 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!!
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 10 Jul 06 - 10:21 PM I know that this is not what most of you would want to hear, but it is news. Even they (liberal administration) agreed with it. The first of many to come... Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 10 Jul 06 - 10:28 PM This can't be right. I thought taxes were cut? Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Bobert Date: 10 Jul 06 - 10:32 PM Sales must be down at the Washington Times... But I loved the Times back in the Clinton days... No matter what was happening in the world of the country their headlines contained negative stuff about Clinton... It was almost like satire... Fir a while I thought the paper was a spoof... I mean, how could one paper write 6 negative articles about Clinton all on the Page 1... Yeah, I thought someone was just playin' a joke... But then one day I opened up the Times to the sports page and there in black and white was real sports news so then I had to go, "Well, may these folks mean this crap???" Well, I'm glad that the Son Moon owened Washington Times is having to drag poor ol' Slick Willioe back to get their readership back... Truth be known, the sports page wasn't half bad... 'er half good, fir that matter... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 10 Jul 06 - 10:50 PM But Hubby....environmentalists are supposed to be saving the world! Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Bobert Date: 10 Jul 06 - 11:07 PM The Rev. Sun Moon for King in '08!!! Read the Times!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 10 Jul 06 - 11:07 PM Hey waitta minute....I thought we were in a weak economy! Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 10 Jul 06 - 11:13 PM He's gotta be lying.....this isn't what I'm hearing on AirAmerica.... Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Amos Date: 10 Jul 06 - 11:14 PM Hubby: A great and articulate read, that. Thanks. Enjoyable. But it has some flaws in logic of its own. One, for example, is the diffgerence between dipolar EM fields (such as those soldf as healing magnets) and the kind produced by AC or continuous waves. Very different mechanisms altogether. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Bobert Date: 10 Jul 06 - 11:15 PM "Clinton Kills Baby, Hides in Dumpster" Rev. Sun Moon for God in '08... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Bobert Date: 10 Jul 06 - 11:46 PM "Clinton Father's Alien Baby, Claims he hardly knew the Marsian woman" Rev. Sun Moon for Benevolent Dictator in '08... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 11 Jul 06 - 12:36 AM Higher-than-expected tax revenues in the United States are expected to make a dent in the federal deficit, according to early reports. A dent? Gee, that'll help a LOT. Higher-than-expected when and by whom? This from Crichton is precious... What I discovered stunned me. Chernobyl was a tragic event, but nothing remotely close to the global catastrophe I imagined. About 50 people had died in Chernobyl, roughly the number of Americans that die every day in traffic accidents. I don�t mean to be gruesome, but it was a setback for me. You can�t write a novel about a global disaster in which only 50 people die. As Crichton himself admits, the World Health Organization, which gives the lowest estimates of increases in cancer among exposed people is predicting about 4,000 additional deaths due to cancer as a result of the disaster. That's about a thousand more than were killed in the attacks on 9/11, and we all know how much of a fuss the United States has made because of those deaths, and how many thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths the US was willing to cause in the name of "keeping the homeland secure". Funny how Crichton and some others value some lives so much more than other lives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 11 Jul 06 - 06:17 AM The American National Debt is over 8 TRILLION dollars. FYI. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Alba Date: 11 Jul 06 - 06:49 AM "Oh no!....Say it ain't so!!" Oh alright then, if it will make you happy Hubster:) It ain't so!! Happy Chews Day J |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: catspaw49 Date: 11 Jul 06 - 07:10 AM For overall humor, I think these papers are all right up there with "The Onion"!!! The style is so sincere and all it makes you think they're real. Funny stuff!!!! Thanks for the laughs Hubby!!! Keep 'em coming!!! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: kendall Date: 11 Jul 06 - 07:43 AM Sounds like the Boston Globe. Recently, in spite of all the crap that was happening around the world, the Globe front page splashed it all over... the story about Patrick Kennedy and his OUI. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Rapparee Date: 11 Jul 06 - 09:05 AM I don't trust the "Washington Times" quite as far as I trust the "Washington Post." The "Washington Star" was a differeent matter entirely, but it's been gone for years. Come to think of it, I completely trust any media at all anymore. When I was the News Editor of my college paper I did, but not now. What I do now is to figure that everybody is reporting only what they see or think and I kinda take an average. And my average says... ...vote 'em ALL out and start over. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: GUEST Date: 11 Jul 06 - 09:25 AM Right on, Rapaire. (and you meant 'don't' trust?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 11 Jul 06 - 09:25 AM Let's keep 'em safe. Betcha a liberal dem or at least a "moderate" Repub wrote this one. Here's the lead and first paragraphs from the story. State and local police would be prohibited in key ways from helping Immigration and Customs Enforcement combat illegal immigration under Senate legislation, a wall that opponents say would lead to rampant fraud, hamper efforts to deport future illegals and threaten national security. "The Senate bill would actually make us less safe," said Rep. Ed Royce, California Republican and chairman of the International Relations Committee's subcommittee on international terrorism and nonproliferation. It "would roll back the ability for state and local officials to cooperate with federal officials." Someone prove me wrong. Please. I'll admit it. Prove to me a democrat didn't present this bill. It's funny how the times omitted that little fact. Conservative media my butt. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 11 Jul 06 - 09:33 AM But the war is wrong....don't people realize that? Military Recruiting Successful By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: July 11, 2006 The Army surpassed its recruiting goal for June, the Pentagon said, the 13th consecutive month the service has met or exceeded its target. The Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps also met or exceeded their goals, Defense Department statistics showed. The active-duty Army, which offered a wider array of financial incentives for potential recruits and put more recruiters on the street, found 8,756 recruits in June, compared with its target of 8,600, the Pentagon said. To read the rest you'll need to register with the NYT. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Amos Date: 11 Jul 06 - 09:34 AM Chicken Litter!! Chicken Litter!! The sky is farring!! Hell, Hub, let's give the local police the authority to arrest anyone purely on suspicion, and hold them up to 30 years whil;e investigating. That'll put an end to all this left-wing pussy-footing around about 'respecting individuals'. Respecting individuals, when there's a terrorist under every bed, is just horse pucky. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 11 Jul 06 - 09:40 AM What....democrats actually making sense? DENVER (AP) — State lawmakers approved a measure late Monday that would force a million people receiving state or federal aid to verify their citizenship, part of a package of bills dealing with illegal immigration that Democrats called the toughest in the nation. The measure would deny most non-emergency state benefits to illegal immigrants 18 years old and older — forcing people to prove legal residency when applying for benefits or renewing their eligibility. The measure passed the state Senate 22-13 and the House 48-15. Both are controlled by Democrats. Go Colorado! Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Bobert Date: 11 Jul 06 - 09:44 AM "Clinton Ordered Bush to Attack Iraq" Rev. Sun Moon for President of IMF in '08... