"clams_casino" > wrote in message
...
> Pan wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:02:26 -0400, clams_casino
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Bottom line is that the current tax code is pretty much in balance with
>>>respect to being a flat tax - most all pay a similar amount of total
>>>taxes as a percentage of their total income. The key here is TOTAL taxes
>>>as a percentage of TOTAL income. GW pushed the percentage in favor of
>>>the top. It's time to reverse that pendulum and not focus ONLY on
>>>income taxes as Republicans like to do.
>>>
>>>
>>Just where do you get this information.
>>The poor with the section 8 housing, free health care, welfare
>>payments,child credits & rebates pay a negative percentage of their
>>income.
>>
>
> which is a very small portion of the total, essentially balanced out by
> the relatively few wealthy who pay little no no income taxes.

among them the always worthless ted kennedy.
>
>
> Personally, I get much more welfare than those you are describing through
> the significant subsidies I (and many others) enjoy through generous
> deductions of mortgage interest, property taxes and a very generous,
> essentially tax free medical coverage. I do pay a significant amount
> of taxes, but without these generous subsidies, I'd never have been able
> to afford my more-than-adequate home which has appreciated significantly
> in value over the years (in site of the recent crash), where the proceeds
> are .... tax free.
>
>
>

> wrote in message
...
On Aug 2, 1:35 pm, Pan > wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:24:06 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
> >Funny, I'm a college-educated business owner, and my personal economy
> >is
> >ALWAYS better when a democrat is in the Oval Office. I cried the day
> >Clinton
> >left and Shrub mentioned the word "recession" in his inaugural
> >address.
> >Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone? Crippling national debt, anyone? The
> >sooner we throw out the big-gubmint, tax-spend village idiot in
> >Washington,
> >the better off we'll all be.
>
> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
> And there was a recession when Clinton left, two quartets of negative
> growth, which we have not had under Bush
> And yes, Bush is a big spender,(which ****ed me off) , but Oboma will
> spend more, and tax more. So if you think that Government can spend
> your money more wisely then you can, vote Dem.

NO. My taxes were lower under Clinton. Two "quartets"? Did you mean
"quarters"? Moron. And no, there were NO quarters of negative growth

well, the "t" is right next to the "r", and ya know what it means when
you start picking on spelling on usenet.


under
Clinton, at least not for those of us who actually produce a product.
I made
more money undre Clinton, so obviously my clients did
as well. There was NO RECESSION when Clinton left, and there
was
no hint AT ALL that one might be coming until doofus shrub-boy
mentioned it
in his inaugural. The gubmint had a SURPLUS!


not a real one. a real one would involve actually having the money
on hand, not just a promise of money to come when the analog tv spectrum
was sold. because that's how he got to declare a surplus. figures lie
and liars figure.

The power brokers have us right where they want us....polarized masses
weakened and distracted by fighting amongst ourselves while they merrily
screw the shit out of all of us


United we stand, divided we fall.


Curly

"CurlyQue" > wrote in message
et...
>
>
>
>
> The power brokers have us right where they want us....polarized masses
> weakened and distracted by fighting amongst ourselves while they merrily
> screw the shit out of all of us
>
>
> United we stand, divided we fall.
>
>
> Curly

and how can we all get united when we're divided up with hyphens?

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:13:45 -0400, clams_casino
> wrote:


>>You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>
>Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly unlikely you are
>better off today vs. 10 years ago.

I'm hardly in the top 1% and yes I am better off.
My stocks made money up until this year. And the market will recover.


> Improved international
>relations can play a significant factor. ****ing off allies has not
>been effective.

They will become friendly again as soon as they need money, or
protection.

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 18:47:53 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:


>NO. My taxes were lower under Clinton.
How did you do that? Bushes tax cuts reduced all tax levels.

> Two "quartets"? Did you mean
>"quarters"? Moron. And no, there were NO quarters of negative growth

Ah the sign of intelligence, go right for the personal attack.

>The gubmint had a SURPLUS!
You mean the he had eliminated all of the national debt, and had money
left over? That he did not raise money from a one time sale.
>
>Any yes, I KNOW the Democrats can spend INFINITELY more
>wisely than the Repugnants
But can they spend your money more wisely then you can.

>libertanrians take responsibility for their own lives.
But you think that Dems will interfere less in your life then the GOP?

