quote What's wrong with the over $400 billion of unspent stimulus money?

Didn't you know? They are saving it to fund their candidates campaigns and Obama's re-election run in 2012.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: The Congress was controlled by the Dems too so they were all in it together. Remember the supermajority Carter had? Shall I list the elements that led to the economic disaster that proved to be chronologically or alphabetically?

how about truthfully
or is that something beyond your ability

or how about just listing the GOP supported failed ideas
without trying to spin blame on others

quote Originally posted by ray b: how about truthfully or is that something beyond your ability?

Not at all, but it would be a waste of my time since it is beyond your comprehension.

quote or how about just listing the GOP supported failed ideas without trying to spin blame on others

Sure, I can do that. But again, you are such a partisan fool you would simply seize those failures as reasons to dismiss ALL conservative policy in favor of communism. Sorry, I only debate open minded people. For regurgitating drones like you I merely offer my mockery.

quote Originally posted by newf: Am I missing something here, on one hand you say the budget is the work of congress then you are giving credit and blame to Presidents for past economies/budgets?

Yeah, there is a mish-mash of terminology and attribution. I know that presidents don't make budgets, but I'm talking to people who do, and who measure historical conditions based on presidencies. We've already seen how they ignore evidence, so talking in terms of Congressional majorities wouldn't help the situation. Sorry for any confusion.

Presidents normally go to Congress with their plans, and must get Congressional approval. Unless, of course, the President rules through executive orders.

quote This submission that the country got out of the 1920 depression is pretty silly seeing that during their tenure it went into the worlds worst one and was led by the opposing party while getting out of it.

It wasn't under the Harding/Coolidge tenure. Hoover was president during the stock market crash, and subsequent expansion of government spending ala Keynesian economic principles, which are no different than what FDR did. Both resulted in crushing taxes and conditions for business along with outrageous government spending.

quote Originally posted by ray b: how about truthfully or is that something beyond your ability or how about just listing the GOP supported failed ideas without trying to spin blame on others

I just got a new puppy and I named him after your tactics, Spinner!
Thanks for the inspiration.
Never seen any one spin like you, your the best!
Post a pic of the sweetie if you like.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Oh, for the love of GOD, ray, you must be joking. The FDR, a DEMOCRAT, was president from 1933-1945 Source The House was led by DEMOCRATS from 1931-1947 Source The Senate was led by DEMOCRATS from 1933-1947 Source Explain to me how the Republicans, with NO power, managed to pull that off? How about the Depression of 1920, in the wake of 8 years of Woodrow Wilson's Progressive policies? Harding and Coolidge, both Republicans, got us out of that by cutting taxes and government spending. The result? The "Roaring 20s". It came to an end not because of Republican policies, but because of out-of-control speculation in the stock market.

The Great Depression started prior to FDR's take-over. The Roaring Twenties were an advent of new consumerism based on electricity and automotive transportation for the masses. The stock market was but one aspect of the depression along with poor banking policies and over-production.

quote Originally posted by ray b: the word in context to taxes was first used by bush1 vs raygun in the 1980 primary's I am not a socialist or any other class you want to pigeon hole me in a far closer description would be limited anarchist I would limit federal government to controlling the CORPrats thieves like ENRON watching the state and local governments to insure peoples rights and a few other necessary things like border control AND NATIONAL DEFENSE but with the modern rightwing nuts like you have NO IDEA WHAT A socialist IS BUT SURE ARE QUICK TO CHARGE THAT TO ANYONE WHO IS NOT NEO-CONNED

You say you are not a socialist? If you would look up the definition it is: Government ownership of an essential industry, yet as far as what you posted earlier, you approve of Oboma and his socialistic agenda. Now, if your halucinated mushroom addled brain would remember what YOU wrote above, you " would controll the corpprate theives like Enron". Yet in the same drug induced comment you say "you are an anarchist" which by defination is a society WITHOUT government. What the hell? Can any Pennock Fiero member stop me from jumping off a bridge? I am fighting frustration that would choke a rabid horse.

