
Obama plan, most people will not see taxes raised. Only rich people
making over 250 thousand will see their taxes raised, and if they got
that much money they can certainly afford it. So go cry me a river
biotch!
Of course with the bailout plan (a McCain AND Obama policy)
destroying
the financial structure of the US government hyperinflation could
make
250,000 the starting salary at McDonald's.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No, not really. All the bailout money is going to the careless
muthafuckas who got us in this mess!
You mean the liberals are getting this money???
|
By my standards yes. By his, no. Of course I don't think there's
any
difference between liberal and conservative except that conservatives
take
longer to make and reject the same mistakes.
| Quote: |
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
MACK DADDY
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:15 am Post subject: Re: B.O.M.B. (Beee-ooo, the Monkey Boy) bringing back slaver |
|
|
On Nov 18, 7:32 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
| Quote: | In article
2e369cac-af69-440c-898c-96270ef4a...@f37g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
Sounds like some kind of mismanagement with your apartments.. Why
would you want to own something that only breaks even?
Because in the long run, the renters pay my mortgage. When it's
time
to
sell, the capital I have in this place is not my money. Besides, I
love
being a landlord. The only problem I have now is our local
government
who is trying to bankrupt us with their stupid inspections and
fees.
Add to that HUD who is turning my neighborhood into a ghetto, they
really knock the spirit out of the American dream. As RR said:
"Government is not the solution.... it's the problem." And I never
understood just how powerful those words were until I had to deal
with
an all Democrat government who is trying to ruin me.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
OH, you're just another whiney Republitard who is against any
regulations or inspections. You have a responsibility as a landlord
to provide a safe place for your tenants. You landlords charge more
than enough money to handle that stuff. When Reagan said
"government is not the solution, it's the problem!" I'm sure he is
including himself since he was governing. Republitards always like
to
tell everybody that government is the problem, and then they get
elected and prove it! lol
Mack, any business passes it's cost on to the consumer. Without
government interference, I could charge my tenants less money. But I
can no longer do that because I need X amount of income to keep this
place operating. The problem I have now is that Government is forcing
me to make unneeded improvements that I can't recover through any
increase in rents. The bottom line is, I lose thanks to government.
Tenants who are unsatisfied with the living conditions have always had
the ability to complain to the city until the landlord corrects the
problems a tenant may have. But because of HUD and the housing crisis,
the city is now trying to extort money from landlords figuring (as you
have) that we have all this profit in which to offer; there is no truth
to this.
Today, I would have a real problem if something major goes, such as a
roof, a heater unit, a wall etc, etc because I had to take out loans to
make the idiotic improvements that the city forced me to make. So now
if something major does happen, I may have to be foreclosed on, and how
does that help my tenants who enjoyed livable rental prices all this
time? How does that help me?
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I couldn't care less about helping you, ya greedy slumlord. There are
responsibilities to being a landlord, and you are required by law to
provide safe and clean living conditions for your tenants. If you got
a problem with it, sell the property. Maybe you just aren't cut out
for managing property.
My apartments are now and have always been top notch. Some of my
tenants were here from one year to 48 years; and not one complaint. And
if I could sell the property, I would. But that isn't possible in this
real estate climate. And when I do finally sell, the next guy is going
to raise rents so high my elderly tenants will no longer be able to live
here, and then they're out on the street. Thanks once again Democrat
government.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Your apartments suck! But now, thanks to the Democrats your elderly
tenants will be able to afford a better place to live eh!
How did the Democrats do that? If anything, the Democrats will be
responsible for the increased rents these elderly tenants must now pay.
You see, your flawed liberal teachings is what hurts the struggling and
middle class. Liberals believe that if they extort money from somebody,
that person will take the loss. It's an ignorant philosophy. The truth
of the matter is that Reagan was correct with his "trickle down" theory:
You make things better for the wealthy, they make things better for the
less wealthy. You make things harder for the wealthy, they make things
harder for the less wealthy.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Nope! You are so wrong, my friend! Reaganomics has not worked the
last 28 years. It's time to do something different! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
MACK DADDY
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:19 am Post subject: Re: B.O.M.B. (Beee-ooo, the Monkey Boy) bringing back slaver |
|
|
On Nov 18, 7:33 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
| Quote: | In article
627dd799-fac0-4171-b8b6-f0f1ed4d3...@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
Yeah, but if we put tarriffs in place fewer people will buy the
foreign cars, and other merchandise, and will create a greater market
for american made stuff, which in turn employs more american people in
jobs with better pay. Reaganomics and the whole trickle down theory
has been tried for 28 years now, and it hasn't worked. When will you
finally see the light?Things aren't getting better, except for CEO's.
Things are getting worse for main street america.
How are American manufacturers supposed to sell all this stuff when
American consumers no longer have the money to purchase these items?
The only thing that tariffs would do is limit the items Americans could
buy. You might not be able to afford that big screen television, but
you would be able to purchase a smaller--less quality American
television. You may purchase an American made car, but you will go
broke fixing the thing once a month and paying tow trucks to haul it to
the garage. So who benefits? Oh, that's right, the precious
multi-billion-dollar unions. That's so much better.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I'll tell you who benefits! We all will benefit from tarriffs.
Instead of minimum wage and less workers in China shipping crap over
here we will be able to buy stuff built buy american workers in
american factories, and it will improve our economy, and our own wages
will go up because they can! You are spreading false information
about people towing american cars to a garage every month. GM puts
out cars that are at least as good as the foreign cars.
Of course they do. This is why they are BEGGING for government to bail
them out; because their automobiles are so good. LOL!!!!