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:23:11 -0400, clams_casino
> wrote:



>>Just where do you get this information.
>>The poor with the section 8 housing, free health care, welfare
>>payments,child credits & rebates pay a negative percentage of their
>>income.
>>
>>
>
>which is a very small portion of the total, essentially balanced out by
>the relatively few wealthy who pay little no no income taxes.
And this has what to do with what we were talking about?
>
>
>Personally, I get much more welfare than those you are describing
>through the significant subsidies I (and many others) enjoy through
>generous deductions of mortgage interest, property taxes and a very
>generous, essentially tax free medical coverage. I do pay a
>significant amount of taxes, but without these generous subsidies, I'd
>never have been able to afford my more-than-adequate home which has
>appreciated significantly in value over the years (in site of the recent
>crash), where the proceeds are .... tax free.

Let me try to explain again, do you pay taxes?
The people getting welfare, get more money from the govt. then they
pay in taxes. there fore they have a negative tax burden.

And the proceeds from the appreciation on your home is tax free ?
Wait until you sell. The appreciation is not tax free, it is tax
deferred.
>

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:04:50 -0400, clams_casino
> wrote:


>Huh? From what I recall, the 2001 recession started when business &
>investors flocked to bonds & CDs while reducing business expansion upon
>his election - fear of GW leadership.
You go to bonds and CDs after you see indications of a depression.
Not because of election.
>
>and 9/11 because of Clinton
>
>>not taking Osoma when offered.

>
>What did that have to do with the Iraq invasion?
Who was talking about the Iraq war? That started more then a year into
Bush's term.

>>The stock market grew for five of those six years
>>Unemployment dropped, due to tax cuts.

>
>Hello - the stock market indices are essentially where they were when GW
>was appointed office. Hoe's your Roth? Making any profits?
Yes I took money out before the housing crash, and am now waiting for
the market to rebound.
>
>>>It was widely shown that GW's initial tax rebates
>>>(which primarily went to the wealthy) ended up primarily for paying down
>>>debt - NOT business expansion / investment..

>>Widely known? I haven't heard that, where did you get your
>>information. Cite please.
>
>http://www.nber.org/papers/w8672 is one of many.

You better read that again, that is about the new 10% bracket. mainly
poor people. And they got a rebate.
>>
>>
>>>GW has been all about providing
>>>welfare for the rich - at the expense of the majority.
All tax levels received a tax cut under Bush's tax cuts. Yes the
wealthy got bigger cut, (not percentage wise) because they paid more
tax's.

>>The tax cuts to the wealthy created jobs, so the poor didn't need
>>welfare.
>>
>>
>>
>
>What jobs? The housing industry was the most significant part of the
>job growth over the past six years and that had more to do with the Fed
>lowering borrowing rates in a desperate attempt to bail out GW's poor
>leadership.
>
>>
>>
>>>So the bottom line ends up that if you feel the president has nothing to
>>>do with the economy,
>>>
>>>
>>He has very little with the economy. And that is widely known!!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>
>Huh? The president has everything to due with the economy. He sets
>the stage - business & investors react accordingly. Granted, it's
>mostly perception, but when the outlook looks poor, savvy investors
>invest less, individuals spend less, business es don't expand. Under
>Clinton, most thought the party would never end - the economy grew
>accordingly. Under GW, it's been doom & gloom - poor expectations, etc.
>
>
>>>If nothing else, you really need to consider the upcoming Supreme
>>>Court appointments. Actually, that's really the most critical aspect of
>>>the next election.
>>>
>>>
>>And that is why I'm for Mc Cain.
>>
>>
>
>If more government intervention is your hope (reduced freedoms, women as
>chattel, etc), a continuing declining dollar / inflation and more
>international isolation is desired, I can see where McBush is your man..
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 18:58:24 -0500, max >
wrote:


>*You* *People* didn't believe for one microsecond that Osama was a
>threat and you lost forever the moral right to criticize when you first
>uttered the words "wag the dog".
>
>.max

Well Max I don't know who "you people" are but, wag the dog, had
nothing to do with Osama.

"Pan" > wrote

> All tax levels received a tax cut under Bush's tax cuts. Yes the
> wealthy got bigger cut, (not percentage wise) because they paid more
> tax's.

Aww, isn't that sweet. Pan attended the G. W. Bush School of punctuation.

cybercat wrote:
> Aww, isn't that sweet. Pan attended the G. W. Bush School of punctuation.
>

That's the best you can come up with? Your credibility just dropped to -50.

Marsha/Ohio

"Marsha" > wrote in message ...
> cybercat wrote:
>> Aww, isn't that sweet. Pan attended the G. W. Bush School of punctuation.
>
> That's the best you can come up with? Your credibility just dropped
> to -50.
>
> Marsha/Ohio
>

And coming from you, that really shatters me.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Pan wrote:


>
>And the proceeds from the appreciation on your home is tax free ?
>Wait until you sell. The appreciation is not tax free, it is tax
>deferred.
>
>

Once again, we really have no clue, do you?

