Frugal Living: Nov 25, 2009

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* ≥◇≤Cheap Wholesale Jacket coat fashionable scarfs Sweaters (free shipping
www.dotradenow.com.cn) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/49e7a5eb8aefa049?hl=en
* "Promote the general welfare" means what it says - 13 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3f1993b181e2faf4?hl=en
* Usury: A Short History of Banking - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1a158a63c70e7662?hl=en
* replacing a muffler on 1994 Dodge Caravan - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/65e53be756dab1c9?hl=en
* Stork Craft, Fisher Price cribs recalled due to entrapment/suffocation
hazard. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b420d2540735be95?hl=en
* Opposition to Obama's destruction of the health care sector is not about
race - 5 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/28531844efc1bbfe?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ≥◇≤Cheap Wholesale Jacket coat fashionable scarfs Sweaters (free
shipping www.dotradenow.com.cn)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/49e7a5eb8aefa049?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 10:38 am
From: tradeyoyo

Suit http://www.dotradenow.com.cn/category-773-b0-Suite.html
Cheap Wholesale Adidas Suit
Cheap Wholesale Baby Suit (wholesale free shipping)
Cheap Wholesale ED Suit
Cheap Wholesale juicy Suit (wholesale free shipping)
Cheap Wholesale Lacoste Suit
Cheap Wholesale NBA Suit
Cheap Wholesale Nike Suit
Cheap Wholesale Puma Suit <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>

Jacket http://www.dotradenow.com.cn/category-802-b0-Jacket.html
Cheap Wholesale A&F Jacket
Cheap Wholesale Adidas Jacket
Cheap Wholesale Bape Jacket <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
Cheap Wholesale BBC Jacket
Cheap Wholesale Christina Audigier Jacket
Cheap Wholesale ED Jacket
Cheap Wholesale kappa Jacket (wholesale free shipping)
Cheap Wholesale Lacoste Jacket
Cheap Wholesale Nike Jacket <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
Cheap Wholesale Puma Jacket

Long Sleeve http://www.dotradenow.com.cn/category-787-b0-Long-Sleeve.html
Cheap Wholesale A&F Long Sleeve
Cheap Wholesale AFF Long Sleeve
Cheap Wholesale Armani Long Sleeve (wholesale free shipping)
Cheap Wholesale Christina Audigier Long Sleeve
Cheap Wholesale Coogi Long Sleeve <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal
payment>
Cheap Wholesale D&G Long Sleeve
Cheap Wholesale EDH Long Sleeve
Cheap Wholesale G-STAR Long Sleeve <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal
payment>

Shirt http://www.dotradenow.com.cn/category-761-b0-Shirt.html
Cheap Wholesale A&F Shirt <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
Cheap Wholesale Armani Shirt <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
Cheap Wholesale BOSS Shirt <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
Cheap Wholesale Burberry Shirt <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
Cheap Wholesale D&G Shirt <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
Cheap Wholesale Gucci Shirt <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
Cheap Wholesale Lacoste Shirt <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
Cheap Wholesale Paul Shirt <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
Cheap Wholesale Tommy Shirt <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>

Coat http://www.dotradenow.com.cn/category-816-b0-Coat.html
Cheap Wholesale 10DEEP Coat (wholesale free shipping)
Cheap Wholesale 999 Coat
Cheap Wholesale A Coat (wholesale free shipping)
Cheap Wholesale Adidas Coat
Cheap Wholesale Bape Coat <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
Cheap Wholesale BBC Coat
Cheap Wholesale Christan Audigier Coat
Cheap Wholesale Coogi Coat
Cheap Wholesale ED Hardy Coat (wholesale free shipping)
Cheap Wholesale Evisu Coat
Cheap Wholesale Gndigo Coat <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
Cheap Wholesale Gucci Coat
Cheap Wholesale KA Coat (wholesale free shipping)
Cheap Wholesale Lacoste Coat <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
Cheap Wholesale LRG Coat
Cheap Wholesale Parish Coat <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
Cheap Wholesale Pjmark Coat
Cheap Wholesale POLO Coat
Cheap Wholesale Rogawpar Coat
Cheap Wholesale Sean And Joh Coat <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal
payment>