Cordially,
Kevin

[This message has been edited by kevin (edited 08-06-2010).]

Gingrich charged that the high unemployment that continues to plague the economy stems from "an administration which consistently has been destroying American jobs."

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

So, more jobs left the country under GW than any other President and the he says this? Am I missing something?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Yeah, there is a mish-mash of terminology and attribution. I know that presidents don't make budgets, but I'm talking to people who do, and who measure historical conditions based on presidencies. We've already seen how they ignore evidence, so talking in terms of Congressional majorities wouldn't help the situation. Sorry for any confusion. Presidents normally go to Congress with their plans, and must get Congressional approval. Unless, of course, the President rules through executive orders. It wasn't under the Harding/Coolidge tenure. Hoover was president during the stock market crash, and subsequent expansion of government spending ala Keynesian economic principles, which are no different than what FDR did. Both resulted in crushing taxes and conditions for business along with outrageous government spending.

No worries, I think you explained your point pretty good right there actually.

quote Originally posted by carnut122: The Great Depression started prior to FDR's take-over.

Yes. FDR made it worse with big government policies, restrictions on businesses and high taxes. His policies *prolonged* the depression. Very similar to what is happening now, with big government borrowing, spending, meddling in business and the free market, and possibly raising taxes.

quote The Roaring Twenties were an advent of new consumerism based on electricity and automotive transportation for the masses. The stock market was but one aspect of the depression along with poor banking policies and over-production.

The stock market crash of '29 was a bubble bursting, not unlike the recent housing bubble. I've heard that it was the "automobile bubble", meaning speculative investment in the growing automotive industry. The other problem was buying stock "on margin". When the margin calls came, the whole thing came tumbling down.

quote Originally posted by kevin: You say you are not a socialist? If you would look up the definition it is: Government ownership of an essential industry, yet as far as what you posted earlier, you approve of Oboma and his socialistic agenda. Now, if your halucinated mushroom addled brain would remember what YOU wrote above, you " would controll the corpprate theives like Enron". Yet in the same drug induced comment you say "you are an anarchist" which by defination is a society WITHOUT government. What the hell? Can any Pennock Fiero member stop me from jumping off a bridge? I am fighting frustration that would choke a rabid horse. Cordially, Kevin

doNOT confuse my attacking the miss-information the neo-conned love to use
for support or approval of everything the current administration does
I just think they are a little less evil then the GOP

no government would be an ideal
but real world there must be a check on the international CORPrats
only the neo-conned fail to see that
or want no taxes on the CORPrats
even for exporting jobs or outsourcing or child labor or pollution

some how one would think nuts so worried about a new world order
could stop nattering negatively about the powerless and broke UN
or the way over used and so passe commies/socialist BS wake up they died or are almost dead
look up to see the REAL NEW WORLD ORDER the INTERNATIONAL CORPrats
the very same group your 5 on the SC just handed the unlimited bribes [so called campaign contributions ]
and special interest group funding rules to

remember the old but true GOLD RULE , HE WHO HAS THE GOLD MAKES THE RULES

From an email I received.

quote The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough,...... a lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, a short civics lesson. Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets. And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period: (below) If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

Uh, oh, Avengador. That'll make blood shoot out of rayb's eyes. If he bothers to read it, that is.

more GOP BS spin
both wars are off budget items
total national debts went up every year under GOP rule

and the president has a veto

quote Originally posted by ray b: more GOP BS spin both wars are off budget items total national debts went up every year under GOP rule and the president has a veto

But no where near what the dems in power now did.
Record spending and debt.
Anyone not believing this do the research, or keep lining the "BIG" lie.

Presidents are not intelligent and experienced enough in macromanagement to write out a national federal budget themselves. None of them. White House budget director has control over actually writing/making the budget out and presenting it to Congress.
That was Peter Orszag, who "left" the Obama WH cabinet already--most recently followed by Christy Romer, who "supposedly" was the chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, thus #1 in the pecking order--key word being--supposedly. Larry Summers and Paul Volker evidently are better ankle biters to the Prez.
rats--sinking ship--lifeboats

------------------
Hey ChristyR, Hey PeterO, c'mere, I want to show you something. Look at the wheels on my bus! Look how shiny they are! How fast they spin! Get a little closer, you wanna get a real good look. Little closer. Liiiiittle closer..."