Still making up "facts".......... No wonder you're for McBush.

bye -

AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
> "CurlyQue" > wrote in message
> et...
>>
>>
>>
>> The power brokers have us right where they want us....polarized masses
>> weakened and distracted by fighting amongst ourselves while they merrily
>> screw the shit out of all of us
>>
>>
>> United we stand, divided we fall.
>>
>>
>> Curly
>
> and how can we all get united when we're divided up with hyphens?
>
>


I don't get it. What do you mean?

Curly

In article >,
says...
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:13:45 -0400, clams_casino
> > wrote:
>
>
> >>You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
> >
> >Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly unlikely you are
> >better off today vs. 10 years ago.
>
> I'm hardly in the top 1% and yes I am better off.
> My stocks made money up until this year. And the market will recover.

Wow, you're pretty optimistic.

The economy as a whole is screwed. If you hadn't noticed the
unemployment rate is being reported as 5.7% or so which in reality
translates to 2 to 3 times that number since that particular statistic
only records NEW filings.


Then of course there are the energy prices. Unless you've been hiding
under a rock, you can't have missed that your electric rates probably
went up by about 20% and gasoline and oil have gone stratospheric.

Energy costs impact food costs.

Communities are crumbling because of the mortgage crisis.

And people still believe we're just heading into a recession. I have
news for you, we're heading into a depression but nobody wants to say it
because of the panic it would cause. We've now seen 8 bank failures in
the last two weeks which is interesting in itself. I predict that BofA
will be the first big bank to fail.

On Aug 2, 1:35*pm, Pan > wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:24:06 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
> >Funny, I'm a college-educated business owner, and my personal economy
> >is
> >ALWAYS better when a democrat is in the Oval Office. I cried the day
> >Clinton
> >left and Shrub mentioned the word "recession" in his inaugural
> >address.
> >Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone? Crippling national debt, anyone? The
> >sooner we throw out the big-gubmint, tax-spend village idiot in
> >Washington,
> >the better off we'll all be.
>
> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?

Umm, no. I did better under Clinton because while my income was
higher, my
taxes were lower. I have no idea why, but as my income drops, my taxes
go
up. For example, in 2007 I made about $4k less than in 2006, but paid
$1k
more in taxes, with the same deductions. My income is less than half
it was
under Clinton, and yet I pay about the same $ amount in taxes. Under
Clinton
I paid 18% of my income in taxes and now it's closer to 30%. And I
don't
make even close to middle 5 figures anymore. If the economy doesn't
improve
so that my customers have some money to spend, I will have to close my
doors. The Regugnant Party has to go, and the sooner, the better.

In article >,
Pan > wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 18:58:24 -0500, max >
> wrote:
>
>
> >*You* *People* didn't believe for one microsecond that Osama was a
> >threat and you lost forever the moral right to criticize when you first
> >uttered the words "wag the dog".
> >
> >.max
>
> Well Max I don't know who "you people" are but, wag the dog, had
> nothing to do with Osama.

Let me ask the SECDEF to explain

from <http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/>

-------
The attack was launched on the same day Lewinsky, a former White House
intern, wrapped up her testimony before a grand jury investigating
whether Clinton lied under oath about their relationship or encouraged
anyone else to do so.

"During that time when the attack was launched in Afghanistan and Sudan,
there was a movie out called 'Wag the Dog,' " Cohen testified Tuesday.
In the movie, an administration launched a fake war as a political ploy.
"There were critics of the Clinton administration that attacked the
president, saying this was an effort on his part to divert attention
from his personal difficulties."
-------

Now go ahead and tell us you didn't use the phrase "wag the dog" in
specific reference to clinton's military ops. We both know you did.

max

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

wrote:

>On Aug 2, 1:35 pm, Pan > wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:24:06 -0700 (PDT),
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Funny, I'm a college-educated business owner, and my personal economy
>>>is
>>>ALWAYS better when a democrat is in the Oval Office. I cried the day
>>>Clinton
>>>left and Shrub mentioned the word "recession" in his inaugural
>>>address.
>>>Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone? Crippling national debt, anyone? The
>>>sooner we throw out the big-gubmint, tax-spend village idiot in
>>>Washington,
>>>the better off we'll all be.
>>>
>>>
>>You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>>
>>
>
>Umm, no. I did better under Clinton because while my income was
>higher, my
>taxes were lower.
>


I'm paying much less tax under Bush - of course my income has dropped
significantly...................