Scarf http://www.dotradenow.com.cn/category-1377-b0-Scarf.html
Armani Scarf (wholesale free shipping)
Burberry Scarf<www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
Chanel Scarf <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
CK Scarf (wholesale free shipping)
D&G Scarf<www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
Dior Scarf <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
Fendi Scarf <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
Gucci Scarf<www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
LV Scarf <www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
Paul Smith Scarf<www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
Tous Scarf<www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>
Sweaters http://www.dotradenow.com.cn/category-1402-b0-Sweaters.html
ED Hardy Sweaters<www.dotradenow.com.cn paypal payment>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Promote the general welfare" means what it says
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3f1993b181e2faf4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 10:39 am
From: clams_casino

Patriot Games wrote:

>
>Do the rich get food stamps? No.
>
>

The first valid statement in all your claims. However, many do enjoy
extensive government subsidized meals & entertainment via "business"
expenses. How do you think places like Mortons of Chicago, The Pal,
etc exist? Do you really believe the wealthy are buying $5k - $50k
(and up) seats at sporting events out of their own pocket?

>Do the rich get Medicaid? No.
>
>

Actually, many get upwards of $20k+ in tax free medical benefits. Do you?

>Do the rich get Welfare? No.
>
>

What do you call the vast housing subsidies they enjoy with respect to
subsidized mortgage interest and property taxes? Hint - it's money sent
from the government.

Have you no clue? Or do you just spout what you hear from Rush?

== 2 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 11:03 am
From: Michael Coburn

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:37:10 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:

> On 24 Nov 2009 23:02:24 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:15:14 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
>>> On 23 Nov 2009 20:08:53 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net>
>>> wrote: Liars are Exposed:
>>>
>>> On 14 Oct 2009 05:23:48 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:14:19 -0700, Shuurai wrote:
>>>>> And how exactly are the "idle rich"
>>>>> a drain?
>>>>Many of the idle rich are receiving income that is not actually theirs
>>>>by right of ever earning anything at all.
>>> - Millionaires became millionaires by budgeting and controlling
>>> expenses, and they maintain their affluent status the same way; for
>>> example, 60 percent have never spent more than $32,000 for a car. -
>>> Much of the money they save goes to investing; the average millionaire
>>> household invests up to 20 percent of its income annually. - Contrary
>>> to popular belief, most millionaires are not bankers, attorneys or
>>> corporate managers; most typically are locally-based professionals
>>> such as welding contractors, auctioneers, pest controllers and paving
>>> contractors.
>>> -Eighty percent of millionaires are first-generation millionaires.
>>> http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=4300 Among the top 5
>>> percent of households ranked by wealth, only 8 percent of their wealth
>>> came from inheritances.
>>> http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=9858 - The top 1
>>> percent of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40 percent
>>> of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years.
>>> - The top 10 percent in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid
>>> 71 percent.
>>> - The top 50 percent in income paid 97.1 percent. - Americans with an
>>> income below the median paid a record low 2.9 percent of all income
>>> taxes.
>>> http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=16810 YOU said: "Many
>>> of the idle rich are receiving income that is not actually theirs by
>>> right of ever earning anything at all." YOU LIED.
>>> Truth: "Among the top 5 percent of households ranked by wealth, only 8
>>> percent of their wealth came from inheritances." 8% is not and will
>>> NEVER be considered "many" by ANY standard known to man.
>>> YOU LIED.
>>Not that it is even relevant, you lying pig: but what is your source for
>>this 8% claim?
>
> Can you read?

At the url given by PG, the lying pig, we have the following statement:

"The evidence shows that people who are rich do not fit the stereotypes
that many Americans have about them. By and large, they are frugal,
prudent, hard-working entrepreneurs who did not receive their wealth from
inheritance."

That article is actually about millionaires. That article is correct in
that most _millionaires_ (defined simply as people with assets exceeding
one million dollars) earned their money and did not inherit it. There are
a great many millionaires because a million bucks just isn't what it
was. So the article misrepresents the term "rich" and then PG
embellishes the misrepresentation so as to lie. The VAST MAJORITY of
folks with assets between 1 and 2 million DO NOT have incomes exceeding
$500k per year and are not the _rich_ when compared to the true, idle
rich with assets in excess of 10, 20, and 200 million or more. It is a
misuse of the word "rich" to insinuate that self made millionaires are
indicative of the idle _rich_.

But PG is a liar in that he claims that the statement "Among the top 5
percent of households ranked by wealth, only 8 percent of their wealth
came from inheritances." Appears at http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?
Article_ID=4300 Yet, this statement does not appear on the referenced
page. Nor does the statement seem to be included in the material
referenced by the url given by PG, the liar.