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 11 Jul 06 - 09:48 AM If I close my eyes....then they won't see me. Wrong. Congressional Republicans are at odds with Democrats -- and the Bush administration -- over the significance of 500 munitions found in Iraq since 2003 and recently disclosed by the Pentagon. The rocket and artillery shells hold deadly sarin and mustard gas, a small part of the vast weapons of mass destruction (WMD) arsenal that Saddam Hussein built in the 1980s. Republican lawmakers say the 500-plus shells, with more likely to be found in the coming months, are evidence that Saddam was still concealing WMDs in 2003 in violation of United Nations resolutions to disarm after Iraq's failed invasion of Kuwait. The resolution "didn't say pre-'91 chemical weapons," said Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican. "It didn't say post-'91 chemical weapons. It said chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein violated this resolution and others like it. ... In part because of such violations, we voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq." Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 11 Jul 06 - 09:50 AM Bobert, Go back to cultivating your wild wood flowers and changing the oil in your gas guzzling SUV. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 11 Jul 06 - 09:56 AM But I thought that our movement was catching on worldwide? That's the problem. You're thinking again. The apparent victory of Felipe Calderon, the candidate of incumbent President Vicente Fox's PAN party in Mexico, is the latest in a series of defeats for the hard left in Latin American elections. It also means there will continue to be a trio of center-right North American governments. Leftist Evo Morales, with help from Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, did win in Bolivia, but Chavez's candidate lost in Peru, center-right incumbent Alvaro Uribe won re-election by a huge margin in Colombia and Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, former Mexico City mayor and candidate of the leftist PRD party, lost after leading in the polls for most of the past two years. Mexican presidential candidate Felipe Calderon, of the National Action Party (PAN), celebrates with supporters at his party's headquarters in Mexico City, Mexico, Thursday, July 6, 2006. The ruling party's Felipe Calderon won the official count in Mexico's disputed presidential race Thursday, a come-from-behind victory. (AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo) The cry has been going up that the "Washington consensus" favoring free trade and free markets is dead in the region. But that consensus is not threatened by responsible center-left presidents like Lula da Silva of Brazil and Michelle Bachelet of Chile. And the defeat of Lopez Obrador, who called for renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, shows it's still alive in Mexico. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 11 Jul 06 - 10:01 AM But I thought that if we were nice to them then they would be nice to us? Guess that approach doesn't work either. Russia offered to help N. Korea By Michael Hirst LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH July 9, 2006 LONDON -- Russia secretly offered to sell North Korea technology that could help the rogue state protect nuclear stockpiles and safeguard weapons secrets from international scrutiny, but officials backed off after the arms flirtation was publicized. Russian officials touted the equipment to the communist regime at an information technology exhibition in Pyongyang late last month -- just days before North Korea sparked international alarm by launching a salvo of short- and long-range missiles into the sea between the Korean Peninsula and Japan. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 11 Jul 06 - 10:09 AM I guess it's time to start scaring the elderly again. "They're dismantling!" Get a new argument. Social Security battle reignites By Amy Fagan THE WASHINGTON TIMES July 9, 2006 The seemingly dead issue of Social Security reform came to life again in recent weeks, with President Bush saying it should be high on the agenda and Democrats warning that Republicans are resurrecting their plan to privatize the system. Mr. Bush, in a June 27 speech extolling the line-item veto, vowed to keep fighting to fix the impending financial crises in both Social Security and Medicare. "If we can't get it done this year, I'm going to try next year. And if we can't get it done next year, I'm going to try the year after that because it is the right thing to do," Mr. Bush said in a speech in Washington hosted by the Manhattan Institute think tank. "Now is the time to solve the problems of Medicare and Social Security and I want your help." Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 11 Jul 06 - 10:19 AM Awww....looks as if Big Mick's dream of a Unionized America isn't working out. Didn't figure it would. Wal-Mart Tax Fizzle The AFL-CIO's favorite new tax is a flop just about everywhere. Sunday, July 9, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT For anyone keeping score, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney has been striking out in a surprising number of state capitals. Mr. Sweeney launched a campaign in 33 states several months ago to force Wal-Mart and other retailers either to spend more on health care or pay more in taxes. His legislation was intended as a first step in mandating employer-provided health care, and his campaign began as Maryland enacted the first "Wal-Mart tax." Well, the early results are in, and the Sweeney tax has been a political flop. Not a single state has followed Maryland's lead, even liberal Rhode Island. In 26 states from Maine to New Mexico, so-called "fair share" legislation has either stalled or, in the case of Kansas, Louisiana and Missouri, been withdrawn. With many state legislatures wrapping up their work or already adjourned for the year, it's clear the anti-Wal-Mart groundswell isn't coming. New York was one of the last holdouts, and Long Island's Suffolk County has enacted its own version of the law. But for a state in which unions enjoy broad political influence, the bill found few friends in Albany and failed. Even Attorney General Eliot Spitzer opposed it, telling the New York Post that the Wal-Mart bill is not the "comprehensive reform" of health care the state needs. A candidate for Governor such as Mr. Spitzer has to worry about job creation, especially in a state from which young people and jobs are both fleeing. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Bobert Date: 11 Jul 06 - 10:19 AM "Clinton Orders Bobert to Purchase Gas Guzzler" Rev. Sun Moon for Jesus in '08... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Bill D Date: 11 Jul 06 - 10:21 AM "The Army surpassed its recruiting goal for June, the Pentagon said, the 13th consecutive month the service has met or exceeded its target. The Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps also met or exceeded their goals" *grin*...that's because they REDUCED the stated goals when they found they wouldn't be able to meet them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 11 Jul 06 - 10:59 AM "But it has some flaws in logic of its own. One, for example, is the diffgerence between dipolar EM fields (such as those soldf as healing magnets) and the kind produced by AC or continuous waves. Very different mechanisms altogether." Thanks, Amos. I don't pretend to know anything about magnets. But the other points in the article really bring out the current arguments all together, don't you think? Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Alba Date: 11 Jul 06 - 11:05 AM I wonder sometimes how the Folk that write this kind of stuff manage to do so when they have their minds completely closed, their eyes tightly shut and their fingers stuck in the ears while sitting there in front of their Computer Screens shouting Lalalalalala at the top of their voices in an effort to shut out Reality. Their spin is hilarious but they do earn bonus points for being able to conjure up a Fairytale while inflicting themselves with a very strange form of sensory deprevation! Nothing like "Make it up as you go along" Journalism ! (I use the term Journalism very loosely of course:) The Writers and the Readers/Believers of these Tales obviously have an overwhelming need to ignore reality, relevance and fact so they can continue to live in Lala Land. Hope the weather is nice "out there"..