T > wrote
> wrote
>> clams_casino > wrote

>>>> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?

>>> Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly
>>> unlikely you are better off today vs. 10 years ago.

>> I'm hardly in the top 1% and yes I am better off.
>> My stocks made money up until this year. And the market will recover.

> Wow, you're pretty optimistic.

Nope, completely realistic. The market recovered even after great depression.

> The economy as a whole is screwed.

Pig ignorant lie.

> If you hadn't noticed the unemployment rate is being reported as 5.7% or so

Plenty of countrys would kill for that rate.

> which in reality translates to 2 to 3 times that number
> since that particular statistic only records NEW filings.

Pig ignorant lie.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

> Then of course there are the energy prices.

We've had higher real energy prices in the 70s and survived them fine.

> Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you can't have missed
> that your electric rates probably went up by about 20%

Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.

> and gasoline and oil have gone stratospheric.

You wouldnt know what a real straophere was if one bit you on your lard arse.

> Energy costs impact food costs.

They did in the 70s too and we survived that fine.

> Communities are crumbling because of the mortgage crisis.

Another lie. And we had the same claim about the S&L fiasco too and survived that fine.

> And people still believe we're just heading into a recession.
> I have news for you, we're heading into a depression

Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

And we survived the last one fine, and can survive another one fine too.

It wouldnt even be as hard to survive as the last one was.

> but nobody wants to say it because of the panic it would cause.
> We've now seen 8 bank failures in the last two weeks which is interesting in itself.

And those with deposits in them have had their deposits federally guaranteed.

> I predict that BofA will be the first big bank to fail.

It wont be allowed to fail, you watch.

"CurlyQue" > wrote in message
news
> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>> "CurlyQue" > wrote in message
>> et...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The power brokers have us right where they want us....polarized masses
>>> weakened and distracted by fighting amongst ourselves while they merrily
>>> screw the shit out of all of us
>>> United we stand, divided we fall.
>>> Curly
>>
>> and how can we all get united when we're divided up with hyphens?
> I don't get it. What do you mean?

african-american; mexican-american; polish-amercan; italian-american, etc.
all about turning us in to tribes so we can fight it out.

clams_casino wrote:

> wrote:
>> Umm, no. I did better under Clinton because while my income was
>> higher, my taxes were lower.
>
>
>
> I'm paying much less tax under Bush - of course my income has dropped
> significantly...................

Aren't you retired? My taxes are much lower and my income is higher.

Marsha/Ohio

On Aug 4, 8:15*pm, Marsha > wrote:
> clams_casino wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> Umm, no. I did better under Clinton because while my income was
> >> higher, my taxes were lower.
>
> > I'm paying much less tax under Bush - *of course my income has dropped
> > significantly...................
>
> Aren't you retired? *My taxes are much lower and my income is higher.
>
> Marsha/Ohio

I'm most certainly not retired. My taxes are much higher under Bush
and my
income much lower, like most people.

wrote:

> On Aug 4, 8:15 pm, Marsha > wrote:
>
>>clams_casino wrote:
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>Umm, no. I did better under Clinton because while my income was
>>>>higher, my taxes were lower.
>>
>>>I'm paying much less tax under Bush - of course my income has dropped
>>>significantly...................
>>
>>Aren't you retired? My taxes are much lower and my income is higher.
>>
>>Marsha/Ohio
>
>
> I'm most certainly not retired. My taxes are much higher under Bush
> and my
> income much lower, like most people.

That was addressed to Clams. Sorry if there was any confusion.

Marsha/Ohio

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 06:47:02 -0400, clams_casino
> wrote:

>Pan wrote:
>
>
>>
>>And the proceeds from the appreciation on your home is tax free ?
>>Wait until you sell. The appreciation is not tax free, it is tax
>>deferred.
>>
>>
>
>Once again, we really have no clue, do you?
>
>Still making up "facts".......... No wonder you're for McBush.
>
>bye -

Sorry I didn't get this response, You will have to explain.