The statement is attributed to "Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow at the
National Center for Policy Analysis" by the American Institute for Policy
Research (a conservative organization seeking an end to estate taxes).

see: http://www.aei.org/article/13723

Bruce Barlet is a supply side moron:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Bartlett

"Bruce Bartlett (b. October 11, 1951, in Ann Arbor, Michigan) is a
historian who turned to writing about supply-side economics. He was a
domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a treasury
official under President George H.W. Bush."

Barlet is a senior fellow at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis

"The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is an American non-profit
conservative think tank."

The bottom line is that this 8% claim is less credible than weapons of
mass destruction.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

== 3 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 11:35 am
From: "Rod Speed"

Michael Coburn wrote
> Patriot Games wrote
>> Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote
>>> Patriot Games wrote
>>>> Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:

>>>>> About 80% work and the rest mooch. And of the 20% that mooch,
>>>>> the idle rich are only slightly less of a drain than are the idle poor.

>>>> Oops! Caught LYING, again:

>>>> The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000.
>>>> The richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000.
>>>> The bottom 50% paid 3% of income taxes.

>>> <<<<<<<<<< truthful but boring numbers deleted and stipulated

>>> >>>>>>>>> The fact hat the rich pay more income taxes then the rest is not in dispute.

>> You said "the idle rich are only slightly less of a drain than are the idle poor."

>> YOU LIED.

> My claim is that the rich receive more benefit than do the poor
> from the activities of government that are funded by income taxes.

And that is a completely stupid claim, most obviously
with the real poor whose only income is welfare.

> Property rights protections are much more beneficial
> to those who own property of any kind.

Yes, but the modern reality is that property rights are very safe,
particularly with the non portable property like your house etc.

> And the more you own, the more you benefit
> from government enforcement of property rights.

Thats another lie. Those who own lots can afford their own goons to protect it.

> That is, self evident.

Fraid not. Its much more complicated than your mindlessly superficial claim.

>>> The lie is that this somehow offsets the fact that we are not collecting
>>> sufficient tax revenue to fund the activities of government.

>> Wrong. The "activities of government" are too many and
>> too expensive to be covered by our already too high taxes.

> My statement stands as is

Nope, its face down in the mud, as always.

> and totally unrefuted by your opinions concerning the size of government.

You did get that bit right, presumably by accident.

> It is a _fact_ that we have deficits and that we had deficits
> during the entire term of the Republicans running the government.

And the entire time the demoprats were doing that too.

> And thieving pigs just kept on handing out the tax breaks to their rich pals

They did that to everyone, liar.

> while creating wars.

Corse no demoprat ever created even a single war, eh ?

Could have SWORN they did WW2 and Vietnam too.

>>> If the rich need to be paying 80% of the income taxes in order to have a decent society

They dont.

>>> than so be it.

>> The "rich" do not need to pay ANY taxes to have a decent society
>> because we can have a decent society by dragging Communists LIKE
>> YOU into the street, spraying them with gasoline and lighting them up!

> (snore)

Just another dozy dinosaur.

== 4 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 11:41 am
From: "Rod Speed"

Patriot Games wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:43:46 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Patriot Games wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:29:48 -0500, clams_casino
>>> <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>>> Patriot Games wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:37:06 -0500, clams_casino
>>>>> <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Patriot Games wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23 Nov 2009 20:08:53 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Liars are exposed:
>>>>>>> On 13 Oct 2009 00:01:41 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> About 80% work and the rest mooch. And of the 20% that mooch,
>>>>>>>> the idle rich are only slightly less of a drain than are the
>>>>>>>> idle poor.
>>>>>>> Oops! Caught LYING, again:
>>>>>>> The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in
>>>>>>> 2000. The richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56%
>>>>>>> in 2000.
>>>>>> and they were paid essentially 50% of the income.
>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>> What's your point?
>>>>> Its not my fault you're stupid.
>>>>> 6% of the population paid 99% of the taxes (on 50% of the income,
>>>>> according to you).
>>>>> That's Socialism.
>>>> No, That's shear ignorance ON YOUR PART. The top 10% (>108k/yr) of
>>>> the population pay about 50% of all Federal income taxes, based on
>>>> having some 60% of all income.
>>> Its not my fault you'e stupid.
>>> Try to PAY ATTENTION:
>>> The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000.
>>> The richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000.
>>> 39%+60%=99%
>> You cant add those together
>> The 39% is ALREADY included in the 60%

> I know that...