* smile * J |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: harpmolly Date: 11 Jul 06 - 12:11 PM Hubby-- I wonder why anyone (including myself) is bothering to respond to your posts at all. You seem to be perfectly happy to keep the thread going all by yourself. ;) However, I can see how comforting it would be to wrap yourself in a lovely warm fuzzy blanket of right-wing propaganda. Would you like me to sing you a lullabye? Do you need your teddy bear? I'll leave the hall light on so the left-wing closet monster can't jump out and scare you... M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Wesley S Date: 11 Jul 06 - 12:34 PM It's ALL propaganda. Some right wing some left wing. I've got no problem with reading Hubby's articles. I'll most likely disagree with them. But only AFTER I read them. Hubby's welcome to his opinions. Live and let live I say. It's not like he's breaking down our front door and forcing us to read them. { We live in the same city - he better not }. We all read these threads of our own free will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: GUEST,Woody Date: 11 Jul 06 - 01:03 PM http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09econ.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26exQ3D1152504000Q26enQ3D77784dfacac57a31Q26eiQ3D5087Q250A&OP=1182813fQ2FD!Y8DQ5EQ3EQ23nJQ3EQ3EdQ2BDQ2B22cD2tD2ND!ynoqjWdQ3EjD2NYQ23Q3EjkodQ27A Sales must be down at the NY Times: NYTimes: Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit By EDMUND L. ANDREWS Published: July 9, 2006 Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Amos Date: 11 Jul 06 - 01:22 PM Hub: Actually, no. I cited the magnetism issue as an obvious example of how leaving out relevant information can badly distort the effect of an article. For another example, the reference somewhere in your links of past cycles of warming and cooling over the milelnia on this planet completely omits the change in range of the magnitude of the numbers and the acceleration of the rate of change, both of which are completely disparate with past cycles which have been measured (by inference) from ice cores going back thousands of years. Nor do they take into account the side-by-side correlation of carbon emissions and temperature ramp-up thathave occurred since 1900, for example. ALthough there are lots of tangential arguments to be made (for example, that old coal-burning methods use less carbon molecules that LP-Gas burning does) the gross vo9lume of carbon count in the atmosphere-which is the critical bearing data-point--is ignored, as is the correlation with temperature and the acceleration factor already mentioned. Each of the placating soporifics your links mention ignore critical other information -- for example, if the rate of indebtedness is declining by a fraction, ithas little bearing on themagnitude of the national debt OR its gross multiplication in the last six years. Finding small datums to make you feel comfortable about ignoring big ones is not objective, or particularly intelligent. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 11 Jul 06 - 01:34 PM As of now, the American National Debt is $8,417,356,369,699.53 Taxes will have to go WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY up to take care of that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 11 Jul 06 - 01:37 PM Print Story | Email Story | Subscribe Now! March 02, 2005 Is America going broke? Record deficits, colossal debt and no clear plan for digging itself out. If the U.S. sinks, it will take Canada down with it. STEVE MAICH David Walker can see the future, and it scares the hell out of him. That wouldn't be terribly unusual if he were one of the thousands of lobbyists, legislators and activists crawling all over Washington on any given day, pontificating about the urgency of their pet issues. There is a thriving industry here built on pushing policy prescriptions for every ailment, real or imagined. But Walker isn't a lobbyist or an activist, he's an accountant. His title is comptroller general of the United States, which makes him the head auditor for the most important and powerful government in the world. And he's desperately trying to get a message out to anyone who'll listen: the United States of America's public finances are a shambles. They're getting rapidly worse. And if something major isn't done soon to solve the country's intractable budget problems, the world will face an economic shakeup unlike anything ever seen before. Seated in his wood-panelled office in downtown Washington, Walker measures his words, trying to walk the fine line between raising an alarm and fostering panic. He cringes when he hears prominent economists warning about a financial "Armageddon," but he makes no bones about the fact the situation is dire. "I don't like using words that are overly inflammatory," he says, leaning forward in his chair. "At the same time, I think it is critically important that the American people, as well as their elected representatives, get a better understanding of just how serious our situation is." THE NUMBERS are staggering -- a US$43-trillion hole in America's public finances that's getting worse every day. And the stakes are almost inconceivable for a generation of politicians and voters raised in relative prosperity, who've never known severe economic hardship. But that plush North American lifestyle to which we've all grown accustomed has been bought on credit, and the bill is rapidly nearing its due date. If the United States can't find a way to pay up, the results will spill beyond national borders, spreading economic misery far and wide. In Canada, the country whose financial well-being is most tightly tied to trade with the U.S., there wouldn't be a single region or industry left untouched by a fiscal shock south of the border. It's the looming presence of this potential crisis that brings Walker to this office every day, through the doorway with the words "Honesty Accountability Reliability" inscribed above, in hopes that someone will listen and take up the challenge before it's too late. "The sooner we start fixing this, the better," he says, "because right now the miracle of compounding is working against us. Debt on debt is not good. We have to first stop digging, and then figure out how we're going to fill the hole." HOW DID THE U.S. GET INTO THIS MESS? In January 2001, George W. Bush took over leadership of a nation that was on its most solid financial footing in decades, thanks to years of strong economic growth and a booming stock market. That very month, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the federal government could expect US$5.6 trillion in surpluses over the coming 10 years. The key political issue of the day was how to spend the windfall. Bush's team was determined to return the money to the voters in the form of massive and widespread tax relief. What the world didn't know was that this surplus cash was largely illusory, the result of faulty bookkeeping. from this rather neat article: http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/world/article.jsp?content=20050307_101541_101541 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 11 Jul 06 - 01:47 PM From Guest,Woody's link... ""The tax relief we delivered has helped unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of America and kept our economy the envy of the world," President Bush said in his weekly radio address on Saturday. Democrats and many independent budget analysts note that overall revenues have barely climbed back to the levels reached in 2000, and that the government has borrowed trillions of dollars against Social Security surpluses just as the first of the nation's baby boomers are nearing retirement. "The fact is that revenues are way below what the administration said they would be a few years ago," said Thomas S. Kahn, staff director for Democrats on the House Budget Committee. "The long-term prognosis is still very, very bleak, and the administration doesn't have any kind of long-term plan." One reason the run-up in taxes looks good is because the past five years looked so bad. Revenues are up, but they have lagged well behind economic growth. The surge could also evaporate as quickly as it appeared. Over the past decade, tax revenues have become much more volatile, alternately soaring and plunging in the wake of swings in the stock market and repeatedly defying government projections." A lot of these (rather desperate looking, in my opinion) attempts to bolster Bush's approval ratings just don't stand up under much scrutiny. But you have to admit, they've got a good system going... "Can't deliver on campaign promises? No sweat... just lower expectations or raise the debt ceiling." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: GUEST Date: 11 Jul 06 - 01:55 PM CC Facts are still facts and opinions are opininons. Do you go by facts or someone's opinion. Tax revenues are up and taxes have been cut. Care to dispute these facts using somethin other that opinion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 11 Jul 06 - 02:12 PM Facts are still facts and opinions are opininons. This is true. Fact... the national debt has increased as much under GW Bush as under all other presidents combined. Fact... the Republican controlled congress has raised the debt ceiling to nine TRILLION dollars. Fact... "When President Bush took office five years ago, the national debt was at $5.6 trillion; since then, big budget surpluses have collapsed into huge deficits, and the debt has shot up nearly 50 percent.", and now they are planning to allow the debt to increase to 9 trillion dollars." That's a pretty stark reality, Guest,11 Jul 06 - 01:55 PM. Wrap your brain around that one for a few minutes... (clearly, neither you nor the Hubster are fiscal conservatives, but maybe this will make you nervous nevertheless)... When George W Bush took office, the national debt was 5.6 trillion dollars. The national debt is now more than 8 trillion dollars and congress expects it to reach 9 trillion dollars. When it reaches 9 trillion dollars, President George W Bush and the Republican controlled congress will be responsible for almost doubling the national debt in less than 8 years with their borrow and spend fiscal policies. Tax revenues are up from what, Guest,11 Jul 06 - 01:55 PM, and what does that mean? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Wesley S Date: 11 Jul 06 - 02:49 PM Please see the "I Miss Monica" thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Rapparee Date: 11 Jul 06 - 02:51 PM Tax revenues are up. Good. But there's still a shortfall between income and outgo!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 11 Jul 06 - 02:55 PM What.......first Colorado......now New York? Good ideas tend to spread throughout the liberal bastions. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 11 Jul 06 - 02:59 PM It just takes one to ruin it for the rest. (from the article) Most of the people who sneak across the border are no longer good people in search of honest work, the sheriff of a border county in Texas told a House subcommittee yesterday, but rather criminals who belong to gangs and drug cartels. "For years we have seen individuals enter the country illegally," said Sigifredo Gonzalez Jr., sheriff of Zapata County. "However, recently we feel that many of these persons are no longer entering the country to look for legitimate employment. We are now seeing that many of these persons are members of ruthless and violent gangs." Sheriff Gonzalez's testimony before the House International Relations subcommittee was part of a series of "field hearings" held across the country to gauge voter opinion on reforming the nation's immigration laws. Yesterday's hearing was held in Laredo, in Zapata County. "Some areas can accurately be described as a war zone," panel Chairman Ed Royce, California Republican, told The Washington Times after touring the border near Laredo. Sheriff Gonzalez told members of the subcommittee that the number of illegal aliens from places other than Mexico -- including countries on terrorist watch lists -- caught crossing the border has more than quintupled in the past four years. Increasingly, he said, they try blending in to look like Mexicans crossing the border in search of honest work. With more than 165,000 illegal aliens caught in fiscal 2005, Sheriff Gonzalez said, he can only imagine how many succeed in getting across. "I dare to say that at any given time, daytime or nighttime, one can get on a boat and traverse back and forth between Texas and Mexico and not get caught," he said. "If smugglers can bring in tons of marijuana and cocaine at one time and can smuggle 20-30 persons at one time, one can just imagine how easy it would be to bring in two to three terrorists or their weapons of mass destruction across the river and not be detected." Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Wesley S Date: 11 Jul 06 - 03:08 PM Let me guess - the sheriff wanted his budget increased.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: GUEST Date: 11 Jul 06 - 03:13 PM CC: I means tax revenues are up. They are increasing, growing, getting bigger. More tax money is being collected. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Wesley S Date: 11 Jul 06 - 03:14 PM Gee - I thought Rebublicans wanted to lower taxes... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: GUEST Date: 11 Jul 06 - 03:28 PM Taxes have been cut and tax revenues are up. On Friday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that corporate tax receipts for the nine months ending in June hit $250 billion -- nearly 26 percent higher than the same time last year -- and that overall revenues were $206 billion higher than at this point in 2005. Congressional analysts say the surprise windfall could shrink the deficit this year to $300 billion, from $318 billion in 2005 and an all-time high of $412 billion in 2004. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Wesley S Date: 11 Jul 06 - 03:42 PM So I guess it really WAS Bill Clinton's fault after all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: GUEST Date: 11 Jul 06 - 04:51 PM Was it? Lets see. The economy started to tank early in 2000 due to the collapse of the internet bubble and gas prices started to rise. Before that there was a bombing of the WTC and two US embasy bombings. The feds were hiking the interest rate and first thing in January 2001 they dropped it by 1 percent to spur the economy. Then Taxes were cut in an effort to spur the economy. The America suffered the worst ever terrorist attack which could have caused a depression but it some how sprang back. In order to keep the economy going we are carrying a debt. See the Keynesian economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics and read up before you give a knee jerk rebuttal For example, Keynesians see Herbert Hoover's June 1932 tax hike as making the Depression worse. Keynes's ideas influenced Franklin D. Roosevelt's view that insufficient buying-power caused the Depression. During his presidency, he adopted some aspects of Keynesian economics, especially after 1937, when, in the depths of the Depression, the United States suffered from recession yet again. Keynes's theory suggested that active government policy could be effective in managing the economy. Rather than seeing unbalanced government budgets as wrong, Keynes advocated what has been called counter-cyclical fiscal policies, that is policies which acted against the tide of the business cycle: deficit spending when a nation's economy suffers from recession or when recovery is long-delayed and unemployment is persistently highâ€"and the suppression of inflation in boom times by either increasing taxes or cutting back on government outlays. He argued that governments should solve short-term problems rather than waiting for market forces to do it, because "in the long run, we are all dead." In short, the government cannot tax itself out of a recession or depression. It must cut taxes and spend it's way out. We are carrying the debit |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Wesley S Date: 11 Jul 06 - 04:59 PM So it was Hillary's fault ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: GUEST Date: 11 Jul 06 - 05:19 PM It was the fault of many different things. The president does not sit at a console with an economy control knob. One thing was irrational exuberance according to Allan Greenspan. He kept hiking the federal funds rate well after he should have quit. I would say the last two hikes were unnecessary. We face the same possibility right now. Ben Bernanke may hike federal funds rate too much again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: harpmolly Date: 11 Jul 06 - 09:51 PM I'd like to publicly apologize for my snideness this morning. It's been a rough week. Hubby is certainly welcome to post as many articles as he likes, though it does begin to sound a little bit like a three-year-old jumping up and down and shouting, "Memememe, listen to ME!!!" after the eighth or ninth. Ooh, there I go again. Damn. Until this week is over, maybe I shouldn't be allowed near my keyboard. Molly |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Bobert Date: 11 Jul 06 - 10:18 PM "Hillary Gives Birth to Alien Baby" Rev. Sun Moon for CEO of GM on '08... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 11 Jul 06 - 11:16 PM The right thing to do or just prejudice againt anyone named William Jefferson? Judge rules FBI raid on Hill office legal By Jerry Seper and Christina Bellantoni THE WASHINGTON TIMES July 11, 2006 A federal judge in Washington yesterday said the FBI's search of Rep. William J. Jefferson's Capitol Hill offices in a bribery investigation -- which ignited a firestorm of protest in Congress -- was legal and denied efforts by defense attorneys to have the seized documents returned. U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas Hogan, in a 28-page opinion, described the "facts and questions of law presented" by the May 20 weekend raid on the Louisiana Democrat's office as "indeed unprecedented," but said it was "well-established" that a member of Congress was as bound to criminal laws "as are ordinary persons." Ordinary person? I thought he was a democrat? Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 11 Jul 06 - 11:31 PM "How many members of the Bush administration does it take to change a light bulb? 1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed; 2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed; 3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb; 4. One to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret stockpile of light bulbs; 5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb; 6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner: Light Bulb Change Accomplished; 7. One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark; 8. One to viciously smear #7; 9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along; 10. And finally one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 11 Jul 06 - 11:42 PM "Today President Bush asked if his visit to the hurricane zone would count toward the service time he still owes the National Guard." Jay Leno |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Ron Davies Date: 11 Jul 06 - 11:43 PM Peace--that's just classic. Best I've seen in a long time. Is it yours? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Ron Davies Date: 11 Jul 06 - 11:43 PM I mean the light bulb list. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 11 Jul 06 - 11:53 PM I found it on the www, Ron. (That's why I put it in quotation marks.) It's preety good. Too true by half, however. Keep well, buddy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: 282RA Date: 12 Jul 06 - 12:14 AM >>Keynes's ideas influenced Franklin D. Roosevelt's view that insufficient buying-power caused the Depression. During his presidency, he adopted some aspects of Keynesian economics, especially after 1937, when, in the depths of the Depression, the United States suffered from recession yet again.<< The depths of the Depression was supposed to be 1932, I believe. This administration is all about shell games. Not enough good recruits? Lower the standards. Problem solved. Still not filling recruit quotas? Lower the quotas. Problem not solved? Lower them more. Ah, you see! Problem solved! Spending over the limit? Raise the limit. Problem solved. Major combat not over more than 3 years after declaring it--not even started yet? Call it "the long war." No WMDs? Tell them we did it for democracy. Tell them we don't engage in torture while demanding the right to torture. Deficit huge? Tell them Clinton did it. Response to Katrina virtually non-existent for several days? Tell em, "You're doin a heckuva job, Brownie!" I mean, this isn't even a good shell game. This is a badly-botched, amateurish, badly rehearsed shell game. Yet,the public seems to still be somehow impressed with it. God, it's scary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 12 Jul 06 - 12:18 AM Hell is the impossibility of reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 12 Jul 06 - 01:49 AM Will you folks please stop faciltiating this poor man's mental illness. He is apparenty on some sort of personal mission to rot the minds of folkies with nonsensical drivel from such dubious sources as the Washington Times. If you want to read that moronic, childish, propaganda, go read it for yourself. Don't give him the pleasure of spoonfeeding it to you. It only encourages his obnoxious delusions of intellectual and moral superiority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 12 Jul 06 - 03:01 AM http://www.cbpp.org/2-12-03bud.pdf Over the last two years, the federal budget has gone from surplus to deficit. At the same time, Congress enacted major tax cuts. What role did those tax cuts play? Mitchell Daniels, the Director of the President's Office of Management and Budget, has characterized the role of the tax cuts as "minor" and said that the budget would be in deficit even without them. The three short analyses that constitute this paper examine this question, based on the extensive data that the Congressional Budget Office issued in late January. The analyses find the following: The CBO data show that one-third of the deterioration in the budget since 2000 has been caused by the tax cuts enacted in the last two years. This makes the tax cuts one of the principal factors in the deterioration, rathern than a minor element. Moreover, the share of the budget deterioration that is attributable to the tax cuts grows larger each year over the course of the decade. According to the CBO data, the recession, along with defense, homeland security, and other spending increases, would have driven the budget into deficit in 2002 and 2003 even without the tax cuts. But the budget would be back in surplus in 2004 and every succeeding year for the rest of the decade were it not for the tax cuts. (This CBO projection excludes the cost of policies not yet enacted, such as further defense increases, a war, or further tax cuts.) The CBO estimates do not reflect any impacts that tax cuts and spending measures enacted in 2001 and 2002 may have had on the economy. The President's Council of Economic Advisers argues that the tax cuts have stimulated economic growth and that the recession would have vbeen worse without them. The CEA has issued specific estimates of how much worse it would have been. Yet if one uses the CEA estimates on this matter - which are favorable to the Administration and portray the tax cuts as having had larger economic effects than some studies indicate - the tax cuts still would have been responsible for almost 30 percent of the budget deterioration since 2000. There is no escaping the fact that the tax cuts are one of the primary factors behind the deterioration. One also can examine the extent to which various types of federal legislation have contributed to the budget deterioration. The CBO data show that over the last two years, Congress enacted legislation that cost an average of $260 billion a year in 2003 and 2004. The CBO data also show that $150 billion - or 58 percent - of this $260 cost resulted from the tax cuts. These data demonstrate that the cost of the tax cuts substantially exceeded the combined costs of in creases for the military, homeland security, foreign aid, the farm bill, and all other legislation. (Even if one uses the CEA assumptions regarding the effect of the tax cuts on economic growth, the tax cuts still account for 54 percent of the cost of the legislation enaced over the past two years.) Finally, under the Administration's new budget - which would make the 2001 tax cut permanent, add further tax cuts on top, and institute some program expansions such as a prescriptions drug benefit - the federal budget would remain in deficit forever. The projections of permanent deficits come from the Administration itself. They are shown in a 75-year table in the OMB budget volume entitled Analytical Perspectives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 12 Jul 06 - 03:04 AM http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/14608866.htm WASHINGTON -- When President Bush signed legislation Wednesday to extend lower tax rates for capital gains and dividend income through 2010, he suggested that his tax cuts are behind a surge of new revenue into the Treasury, and he implied that it's enough to offset the revenue lost by these reductions. At a ceremony on the White House lawn, Bush said his tax cuts had helped the economy grow, "which means more tax revenue for the federal Treasury." That's just not true. A host of studies, some written by economists who served in the Bush administration, concluded that tax cuts mean less money for the Treasury. The cuts Bush extended Wednesday will