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:45:33 -0500, max >
wrote:


>> >*You* *People* didn't believe for one microsecond that Osama was a
>> >threat and you lost forever the moral right to criticize when you first
>> >uttered the words "wag the dog".
>> >
>> >.max
>>
>> Well Max I don't know who "you people" are but, wag the dog, had
>> nothing to do with Osama.
>
>Let me ask the SECDEF to explain
>
>from <http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/>
>
>-------
>The attack was launched on the same day Lewinsky, a former White House
>intern, wrapped up her testimony before a grand jury investigating
>whether Clinton lied under oath about their relationship or encouraged
>anyone else to do so.
>
>"During that time when the attack was launched in Afghanistan and Sudan,
>there was a movie out called 'Wag the Dog,' " Cohen testified Tuesday.
>In the movie, an administration launched a fake war as a political ploy.
>"There were critics of the Clinton administration that attacked the
>president, saying this was an effort on his part to divert attention
>from his personal difficulties."
>-------
>
>Now go ahead and tell us you didn't use the phrase "wag the dog" in
>specific reference to clinton's military ops. We both know you did.
>
>max


You know, I understand the reference "wag the dog". And the reason
that the reference was made was that there was no intelligence that
Osama was even near the chemical weapons factory, that turned out to
be a dry milk factory.

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:59:53 -0400, T >
wrote:


>Wow, you're pretty optimistic.
Yes I am. I have been thru rough times before and it always improves.
Think Carter years.
>
>The economy as a whole is screwed. If you hadn't noticed the
>unemployment rate is being reported as 5.7% or so which in reality
>translates to 2 to 3 times that number since that particular statistic
>only records NEW filings.
Full employment definition from the Dems is 6%. Illegal's make up
about 5% of the work force, and the bad economy is forcing them to
leave.
>
>Then of course there are the energy prices. Unless you've been hiding
>under a rock, you can't have missed that your electric rates probably
>went up by about 20% and gasoline and oil have gone stratospheric.
Yes your right, but as you can see, the restriction on off shore
drilling, will be lifted, and more oil will flow.

>Energy costs impact food costs.

Wheat supply's are at record high levels, corn prices are high because
of govt. mandated etoh.

>
>Communities are crumbling because of the mortgage crisis.>
Less the 1% of home are in default.

>And people still believe we're just heading into a recession. I have
>news for you, we're heading into a depression but nobody wants to say it
>because of the panic it would cause. We've now seen 8 bank failures in
>the last two weeks which is interesting in itself. I predict that BofA
>will be the first big bank to fail.

No sign of recession much less a depression. The growth rate is at a
low rate of 2% , but it is growth.

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:20:00 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>
>Umm, no. I did better under Clinton because while my income was
>higher, my
>taxes were lower. I have no idea why, but as my income drops, my taxes
>go
>up. For example, in 2007 I made about $4k less than in 2006, but paid
>$1k
>more in taxes, with the same deductions. My income is less than half
>it was
>under Clinton, and yet I pay about the same $ amount in taxes. Under
>Clinton
>I paid 18% of my income in taxes and now it's closer to 30%. And I
>don't
>make even close to middle 5 figures anymore. If the economy doesn't
>improve
>so that my customers have some money to spend, I will have to close my
>doors. The Regugnant Party has to go, and the sooner, the better.

So with a tax rate lowered 10%, by Bush, you paid more tax, with the
same circumstances?
Something's wrong.

"Marsha" > wrote in message ...
> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 4, 8:15 pm, Marsha > wrote:
>>
>>>clams_casino wrote:
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Umm, no. I did better under Clinton because while my income was
>>>>>higher, my taxes were lower.
>>>
>>>>I'm paying much less tax under Bush - of course my income has dropped
>>>>significantly...................
>>>
>>>Aren't you retired? My taxes are much lower and my income is higher.
>>>
>>>Marsha/Ohio
>>
>>
>> I'm most certainly not retired. My taxes are much higher under Bush
>> and my
>> income much lower, like most people.
>
> That was addressed to Clams. Sorry if there was any confusion.
>

Marsha. This is USENET. Every post is just out there, fair game. You
simple-minded Befuddlican piece of shit.

Do you cook?