> I sometimes use little tricks like that to TRAP LIARS, because its sooo easy.

Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.

== 5 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 11:51 am
From: "Rod Speed"

Michael Coburn wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>> Patriot Games wrote
>>>> Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote

>>>> Liars are exposed:

>>>> Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote

>>>>> About 80% work and the rest mooch. And of the 20% that mooch,
>>>>> the idle rich are only slightly less of a drain than are the idle poor.

>>>> Oops! Caught LYING, again:

>>>> The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000.
>>>> The richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000.
>>>> The bottom 50% paid 3% of income taxes.

>>> <<<<<<<<<< truthful but boring numbers deleted and stipulated

>>> The fact hat the rich pay more income taxes then the rest is not in
>>> dispute. The lie is that this somehow offsets the fact that we are
>>> not collecting sufficient tax revenue to fund the activities of
>>> government. It is rightraded to focus on that which is not at issue
>>> in order to hide from the reality. If the rich need to be paying
>>> 80% of the income taxes in order to have a decent society than so
>>> be it.

>>> The problem with our tax system is that it is not progressive ENOUGH
>>> and improperly designed to encourage true capital development. In
>>> 1936 the marginal rate on entrepreneurial income of what is now
>>> $250K was 15% while the rate on 3 million was 64%. In 1941 the
>>> marginal rates were increased and the 3 million was taxed at 71%
>>> while the $250K was taxed at 39%. The tax rate on normal working
>>> people who earned what would now be $50k was 13%. Meanwhile, the
>>> capital gains tax rate was simply half the ordinary rate. So the
>>> tax on "capital gains" of 3 million was 36%.

>>> That tax code produced a very healthy economy.

>> Nothing to do with the tax code, everything to do with the fact that
>> Japan and Germany etc were still recovering from the war etc, stupid.

> Give the virus its due....

> The _FACT_ that the USA during and after WWII was the industrial
> giant of the world should not be lost in the discussion of tax rates.

Yes, you were just plain wrong.

> Yet the fact that 90% rates DID NOT harm the US economy
> is not diminished by the facts of war and the Marshall Plan
> that followed. If anything, these conditions highlight the point.

Like hell they do. The reality is that WW2 produced one hell of a spike
in GDP and the very high tax rates were used to pay off the cost of WW2.

> Tax policies have to do with maintaining a rational degree
> of wealth distribution and encouraging investment.

And those very high tax rates produced the stagflation that crippled
western economys in the 60s and 70s and eventually the entire west got
a clue on those and reduced the highest marginal income taxes dramatically
and got the longest boom in recorded history because they did.

> And the current US tax code does not do either of those things.

Another lie. It produced an unemployment rate of 4.x% with an
immense legal and illegal immigration rate, just before the clowns
completely imploded the entire world financial system, AGAIN.

Thats BY FAR the best way to do wealth distribution, a low unemploment rate.

== 6 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 11:55 am
From: Michael Coburn

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:20:34 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:

> On 24 Nov 2009 22:31:09 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:16:41 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
>>> On 23 Nov 2009 20:08:53 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net>
>>> wrote: Liars are exposed:
>>> On 8 Nov 2009 21:15:59 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>Yet wages have stayed flat or diminished since the mid 70's.
>>> Wrong. YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT LYING, again: National average wage
>>> indexing series 1980 12,513.46 1981 13,773.10
>>> 1982 14,531.34
>>> 1983 15,239.24
>>> 1984 16,135.07
>>> 1985 16,822.51
>>> 1986 17,321.82
>>> 1987 18,426.51
>>> 1988 19,334.04
>>> 1989 20,099.55
>>> 1990 21,027.98
>>> 1991 21,811.60
>>> 1992 22,935.42
>>> 1993 23,132.67
>>> 1994 23,753.53
>>> 1995 24,705.66
>>> 1996 25,913.90
>>> 1997 27,426.00
>>> 1998 28,861.44
>>> 1999 30,469.84
>>> 2000 32,154.82
>>> 2001 32,921.92
>>> 2002 33,252.09
>>> 2003 34,064.95
>>> 2004 35,648.55
>>> 2005 36,952.94
>>> 2006 38,651.41
>>> 2007 40,405.48
>>> 2008 41,334.97
>>> http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html
>>I give you the nice graph of actual wages as adjusted...
>
> Adjusted?
>
> Your attempt to Change the Subject has FAILED.
>
>>I give you the nice graph of actual wages as adjusted by the CPI found
>>at
>>http://illusionofprosperity.blogspot.com/2007/12/historical-real-hourly-
>>wages.html
>>The data source for the graph is the Fed cited right there on the page.
>
> Wrong. We already covered this.
>
> The "source" is an INVALID comparison of "Average Hourly Earnings: Total
> Private Industries" AND "Consumer Price Index For All Urban Consumers:
> All Items."
>
> YOU SAID: "Yet wages have stayed flat or diminished since the mid 70's."
>
> YOU LIED.
>
> Case closed.