cost the Treasury $70 billion over five years. They may help spur economic growth, but they still lose more revenue than they generate. And unless they're matched by lower federal spending, they worsen federal budget deficits. Tax revenues grew by $274 billion in 2005, a 15 percent increase over the previous year; and receipts are growing this year too. But does that mean the president's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts generated enough additional revenue to pay for themselves? "No," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He was the chief economist for Bush's Council of Economic Advisers in 2001 and 2002, then the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office until late last year. Holtz-Eakin said other factors were behind the surge in tax revenues. Revenues rise as the population grows. Revenues would have risen in the post-2001 economic recovery with or without tax reductions, as they did in the '90s. Asked by Knight Ridder whether the tax reductions paid for themselves, Treasury Secretary John Snow acknowledged that they don't. He also acknowledged that economic growth and stock market gains were strong in the late 1990s, when the capital-gains tax stood at 20 percent and dividend income was taxed at rates as high as 38.6 percent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: GUEST Date: 12 Jul 06 - 09:03 AM Blather and spin all you want to. The facts are very simple to understand: Taxes have been cut and tax revenues are up. All the ifs ands and buts in the world can't change those facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Bobert Date: 12 Jul 06 - 09:11 AM Good one, Brucie and, oh, BTW "Clinton Found to Cause Cancer" Rev Sun Moon for Surgeon General in '08 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: GUEST Date: 12 Jul 06 - 10:22 AM "Bobert admits to being a Socialist" Rev Sun Moon for Surgeon General in '08 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Arne Date: 12 Jul 06 - 12:10 PM Guest: Blather and spin all you want to. The facts are very simple to understand: Taxes have been cut and tax revenues are up. Here ya go: In remarks on July 11 touting revised deficit projections in the Mid-Session Review of the Budget, President Bush once again claimed that tax cuts pay for themselves: |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: GUEST Date: 12 Jul 06 - 12:50 PM Never the less, Taxes have been cut and tax revenues are up. What part of this do you need help with? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Wesley S Date: 12 Jul 06 - 01:22 PM Guest - when you say that "taxes have been cut" - do you mean that YOU are paying less taxes than last year ? By how much ? What taxes ? Income ? Property taxes ? Details please on what you have saved personally. That's what I need help with. It's easy to spout a party line but I'd like some of your facts to back it up. Exactly who is it that's supposed to have more money in their pocket this year ? You, me or the CEO of Exxon ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 12 Jul 06 - 01:23 PM Blather and spin all you want to. The facts are very simple to understand: Taxes have been cut and tax revenues are up. All the ifs ands and buts in the world can't change those facts. These "facts" mean absolutely nothing out of context, Guest. The Bush spin machine (and you and the Hubster) are trying to convince people that the increase in tax revenues are a direct result of Bush's tax cuts. I have produced someone who has been a member of the Bush administration who says they are not. I can understand how you might find this inconvenient, and even frustrating, but you can't spin your way out of it... "Douglas Holtz-Eakin...was the chief economist for Bush's Council of Economic Advisers in 2001 and 2002, then the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office until late last year. Holtz-Eakin said other factors were behind the surge in tax revenues. Revenues rise as the population grows. Revenues would have risen in the post-2001 economic recovery with or without tax reductions, as they did in the '90s." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: GUEST Date: 12 Jul 06 - 01:30 PM I was not speaking about my taxes. Taxes overall have been cut. Are you saying taxes were not cut? Bill Clinton said he got 4 tax cuts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 12 Jul 06 - 01:31 PM We are being presented with two separate (unrelated) factoids, and we are being told that the two correlate. Anyone can play that game... Fact: more people under the age of 30 listen to music on iPods than in 1990. Fact: more people under the age of 30 wear hip hugger jeans than in 1990. Conclusion: listening to iPods causes people under 30 to wear hip hugger jeans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: gnu Date: 12 Jul 06 - 01:39 PM "... lower tax rates for capital gains and dividend income through 2010..." Well golly gee gosh. Jed Clampett will be thrilled. Along with all the land and stock holders. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Wesley S Date: 12 Jul 06 - 02:09 PM So if the CEO's of Exxon, Mobil and Halliburton pay less taxes this year it's supposed to mean that MY life is better ? Get a grip. I'm happy for Bill Gates and Warren Buffet - but the average American is still suffering. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 12 Jul 06 - 02:24 PM "... lower tax rates for capital gains and dividend income through 2010... Well golly gee gosh. Jed Clampett will be thrilled. Along with all the land and stock holders." yeah....along with all the middle class and poor that have growing 401(k)'s, 403(b)'s and any other type of retirement plan or those that hold just plain individual stocks. It probably works just as well for all those people that receive stock from uncles, aunts, grandparents that buy those same types of securities for their nieces, nephews, and grandchildren. There are thousands of security companies that do business with common people just like you and me. Either individually or through their places of business. For those that don't have any plan, it's certainly not due to there not being any availability to do so. Price shouldn't be an issue either with there being millions of stocks under $5 per share to choose from. The stock market has done nothing but GROW from the day is started. It will do nothing but grow until the day the world ends. If it were to end before then, we'll all be in the soup lines whether we have a retirement plan or have at least "prepared" or not. You see, it doesn't just work for the rich. A fact that you guys just seem to disregard. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 12 Jul 06 - 02:28 PM The stock market has done nothing but GROW from the day is started. Did the stock market GROW during the Great Depression? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 12 Jul 06 - 03:26 PM Fact is that stocks cannot continue to grow. Do the math. Once the gold standard was done away with, it became impossible to keep tabs on large amounts of money. It still is today. Fact is, the USA has NO idea how much debt it carries because no one can figure it all out. Individuals likely understand their personal debt, but countries? No way. China has been buying lots of American debt lately. America has been spending lots on war. The profits from war do not work their way back to the average guy on the street. The profits go to big companies who share those monies with their share holders. It means that few profit, but the few who do profit big time. People who think that the 'stock market' will last are living in a fool's paradise, IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: GUEST,Ben Stein Date: 12 Jul 06 - 04:26 PM Your Golden Years Don't Have to Be Tarnished by Ben Stein Monday, July 10, 2006 I have a lot to say, and it's all important (but not all-important), so pay attention. This country is in terrible trouble. First of all, we are major debtors to the rest of the world. We borrow a billion dollars a day just to buy oil. We have a net debt to the rest of the world of about $3 trillion dollars, which is very roughly the value of all the assets in a large, powerful state like Ohio. We'd have real trouble financing our lavish standard of living if we didn't have the rest of the world to lend us money. Inevitably, barring some strange turn of events, this means that foreigners will want to hold less of our currency and bonds. This will lower the value of the dollar and raise the value of the currencies of other nations that export more then