"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
>T > wrote
>> wrote
>>> clams_casino > wrote
>
>>>>> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>
>>>> Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly
>>>> unlikely you are better off today vs. 10 years ago.
>
>>> I'm hardly in the top 1% and yes I am better off.
>>> My stocks made money up until this year. And the market will recover.
>
>> Wow, you're pretty optimistic.
>
> Nope, completely realistic. The market recovered even after great
> depression.
>
>> The economy as a whole is screwed.
>
> Pig ignorant lie.
>
>> If you hadn't noticed the unemployment rate is being reported as 5.7% or
>> so
>
> Plenty of countrys would kill for that rate.
>
>> which in reality translates to 2 to 3 times that number
>> since that particular statistic only records NEW filings.
>
> Pig ignorant lie.
> http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>
>> Then of course there are the energy prices.
>
> We've had higher real energy prices in the 70s and survived them fine.
>
>> Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you can't have missed
>> that your electric rates probably went up by about 20%
>
> Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.
>
>> and gasoline and oil have gone stratospheric.
>
> You wouldnt know what a real straophere was if one bit you on your lard
> arse.
>
>> Energy costs impact food costs.
>
> They did in the 70s too and we survived that fine.
>
>> Communities are crumbling because of the mortgage crisis.
>
> Another lie. And we had the same claim about the S&L fiasco too and
> survived that fine.
>
>> And people still believe we're just heading into a recession.
>> I have news for you, we're heading into a depression
>
> Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
>
> And we survived the last one fine, and can survive another one fine too.
>
> It wouldnt even be as hard to survive as the last one was.
>
>> but nobody wants to say it because of the panic it would cause.
>> We've now seen 8 bank failures in the last two weeks which is interesting
>> in itself.
>
> And those with deposits in them have had their deposits federally
> guaranteed.
>
>> I predict that BofA will be the first big bank to fail.
>
> It wont be allowed to fail, you watch.
>
>

Do you think you ignorant Republican mother****ers could please **** off?

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 07:35:24 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> T > wrote
>> wrote
>>> clams_casino > wrote
>
>>>>> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>
>>>> Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly
>>>> unlikely you are better off today vs. 10 years ago.
>
>>> I'm hardly in the top 1% and yes I am better off.
>>> My stocks made money up until this year. And the market will recover.
>
>> Wow, you're pretty optimistic.
>
> Nope, completely realistic. The market recovered even after great depression.
>

yep, all we gotta do is wait ten years and start a world war. oh, wait,
bush has already started on the latter.

prosperity is just around the corner!

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:34:42 -0400, "cybercat" >
wrote:

>Do you think you ignorant Republican mother****ers could please **** off?
>
Well I could **** off of any thing you want.
As to being a mother****er, yes I am, and what's your mothers name?

As you can see any one can be crude & ignorant, now did that make you
feel better?

And I will stay here as long as I want.

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:24:41 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:


>> The market recovered even after great depression.
>>
>
>yep, all we gotta do is wait ten years and start a world war. oh, wait,
>bush has already started on the latter.
>
>prosperity is just around the corner!
>
>your pal,
>blake

Is that your entire repertoire, Bush hate?

And Roosevelt's actions are now considered to have lengthen the
recovery.

"Pan" > wrote in message
news
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:34:42 -0400, "cybercat" >
> wrote:
>
>>Do you think you ignorant Republican mother****ers could please **** off?
>>
> Well I could **** off of any thing you want.
> As to being a mother****er, yes I am, and what's your mothers name?
>
> As you can see any one can be crude & ignorant, now did that make you
> feel better?
>
> And I will stay here as long as I want.

It was just a request. I even said "please."

cybercat > wrote:
> "Rod Speed" > wrote in message
> ...
>> T > wrote
>>> wrote
>>>> clams_casino > wrote
>>
>>>>>> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>>
>>>>> Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly
>>>>> unlikely you are better off today vs. 10 years ago.
>>
>>>> I'm hardly in the top 1% and yes I am better off.
>>>> My stocks made money up until this year. And the market will
>>>> recover.
>>
>>> Wow, you're pretty optimistic.
>>
>> Nope, completely realistic. The market recovered even after great
>> depression.
>>
>>> The economy as a whole is screwed.
>>
>> Pig ignorant lie.
>>
>>> If you hadn't noticed the unemployment rate is being reported as
>>> 5.7% or so
>>
>> Plenty of countrys would kill for that rate.
>>
>>> which in reality translates to 2 to 3 times that number
>>> since that particular statistic only records NEW filings.
>>
>> Pig ignorant lie.
>> http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>>
>>> Then of course there are the energy prices.
>>
>> We've had higher real energy prices in the 70s and survived them
>> fine.
>>> Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you can't have missed
>>> that your electric rates probably went up by about 20%
>>
>> Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.
>>
>>> and gasoline and oil have gone stratospheric.
>>
>> You wouldnt know what a real straophere was if one bit you on your
>> lard arse.
>>
>>> Energy costs impact food costs.
>>
>> They did in the 70s too and we survived that fine.
>>
>>> Communities are crumbling because of the mortgage crisis.
>>
>> Another lie. And we had the same claim about the S&L fiasco too and
>> survived that fine.
>>
>>> And people still believe we're just heading into a recession.
>>> I have news for you, we're heading into a depression
>>
>> Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that
>> claim. And we survived the last one fine, and can survive another one fine
>> too. It wouldnt even be as hard to survive as the last one was.
>>
>>> but nobody wants to say it because of the panic it would cause.
>>> We've now seen 8 bank failures in the last two weeks which is
>>> interesting in itself.
>>
>> And those with deposits in them have had their deposits federally
>> guaranteed.
>>
>>> I predict that BofA will be the first big bank to fail.
>>
>> It wont be allowed to fail, you watch.
>>
>>
>
> Do you think you ignorant Republican mother****ers could please **** off?