- BHO

quote Originally posted by ray b: more GOP BS spin both wars are off budget items total national debts went up every year under GOP rule and the president has a veto

So, ray, no comment on how much the Democrats are spending? No concern?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: So, ray, no comment on how much the Democrats are spending? No concern?

Doubt it, he is too busy living the BIG lie.

it is all about timing

YOU DO NOT CUT SPENDING IN A DEPRESSION
every time the conservatives try that it makes the depression worse

a basic fact that totally eludes the neo-conned
but then your side does ''KNOW" so much that just is not true
only to be proven wrong over and over

quote Originally posted by ray b: it is all about timing YOU DO NOT CUT SPENDING IN A DEPRESSION every time the conservatives try that it makes the depression worse a basic fact that totally eludes the neo-conned but then your side does ''KNOW" so much that just is not true only to be proven wrong over and over

Well you got that wrong, time to phone a friend ray.

So how many more worthless trillion dollar stimulus packages do you do?
The first must have had a wet fuse, didn't even get a spark.
As it is now the debt will approach 20t by 2020. I think Carter is off the hook, BO is the worst pres of all time.
Over half of the country thinks that the stimulus did "absolutely" nothing to help the economy.
The government is growing out of control, know how you love that.
Please show me we are in a depression, you are the only economist who has made that announcement.
Did the definition change or is it the big lie.
And according to you, when do you cut spending.
Do you really have a clue how much each person will owe when the debt reaches 20t.
It does matter, they will pay one way or the other.

Of course it's easy to critisize and say everything the current administration is doing is wrong but what are the opposition proposing to do? Do they have a plan? Let's hear it.

No matter what the Democrats do will be seen as wrong in the eyes of Republicans and vise-versa. Yes you may believe and may even be right that more spending is a problem but it's unlikely that during a recession someone will come in and balance a budget no matter who is in power.

quote Originally posted by ray b: it is all about timing YOU DO NOT CUT SPENDING IN A DEPRESSION every time the conservatives try that it makes the depression worse a basic fact that totally eludes the neo-conned but then your side does ''KNOW" so much that just is not true only to be proven wrong over and over

Ray, you're full of s***. Go ahead, believe your own bullshit. See how far it gets you.

quote Originally posted by newf: Of course it's easy to critisize and say everything the current administration is doing is wrong but what are the opposition proposing to do? Do they have a plan? Let's hear it. No matter what the Democrats do will be seen as wrong in the eyes of Republicans and vise-versa. Yes you may believe and may even be right that more spending is a problem but it's unlikely that during a recession someone will come in and balance a budget no matter who is in power.

You know what the real problem is? It's not one party or the other, it's which type of economics a given administration follows. Wilson, FDR, Carter, Obama and to a lesser degree Bush, follow Keynesian economics. Harding/Coolidge and Reagan followed Austrian School economics. Keynesian economics claims that government spending can drive the economy. Austrian School economics says that wealth is created in the free market, and government needs to get out of the way.

The Obama administration is not only about Keynes, they are also about socialism - the wholesale forced redistribution of wealth from the producers to the mostly non-producers. It doesn't work, as history has shown, and it can't work, as mathematics proves. You can't multiply wealth by dividing it.

rayb is suffering from cognitive dissonance. He believes in near-anarchy, but supports big-government programs. Those are polar opposites. It makes him sound loony.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: You know what the real problem is? It's not one party or the other, it's which type of economics a given administration follows. Wilson, FDR, Carter, Obama and to a lesser degree Bush, follow Keynesian economics. Harding/Coolidge and Reagan followed Austrian School economics. Keynesian economics claims that government spending can drive the economy. Austrian School economics says that wealth is created in the free market, and government needs to get out of the way. The Obama administration is not only about Keynes, they are also about socialism - the wholesale forced redistribution of wealth from the producers to the mostly non-producers. It doesn't work, as history has shown, and it can't work, as mathematics proves. You can't multiply wealth by dividing it. rayb is suffering from cognitive dissonance. He believes in near-anarchy, but supports big-government programs. Those are polar opposites. It makes him sound loony.