we do. This, in turn, will mean that oil and gasoline and other commodities will be more expensive in dollars. This immense debt to the rest of the world might also mean that we have to pay more interest on our bonds to attract foreign lenders. This will raise interest rates and further increase the cost of living. Scared? It Gets Worse Now consider that we're literally bankrupt because of our future Medicare obligations. The total cost of Medicare through the balance of the century, discounted to present value, is a number so large that it exceeds the total wealth of the nation. That is, if you liquidated every farm, factory, home, office building, oil well, port, warehouse, apartment building, and every other darned thing in this country and put the value into one huge bond, it would not be enough to pay off our future Medicare liabilities. And that's not factoring in the drug benefit. And then there's Social Security, defense, and interest on the national debt. Not to mention the cost of living for 300 million of us. Let's face it, this is a terrifying scenario. But it gets even worse. The Securities Industry Association (which, of course, wants us to buy securities) says that retirement saving is so inadequate that about half of us will have to substantially lower our standard of living in our golden years. About 20 percent of us will face genuine poverty in retirement. The Silver Lining But this is a column about living in the solution, not living in the problem. So here are a few suggestions to get us through the crisis. First, we can't assume that the federal government will act sensibly. They haven't done so for a long time, and that's a clue to how they'll behave in the future. This bounces the issue back squarely to us. We have to take up the slack by saving more and more. Economists call this the theory of rational expectations. Whatever we thought the government would do for us probably will not happen. We're on our own. So go to your financial advisor and make a serious plan to save until it hurts. If it doesn't hurt, you're not saving enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 12 Jul 06 - 06:08 PM You're right Hubby.....taxes are extremely unfair. Here's basically what it means for those of you who aren't good at math or readin' charts. The wealthiest 1%, in 2003, earned 14% of the income and paid 35% of all individual income taxes. By comparison, the bottom 60% of all taxpayers earn 28% of all income and pay just 1% of all individual income taxes. This is directly from the cbo. No news slant here. Just plain hard facts. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 12 Jul 06 - 06:19 PM All's well. Nothing to see here. Move along . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 12 Jul 06 - 06:20 PM Show your math, Hubster. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Bobert Date: 12 Jul 06 - 08:44 PM Well, well, well... This "recovery" is not a "recover" at all since it is based soley on borrowing from the Chinese and others... A real recovery involves increasing the wealth of a nation... That isn't occuring now... The US ie becoming less wealthy as it borrows its way to economic ruin... That is reality!!! As fir folks doing better or worst there was an article in the Washington Post this week about how the folks who have done well over the past 6 years are doing even better... Think white guys here... But others are not doing well and, in fact, are doing much worse... That accounts for the average working shmo... Yeah, the middle class is takin' a nose dive while the rich are getting fatter and happier... This ain't no recovery.. This is a domesday recovery... M Yeah, fir all of you who think that the economy is in recovery, great... We know which side of the tracks you live on... Come on down to my kitchen.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 12 Jul 06 - 10:08 PM Click on all the little tabs down at the bottom of the chart, CarolC. Each page will point out exactly what you need to know. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 12 Jul 06 - 10:29 PM Oops! You done went and got caught. (small part of article below.) The same newspapers and television news programs that are constantly reminding us that some people under indictment "are innocent until proven guilty" are nevertheless hyping the story of American troops accused of rape in Iraq, day in and day out, even though these troops have yet to be proven guilty of anything. What about all the civilian rapes that are charged -- and even proven -- in the United States? None of them gets this 24/7 coverage in the mainstream media. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated example of media hype of unproven charges against American troops. While military action was still raging in the early days of the Iraq war, there was media condemnation of our troops for not adequately protecting an Iraqi museum from which various items were missing. When the smoke of battle cleared, it turned out that members of the museum staff had hidden these items for safekeeping during the fighting. Conservative media? Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 12 Jul 06 - 10:31 PM One of those innocent troops admitted to killing the family to his fellow soldiers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 12 Jul 06 - 10:36 PM "According to a 10-page federal affidavit, Green and three other soldiers from the Fort Campbell, Ky.-based 101st Airborne Division had talked about raping the young woman, whom they first saw while working at the checkpoint. On the day of the attack, the document said, Green and other soldiers drank alcohol and changed out of their uniforms to avoid detection before going to the woman's house. Green covered his face with a brown T-shirt. Once there, the affidavit said, Green took three members of the family — an adult male and female, and a girl estimated to be 5 years old — into a bedroom, after which shots were heard from inside. "Green came to the bedroom door and told everyone, 'I just killed them. All are dead,'" the affidavit said. The affidavit is based on interviews conducted by the FBI and military investigators with three unidentified soldiers assigned to Green's platoon. One of the soldiers said he witnessed another soldier and Green rape the woman. "After the rape, (the soldier) witnessed Green shoot the woman in the head two to three times," the affidavit said. Investigators also interviewed a fifth soldier, who was left behind to mind the radio at the traffic checkpoint. That soldier said Green and three others returned from the woman's house "with blood on their clothes, which they burned. Immediately after this, they each told (the soldier) that this is never to be discussed again."" from here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 13 Jul 06 - 12:00 AM It might be easier to take you at least a little bit seriously, Hubster, if you didn't wear your ignorance like a badge of honor. Have you ever considered doing some fact checking before posting your pronouncements? Some of the artifacts were found to have been safely hidden, but a huge number were, in fact, stolen, and many will probably never be recovered. It is a huge loss, not only for Iraq, but for history as well. http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/040408.looting.shtml "A year after the looting of the Iraqi National Museum, archaeologists at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute continue to track missing artifacts. Their work has played a pivotal role in helping recover items stolen from the museum in Baghdad between April 9 and 11, 2003. 'This event provoked great outrage around the world and attracted new attention by both media and the public on the Mesopotamian civilization, Iraq's cultural heritage,' said Oriental Institute Research Associate Clemens Reichel. Reichel initiated a Web-accessible database to document the destruction and theft of artifacts last April, following the museum's looting... ...Press reports following the museum looting last April initially had suggested a total loss of the museum's collection - about 170,000 registered objects. 'Such reports fortunately turned out to be exaggerations; thanks to the foresight of the museum staff, a lot of objects had been stored away in safe locations before the outbreak of hostilities,' Reichel explained... ...As the year developed after the looting, reports both highlighted the damage and confused the issue. Some news outlets began to speak of 'only 40' objects being taken from the museum. Those reports, said Reichel, 'only referred to objects on display in the gallery but omitted any reference to objects stolen from the storerooms and magazines of the museum. The losses encountered there were sizeable, though even now it remains difficult to put an exact figure on it.' The destruction of the archives that recorded information about the museum holdings complicated the job of totaling the loss. 