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
That's a rather narrow-minded statement! GM has spent lots of money
upgrading their facilities, and then the economy tanked because of the
Bush mentallity that every person should have a nice house, and he
gave bad loans to make it happen. It doesn't help that you
Republitards are against tarriffing the import cars, and then you
trash the rep of the american cars. Maybe if we can get out the word
that GM especially is building great cars then more people will buy
them. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ray
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:33 am Post subject: Re: B.O.M.B. (Beee-ooo, the Monkey Boy) bringing back slaver |
|
|
In article
<d9abc772-70dc-4154-a21d-4aae8b592159@1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivanilla@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 17, 6:44 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
In article
723103d5-94ab-4894-9681-48be84c56...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 17, 6:09 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
In article
1017089a-eafe-4937-8ec0-72cb7ccba...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 16, 10:51 am, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
In article
dbb85539-eaf7-4e92-98bd-a3ae4b943...@k24g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
I wouldn't suggest that! All I'm saying is it's time for the
greedy
rich rat bastards to pay their fair share of taxes. There is
a
finite
amount of money and if you allow the top 2% of Amiericans to
have
70%
of the money there most certainly will be alot of poverty.
Why is that? Are the top 2% taking anything away from those
poverty
people?
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
YES! As I stated earlier, there is a finite amount of money, and
the
more money that is in the hands of fewer people OBVIOUSLY leaves
less
for the rest.
You're crazy. There is enough money out there for everybody. What
wealthy guy is taking money from you? How is the wealthy guy
stopping
you from making more money?
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Sigh! OK, let's run through this again! There is a finite amount of
money eh. And like if the top 2% gets overpaid for their jobs that
leaves less money for the other 98% of us. I would submit that you
would be making more money too if not for greedy rich rat bastards
like Bill Gates, and the CEO's of Ford, Chrysler, and GM.
Once again Mack, you failed to answer the question. There is no
"finite" amount of money in the United States. If Bill Gates doubled
his empire, and Warren Buffet tripled his, and Oprah quadrupled hers, I
can still go out and make as much money as I want; none of these people
are stopping me. I can still invest in real estate, still play with
the
commodity markets, still open up my own business and still go to
college
and further my education. Not one wealthy person is going to (or able
to) stop me from this. Who gave you this load of shit that there is a
finite amount of money? Who gave you this load of shit that some rich
guy is stopping you from increasing your income? Please explain how
that is done.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I think YOU need to explain where all this extra money is going to
come from. It doesn't just grow on trees. Are you operating a
printing plant in your basement printing up 100 dollar bills?
No need to. Not once in my entire life has somebody told me I can't
have a job because a wealthy guy has the money I was supposed to make.
Not once was I denied the purchase of property or purchase of a vehicle
because some rich guy had too much property or cars. Not once did I
ever encounter resistance from a stock or commodity broker because the
rich guy took all the opportunities. Now once was I ever denied a
second job because the rich guy has too much money, and I couldn't make
more for myself.
Rush Limbaugh said it best a couple of times. He said that as a child,
his mother used to taunt him to finish his plate because some child in
China was starving. So he asked his mother.... with respect "If I eat
everything on this plate, how does it help that child in China?"
Thus far, you have not given me one example from personal (or any other
for that matter) experience how a wealthy person stopped you from
increasing your income. It's never happened. You know this and I know
this. And not once in the history of this country was there a time when
there was only so much money, and others were denied the opportunity to
create wealth of their own.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it hasn't
happened. That would be like saying that because you have never
climbed Mt. Everest nobody else ever has either. Look, Ray, I'm not
saying that rich people are preventing me from making money. I'm
happy with my situation. But you are missing the big picture. Let's
say, for example, that Bill Gates had 999,999,999 trillion dollars.
Nobody needs that much money to survive, so he just keeps that money
in the bank. It just sits there collecting dust. It doesn't
stimulate the economy because he isn't spending it buying goods and
services. If that money was spread out among more people it would be
spent on things, which in turn requires more stuff be manufactured or
produced, which in turn requires more workers, which in turn creates
more people spending money and paying taxes, and I kid you not, it is
good for everyone! It's a win-win for the whole country. The way
things are it is only a win win for Gates and a few other overly
greedy rich bastards who don't pay taxes because of all the corporate
welfare loopholes.
|
Hmmmm. With all of these supposed loopholes, the top 5% of wage earners
in this country still pay over 50% of the taxes collected by the Federal
Government; The other 95% of us pay the other 50%.
And if Bill Gates and other "rich greedy bastards" did have this kind of
wealth, how do you suppose they got that wealth? By letting the money
sit in the bank making 2% interest in a bank somewhere?
See, the problem with people like you is you let the Democrats bullshit
you into all these fallacies. The wealthy people have their money
invested, and I don't mean at a bank. No matter how much wealth they
have, they always look to increase their wealth. Look at Donald Trump!
He's not only a billionaire in real estate, but now is branching off in
other things like his own shows. Don't you think a guy like that has
enough money to live the rest of his life comfortably?
Look at our entertainers! The Rolling Stones are still trying to do
concerts. Same with Aerosmith. Oprah is still doing her show, and now
took a couple of million to open up a Oprah radio channel on satellite
radio. Doesn't she have enough money?
The point here is that it's nobody's business what another makes. And
this insane jealousy and envy benefits you little. If you were more
consumed on advancing yourself financially and not what others have, you
too may be more successful in life.
--
All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
Ronald Reagan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ray
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:36 am Post subject: Re: B.O.M.B. (Beee-ooo, the Monkey Boy) bringing back slaver |
|
|
In article
<442b2a5d-79d2-4de9-991c-92f9b680cf9c@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
MACK DADDY <pepsivanilla@msn.com> wrote:
| |