fierobear,
I want to agree with you because, like you have been writing earlier, you are consistant, level headed and are common sense driven guy. What you are doing is demonstrating your logic against a person, ray b, who cannot reason because he once listened to other, like minded socialistic empty headed mentaly deficient idiots. He accepted this zone of fog and never escaped it. His daily consumption of magic haluciagenic mushrooms only keep him from reading any of your (and others) reasoning. As I said before, one cannot bounce an anvil. No matter what you do, it aint going to bounce! His mind works like this analogy.

Cordially,
Kevin
(p.s. Watch what happens next, he will respond to my memo by callig me a name while offering no whitisism or challenging facts and most important, offer words with heinous mispellings and incomplete almost incomprehesible sentences.)

quote Originally posted by ray b: it is all about timing YOU DO NOT CUT SPENDING IN A DEPRESSION every time the conservatives try that it makes the depression worse a basic fact that totally eludes the neo-conned but then your side does ''KNOW" so much that just is not true only to be proven wrong over and over

Oh yeah, spending is our friend

Ever stood in a bucket and tried to lift yourself off the ground by pulling up on the handle? If not, then I suggest you give it a try, because that is exactly how our current administration is trying to 'lift' us out of this recession.

You sir, are not very bright.

[This message has been edited by ditch (edited 08-08-2010).]

I ain't going away till I hear from the liberal left. (Is that a reduntant statement?)
Bump again in hopes I can get a reply from the (uneducated) left-wingers...

Cordially,
Kevin

"You can't multiply wealth by dividing it" You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." - Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931"


We are very close to this now.

good quote but the fool was born in 1931 that is not the date of the quoted statement
and the guy was a baptist preacher not any real doctor
let alone any economic training or knowledge at all
just an other nut preacher

the point is very like your fairy tales about a god
your side un-questioningly believes so much that has no proof or even a rational basis
and hand waves away factual evidence that show your ideas failed before

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 08-09-2010).]

This is why I don’t usually post in political threads.

It’s all he said, she said. And in reality it is both parties fault because they will never admit they are wrong.

Its screwed up and the only way to really fix the political system is to kick them all to the curb without any retirement.

Then start fresh with new one year term everyone.
Now back to preferences to block all politics.
Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by ray b: good quote but the fool was born in 1931 that is not the date of the quoted statement and the guy was a baptist preacher not any real doctor let alone any economic training or knowledge at all just an other nut preacher the point is very like your fairy tales about a god your side un-questioningly believes so much that has no proof or even a rational basis and hand waves away factual evidence that show your ideas failed before

Yeah...the GOP are bad for the economy. Uh huh. Let's see what business leaders are saying about Obama and his policies...