'By fall 2003, the figures quoted by Donny George, director of the Iraq Museum, and Col. Matthew Bogdanos, (U.S. Marine Corps) who led a U.S. team investigating the museum looting last year, put the number of objects stolen at over 10,000. This figure, however, has recently been revised by George to about 15,000 pieces, indicating this tally is far from final at this point,' Reichel said." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 13 Jul 06 - 12:28 AM From the charts... Average income, pre-tax: Lowest Quintile________________________14,800 Second Quintile________________________34,100 Middle Quintile________________________51,900 Average income, after-tax: Lowest Quintile________________________14,100 Second Quintile________________________30,800 Middle Quintile________________________44,800 Share of Income Paid in Taxes (percentage): Lowest Quintile________________________4.2 Second Quintile________________________9.1 Middle Quintile________________________14.4 Top 1%______________________________14.4 The middle quintile paid the same exact percentage of their income in 2003 as the top 1%. The fourth quintile paid 20.9 percent of their income in taxes in 2003. As a percentage of income, that's four more than the top 1%. The average pre-tax income of the fourth quintile was 77,300. The average pre-tax income of the top 1% was 1,022,400. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: GUEST Date: 13 Jul 06 - 01:57 AM Has anybody noticed in the chart presented by Peace and this chart http://www.iatse728.org/home/deficitgraph.htm that the budget deficit was on the increase just before Reagan took office and that it was decreasing when Bush 1 left? This is not true with the Nixon/Ford terms but it is true with the Ford term. Carter inherited a shrinking budget deficit and left a growing one to Reagan In other words Reagan inherited a growing budget deficit and Clinton inherited a shrinking deficit. Likewise GWB inherited a growing budget deficit and now it is shrinking. A sort of a pattern emerges. Democrats turn it from shrinking to growing and Republicans turn it around from growing to shrinking. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 13 Jul 06 - 02:21 AM GUEST'S link. http://www.iatse728.org/home/BudgetDeficitChart.gif |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 13 Jul 06 - 02:40 AM I think I made a mistake. What I initially thought meant "share of income paid in taxes" looks more like share of total income recieved by everyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 13 Jul 06 - 12:49 PM More interesting factoids from the charts... The lowest quintile (in terms of income) is also the largest group with 23 million households. The lowest quintile (23 million households) receives 4.3% share of all income received. The highest 1% has 1.1 million households. The 1.1 million households in the highest 1% receive 14.3% share of income. Looks like the bottom quintile are subsidizing the top quintile with inadequately compensated labor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: CarolC Date: 13 Jul 06 - 12:59 PM A sort of a pattern emerges. Democrats turn it from shrinking to growing and Republicans turn it around from growing to shrinking. By this logic, we can also say that George the first "inherited" a shrinking deficit from Reagan, which he then turned around, creating the largest deficit (by an order of hundreds of billions dollars) in the history of the United States. Only problem is, that's not how deficits work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 13 Jul 06 - 01:07 PM "Only problem is, that's not how deficits work." I don't really know about deficits and big money like that. But I'd bet one thing: I'd bet deficits don't work at minimum wage! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: pdq Date: 13 Jul 06 - 01:45 PM In 2000, the US federal government spent 22 billion more than it took in. Even worse, that figure is based on the spending of all excess revenue taken in under the Social Security program in the year it is received, not the year it is needed. What is actually put back into the Social Security fund is an "IOU". The bustin' open of the "lockbox" was done under the direction of Lyndon Johnson in the1950's. He was Senate leader when Democrats had a majority is both House and Senate. Again, if the US National Debt goes up in a given year, you have 'deficit spending" by definition. What Clinton and his supporters call "clever use of words" is usually called lying in Middle America. Clintonian "budget surplus" is not the same as "revenue surplus" even though some try very hard to fool people into believing that it is. A 'budget surplus' is a 'paper surplus'. The amount of money actually spent causes deficits. This is because the Feds spend what they want and don't feel constrained by the actual budget. One more point. The Congressional Budget Office is a non-partisan group of government researchers and printers. When asked by a member of Congress to generate a specific document (such as a graph) they do so. Said document will reflect exactly what that Congressman or Senator wants put forth. If the document is false or misleading, the CBO is not responsible. Their job is "do what you are told" not "find the truth". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 11 Feb 07 - 09:54 PM Please say it ain't so.....90% sure sounds like a strong number to me. Don't mean to sound alarmist here but sounds as if someone didn't check their math a second time around. I'd hate to see those "warming scientists" having to eat crow. Wouldn't do much for their complexion. Let's take a look at real science and stop all the political nonsense. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: GUEST, it ain't so Date: 11 Feb 07 - 10:20 PM What the heck are you doing back. OH NO..say it ain't so! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Peace Date: 11 Feb 07 - 10:44 PM "Please say it ain't so.....90% sure sounds like a strong number to me." If I recall correctly, you're the turkey who said 50.1% sounded like a strong number when Bush was elected for the first time in 2004. Welcome back, BTW. Trust you and your missus had a great Christmas and that you have a good New Year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 12 Feb 07 - 10:18 AM We had a wonderful Christmas with the family and friends. Thanks Peace. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Amos Date: 12 Feb 07 - 10:33 AM Your minority opinon is interesting, Hub, but I don't see any numbers describing actuall rates of change in the sun, compared to actual rates of change on planet Earth. I have seen numbers correlating rates of temperature growth on Earth and rates of increase on carbon emissions on planet Earth. Do you "sun-fault" theorists have such numbers showing comparable orders of magnitude in the two sets of data? As to whether warming is occurring or not, I think you are beating a dead horse. Not for the first time. Fixed ideas are a loverly comfort, but they don't serve in explaining things. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Bill D Date: 12 Feb 07 - 11:59 AM Hubby has been 'away' looking for that rare scientist who still has his head buried deep enough in the sand to doubt the mounting evidence. Yeah....the 90%+ 'could' be wrong, as that's how science works....but if 90+% of experts tell us that we have a serious problem, and if attacking that problem would bring other benefits, I'd say that's the way to bet! What I don't understand is what, exactly, those who doubt that global warming exists, and that WE are contributing to it, think we should be doing....and what they think the problem would be with erring on the side of caution? My guess is that some feel it would interfere with cherished economic and/or religious 'rights'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Susu's Hubby Date: 19 Aug 08 - 09:35 PM Whew! We sure are glad Wal-Mart isn't here! This is just classic. Going green has turned into going mean? Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh no!....Say it ain't so!! From: Genie Date: 19 Aug 08 - 11:31 PM I'm confused. Is someone claiming that Bill Clinton was/is a "liberal?" roflmao (plus eyeroll) G |