You wouldnt know what a real Republican mother****er was if one bit you on your lard arse, child.

cybercat > wrote:
> "Pan" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:34:42 -0400, "cybercat" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you think you ignorant Republican mother****ers could please
>>> **** off?
>> Well I could **** off of any thing you want.
>> As to being a mother****er, yes I am, and what's your mothers name?
>>
>> As you can see any one can be crude & ignorant, now did that make
>> you feel better?
>>
>> And I will stay here as long as I want.
>
> It was just a request. I even said "please."

**** off. No please, thats an order.

blake murphy > wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> T > wrote
>>> wrote
>>>> clams_casino > wrote

>>>>>> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?

>>>>> Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly
>>>>> unlikely you are better off today vs. 10 years ago.

>>>> I'm hardly in the top 1% and yes I am better off.
>>>> My stocks made money up until this year. And the market will recover.

>>> Wow, you're pretty optimistic.

>> Nope, completely realistic. The market recovered even after great depression.

> yep, all we gotta do is wait ten years and start a world war.

The US didnt start a world war, and the market recovered
in a lot less than 10 years too, you stupid pig ignorant child.

> oh, wait, bush has already started on the latter.

Pity the market hadnt tanked when he did, child.

> prosperity is just around the corner!

You wouldnt know what real prosperity was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.

"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
> cybercat > wrote:
>> "Rod Speed" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> T > wrote
>>>> wrote
>>>>> clams_casino > wrote
>>>
>>>>>>> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>>>
>>>>>> Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly
>>>>>> unlikely you are better off today vs. 10 years ago.
>>>
>>>>> I'm hardly in the top 1% and yes I am better off.
>>>>> My stocks made money up until this year. And the market will
>>>>> recover.
>>>
>>>> Wow, you're pretty optimistic.
>>>
>>> Nope, completely realistic. The market recovered even after great
>>> depression.
>>>
>>>> The economy as a whole is screwed.
>>>
>>> Pig ignorant lie.
>>>
>>>> If you hadn't noticed the unemployment rate is being reported as
>>>> 5.7% or so
>>>
>>> Plenty of countrys would kill for that rate.
>>>
>>>> which in reality translates to 2 to 3 times that number
>>>> since that particular statistic only records NEW filings.
>>>
>>> Pig ignorant lie.
>>> http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>>>
>>>> Then of course there are the energy prices.
>>>
>>> We've had higher real energy prices in the 70s and survived them
>>> fine.
>>>> Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you can't have missed
>>>> that your electric rates probably went up by about 20%
>>>
>>> Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.
>>>
>>>> and gasoline and oil have gone stratospheric.
>>>
>>> You wouldnt know what a real straophere was if one bit you on your
>>> lard arse.
>>>
>>>> Energy costs impact food costs.
>>>
>>> They did in the 70s too and we survived that fine.
>>>
>>>> Communities are crumbling because of the mortgage crisis.
>>>
>>> Another lie. And we had the same claim about the S&L fiasco too and
>>> survived that fine.
>>>
>>>> And people still believe we're just heading into a recession.
>>>> I have news for you, we're heading into a depression
>>>
>>> Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that
>>> claim. And we survived the last one fine, and can survive another one
>>> fine
>>> too. It wouldnt even be as hard to survive as the last one was.
>>>
>>>> but nobody wants to say it because of the panic it would cause.
>>>> We've now seen 8 bank failures in the last two weeks which is
>>>> interesting in itself.
>>>
>>> And those with deposits in them have had their deposits federally
>>> guaranteed.
>>>
>>>> I predict that BofA will be the first big bank to fail.
>>>
>>> It wont be allowed to fail, you watch.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Do you think you ignorant Republican mother****ers could please **** off?
>
> You wouldnt know what a real Republican mother****er was if one bit you on
> your lard arse, child.
>

My favorite part is "Pig Ignorant Lie." You so eloquent.

"Pan" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:24:41 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>
>>> The market recovered even after great depression.
>>>
>>
>>yep, all we gotta do is wait ten years and start a world war. oh, wait,
>>bush has already started on the latter.
>>
>>prosperity is just around the corner!
>>
>>your pal,
>>blake
>
> Is that your entire repertoire, Bush hate?
>
> And Roosevelt's actions are now considered to have lengthen the
> recovery.