Obama overtures to business fall flat

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 7 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Labeled antibusiness by Republicans and some corporate chiefs, President Barack Obama mounted a campaign to show he wasn't. But his charm offensive has hit a rocky patch.
Business leaders gripe about burdensome new financial and health care regulations, what they see as unfriendly tax policies and vast government spending. They were put off by Obama's harsh depiction of "fat cat bankers" and "reckless practices," a label he applied both to Wall Street and to oil-spill giant BP.
Among the Obama policy detractors: JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, who supported Obama's presidential bid but actively opposed his financial regulation overhaul. Not surprisingly, Dimon was not on the 400-strong guest list for the bill-signing.
White House aides dispute an antibusiness bias, noting that corporate profits are up 65 percent from two years ago. "The stakes are too high for us to be working against each other," top presidential advisers Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett wrote to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Reaching out to big business, Obama named more than a dozen top CEOs to a presidential Export Council, revived a Bush administration free-trade pact with South Korea and stumped aggressively for cutting taxes and increasing loans for small businesses. But it is noticeable that not a single former corporate executive is in his Cabinet or among his top economic advisers.
Friday's dismal jobs report, showing unemployment stuck at 9.5 percent, further underscored the need for government and private sector cooperation to produce jobs.
Still, Obama has nurtured "an increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation," says Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, chairman of the Business Roundtable. Thomas Donohue, who heads the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, sees a "cumulative job-killing impact of over-regulation" under Obama.
"The truth is that not even the Franklin Roosevelt administration was as hostile to and ignorant about free enterprise as this administration is," declared magazine publisher and one-time GOP presidential contender Steve Forbes.
So far, Senate Republicans — echoing some of the same antibusiness complaints — have been able to block Obama's small-business jobs bill, even though small business is a traditional core GOP constituency. Republicans claim the bill is misguided.
"This should be as American as apple pie," Obama told a Democratic fundraiser in Austin, Texas, on Monday. "And yet we can't get it moving through the Senate." He speculated that Republicans were blocking the bill because they didn't want to do anything to help him and were "thinking about the next election instead of the next generation."
But Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky shot back in a statement, "For more than a year and a half, the president and his Democrat allies on Capitol Hill have pushed an antibusiness, anti-jobs agenda on the American people in the form of one massive government intrusion after another."
The current adversarial climate is being aggravated by November's midterm elections. Both parties recognize that job creation has not been strong enough to push down an unemployment rate long hovering near 10 percent. And both recognize the vital role to be played by small businesses, which account for two out of every three jobs.
The new financial overhaul law — while not going as far as some Democrats wanted — and other new regulations along with the prospect of higher taxes irritated many financial and corporate leaders "and they've moved away from Obama," said James Thurber, a political scientist at American University.
"Certainly, the campaign money has migrated away from the Democrats. And Wall Street will go with whomever helps them out the most," Thurber said.
Obama must weigh whether he wants to anger bankers anew when filling the top job at the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, created in the financial overhaul.
Consumer advocates and labor groups want him to pick Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren, who now chairs the congressional oversight panel scrutinizing bank bailouts. But she has little support within the financial community and nominating her would risk a big Senate confirmation fight.
Of course, not all business leaders are negative and many have offered words of support.
UPS chief executive Scott Davis said Obama's goal of doubled exports in five years would help "foster engagement in the global economy for small and large businesses." And Ford CEO Alan Mulally said Obama recognizes that "for exports to grow we must ensure that market access for manufactured goods remains at the center of U.S. trade policy."
Both Davis and Mulally are members of Obama's new export panel.
Other CEOs have expressed frustration, not just with Obama but with stalemate in Washington.
Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric, complained that "government and entrepreneurs are not in sync." He also decried lack of progress in formulating energy policy. "Our policy is uncertainty ... I'd say status quo for this country is a losing hand."
Obama brought former President Bill Clinton — generally seen as business-friendly — and Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett to the White House to discuss job creation. The billionaire investor from Omaha supported Obama in the 2008 election but has since been sometimes critical of Obama's handling of both the financial crisis and the Gulf oil spill.
While Obama says small businesses will "lead this recovery," the National Small Business Association recently issued a report saying that more small businesses are unable to get financing than at any time over the past 17 years. Unless they can get the loans they need "we will continue to see high unemployment," said NSBA President Todd McCracken.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Congressional Budget Office director who was 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain's top economic adviser, said some of Obama's economic overtures have merit, such as his push for doubling U.S. exports and vow to move ahead on the South Korea trade agreement.
But, he said, "I think Republicans are going to be skeptical until they see real action." Holtz-Eakin said "the business community's dismay" with Obama is driven by a sense that "he's saying one thing and dead set on doing another."

So what is untrue about the quote Ray, besides the author or his credentials?

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: This is why I don’t usually post in political threads. It’s all he said, she said. And in reality it is both parties fault because they will never admit they are wrong. Its screwed up and the only way to really fix the political system is to kick them all to the curb without any retirement. Then start fresh with new one year term everyone. Now back to preferences to block all politics. Steve

Join the Tea Party. That's what we're trying to do.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: So what is untrue about the quote Ray, besides the author or his credentials? ''You can't multiply wealth by dividing it" You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." - Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931"

typical preacher all or nothing strawman BS
from a bible inerrancy nut
who is a racist and a homophobe too
you just hit a tri-fecta in neo-conned quoting

he stupid idea much like the resent GOP effort to cutoff unemployment extensions
is if you give any one any thing no one will work ever
would be a true glimpse at the GOP's cold hard heart and unreal fears
but not even near true in fact or resent practice

and yes I do understand your point less government and less spending is sometimes a good idea
you totally miss my point it is stupid to do that in a depression as that is what your side tried in 1937
and you continue to handwave away the true result that is contrary to you false hopes

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Join the Tea Party. That's what we're trying to do.

I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member".

steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

So Ray, if I divide your wealth, and spread it among others, you will become richer? Is that what you believe? Please explain to me how that works. Doesn't taking more of your money make you poorer and somebody else richer, relatively speaking?
One lesson I learned early in life is that you can't help everyone, you have to choose who really needs and deserves help, to get the most bang for your buck. Think of it as an investment in humanity. Some will become productive because of your help, others will just find it easier to just rely on your help.
Government gives money to all that fit their rules, whether they deserve it or not, are productive or not. All they have to do is file for it. Government gest this money from those of us who work in the form of taxes. This is based on a sliding scale where the more money you make the more you are taxed. In other words the more successful you are, the more you are punished with taxes for being so. Is that fair? I think we should all pay equality, percentage wise, as we are all supposed to have equal rights, right? Why should someone who isn't willing to be as successful as I am get a better tax break than me? Aren't they being rewarded for being less succesful?
I believe in working hard for my money. Shouldn't I be rewarded for my hard work by getting to keep more of it? If there is no reward or incentive to work hard, why should I? It would just be easier to not work and just collect a free handout. Let some dumb smuck support me, by his work and taxes, while I enjoy my government cheese, housing, food stamps, and large screen TV. Oh wait, there are those who do this already. I guess I missed the gravy train by being too ethical and working too hard.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 08-10-2010).]

quote Originally posted by avengador1: So Ray, if I divide your wealth, and spread it among others, you will become richer? Is that what you believe? Please explain to me how that works. Doesn't taking more of your money make you poorer and somebody else richer, relatively speaking? One lesson I learned early in life is that you can't help everyone, you have to choose who really needs and deserves help, to get the most bang for your buck. Think of it as an investment in humanity. Some will become productive because of your help, others will just find it easier to just rely on your help. Government gives money to all that fit their rules, whether they deserve it or not, are productive or not. All they have to do is file for it. Government gest this money from those of us who work in the form of taxes. This is based on a sliding scale where the more money you make the more you are taxed. In other words the more successful you are, the more you are punished with taxes for being so. Is that fair? I think we should all pay equality, percentage wise, as we are all supposed to have equal rights, right? Why should someone who isn't willing to be as successful as I am get a better tax break than me? Aren't they being rewarded for being less succesful? I believe in working hard for my money. Shouldn't I be rewarded for my hard work by getting to keep more of it? If there is no reward or incentive to work hard, why should I? It would just be easier to not work and just collect a free handout. Let some dumb smuck support me, by his work and taxes, while I enjoy my government cheese, housing, food stamps, and large screen TV. Oh wait, there are those who do this already. I guess I missed the gravy train by being too ethical and working too hard.

Well said Avengaor1,

With such logic reasoning, indisputable rationalism and pointed logic, ray b will answer this (hopefully) with vapid accusations and by calling you a nasty name. This will always happen to a liberal when they are cornered and have no oter choice but to run away and try to change the topic. It is fun to see my predictions come to life. The liberals are so easy to figure out

Cordially,
Kevin

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member". steve

Yeah, OK, Groucho.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 08-10-2010).]