There's the "H" word again! Remember, Blake, if you don't like W you HATE
AMERICA.

What's a little unnecessary economic depression? A few million lives ruined,
some suicides, come on Man, it's the American Way!

cybercat wrote:

> "Rod Speed" > wrote in message
> ...
> > cybercat > wrote:
> >> "Rod Speed" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> T > wrote
> >>>> wrote
> >>>>> clams_casino > wrote
> >>>
> >>>>>>> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
> >>>
> >>>>>> Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly
> >>>>>> unlikely you are better off today vs. 10 years ago.
> >>>
> >>>>> I'm hardly in the top 1% and yes I am better off.
> >>>>> My stocks made money up until this year. And the market will
> >>>>> recover.
> >>>
> >>>> Wow, you're pretty optimistic.
> >>>
> >>> Nope, completely realistic. The market recovered even after great
> >>> depression.
> >>>
> >>>> The economy as a whole is screwed.
> >>>
> >>> Pig ignorant lie.
> >>>
> >>>> If you hadn't noticed the unemployment rate is being reported as
> >>>> 5.7% or so
> >>>
> >>> Plenty of countrys would kill for that rate.
> >>>
> >>>> which in reality translates to 2 to 3 times that number
> >>>> since that particular statistic only records NEW filings.
> >>>
> >>> Pig ignorant lie.
> >>> http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
> >>>
> >>>> Then of course there are the energy prices.
> >>>
> >>> We've had higher real energy prices in the 70s and survived them
> >>> fine.
> >>>> Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you can't have missed
> >>>> that your electric rates probably went up by about 20%
> >>>
> >>> Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.
> >>>
> >>>> and gasoline and oil have gone stratospheric.
> >>>
> >>> You wouldnt know what a real straophere was if one bit you on your
> >>> lard arse.
> >>>
> >>>> Energy costs impact food costs.
> >>>
> >>> They did in the 70s too and we survived that fine.
> >>>
> >>>> Communities are crumbling because of the mortgage crisis.
> >>>
> >>> Another lie. And we had the same claim about the S&L fiasco too and
> >>> survived that fine.
> >>>
> >>>> And people still believe we're just heading into a recession.
> >>>> I have news for you, we're heading into a depression
> >>>
> >>> Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that
> >>> claim. And we survived the last one fine, and can survive another one
> >>> fine
> >>> too. It wouldnt even be as hard to survive as the last one was.
> >>>
> >>>> but nobody wants to say it because of the panic it would cause.
> >>>> We've now seen 8 bank failures in the last two weeks which is
> >>>> interesting in itself.
> >>>
> >>> And those with deposits in them have had their deposits federally
> >>> guaranteed.
> >>>
> >>>> I predict that BofA will be the first big bank to fail.
> >>>
> >>> It wont be allowed to fail, you watch.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Do you think you ignorant Republican mother****ers could please ****
off?
> >
> > You wouldnt know what a real Republican mother****er was if one bit you
on
> > your lard arse, child.
> >
>
> My favorite part is "Pig Ignorant Lie." You so eloquent.


Wow, you reply to "Rod Speed"? He's prolly the single most - killfiled
poster on Usenet...

More proof that you are indeed a clueless noob...or mebbe just a "boob".


--
Best
Greg

" I find Greg Morrow lowbrow, witless, and obnoxious. For him to claim that
we are some
kind of comedy team turns my stomach."
- "cybercat" to me on rec.food.cooking

In article >,
says...
>
> "Pan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:24:41 GMT, blake murphy
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> The market recovered even after great depression.
> >>>
> >>
> >>yep, all we gotta do is wait ten years and start a world war. oh, wait,
> >>bush has already started on the latter.
> >>
> >>prosperity is just around the corner!
> >>
> >>your pal,
> >>blake
> >
> > Is that your entire repertoire, Bush hate?
> >
> > And Roosevelt's actions are now considered to have lengthen the
> > recovery.
>
> There's the "H" word again! Remember, Blake, if you don't like W you HATE
> AMERICA.
>
> What's a little unnecessary economic depression? A few million lives ruined,
> some suicides, come on Man, it's the American Way!

I love the United States of America and hate what the Shrub is doing to
it. I also don't want to see McCain as president.

I've seen McCain take un-vetted questions and he strikes me as an
Alzheimers sufferer. His short term memory is definitely showing a
deficit.

Do we really want someone like that with their finger on the button?