Mine is not a lie, liar. The actual SOURCE of the _wage_ numbers is the
BLS.

HOWEVER!!

Using _NOMINAL_ _SALARIES_ _IS_ a lie. It has always been a lie and
always will be a lie. A _SALARY_ of $16,822 in 1985 would be a _SALARY_
of $33,660 in 2008 money adjusted to inflation. Your actual number is
$41,334 which _IS_ a 23% increase between 1985 and 2008. A yearly gain
of less than 1% per year for income that attracts an FICA tax. Such
incomes include both wages and salaries.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/salary -----------

a fixed regular payment made by an employer, often monthly, for
professional or office work as opposed to manual work Compare wage

------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wage --------------------

Payment for labor or services to a worker, especially remuneration on an
hourly, daily, or weekly basis or by the piece.

-------------------------------------------------------------

http://nationwideeducation.co.uk/pupils/fin/fin_12-16/downloads/
fin_fs_1416_fa1-earn-money.pdf ------------------

Salary versus Wage

---------------------------------------------------------------

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

== 7 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 1:03 pm
From: "Tom Sr."

On Nov 25, 1:31 pm, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> Patriot Games wrote:
> >And as YOU can see it works and the LIAR "clams_casino" was CAUGHT
> >LYING, repeatedly...
> --
> Your ignorance is beyond belief.

Depressingly, Bob Milby Jr. of Clearwater, Florida, AKA "Patriot
Games", continually proves his ignorance is not.

-Tom Sr.

== 8 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 2:16 pm
From: Michael Coburn

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:51:05 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> Michael Coburn wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>>> Patriot Games wrote
>>>>> Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote
>
>>>>> Liars are exposed:
>
>>>>> Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote
>
>>>>>> About 80% work and the rest mooch. And of the 20% that mooch, the
>>>>>> idle rich are only slightly less of a drain than are the idle poor.
>
>>>>> Oops! Caught LYING, again:
>
>>>>> The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000.
>>>>> The richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000.
>>>>> The bottom 50% paid 3% of income taxes.
>
>>>> <<<<<<<<<< truthful but boring numbers deleted and stipulated
>
>>>> The fact hat the rich pay more income taxes then the rest is not in
>>>> dispute. The lie is that this somehow offsets the fact that we are
>>>> not collecting sufficient tax revenue to fund the activities of
>>>> government. It is rightraded to focus on that which is not at issue
>>>> in order to hide from the reality. If the rich need to be paying 80%
>>>> of the income taxes in order to have a decent society than so be it.
>
>>>> The problem with our tax system is that it is not progressive ENOUGH
>>>> and improperly designed to encourage true capital development. In
>>>> 1936 the marginal rate on entrepreneurial income of what is now $250K
>>>> was 15% while the rate on 3 million was 64%. In 1941 the marginal
>>>> rates were increased and the 3 million was taxed at 71% while the
>>>> $250K was taxed at 39%. The tax rate on normal working people who
>>>> earned what would now be $50k was 13%. Meanwhile, the capital gains
>>>> tax rate was simply half the ordinary rate. So the tax on "capital
>>>> gains" of 3 million was 36%.
>
>>>> That tax code produced a very healthy economy.
>
>>> Nothing to do with the tax code, everything to do with the fact that
>>> Japan and Germany etc were still recovering from the war etc, stupid.
>
>> Give the virus its due....
>
>> The _FACT_ that the USA during and after WWII was the industrial giant
>> of the world should not be lost in the discussion of tax rates.
>
> Yes, you were just plain wrong.
>
>> Yet the fact that 90% rates DID NOT harm the US economy is not
>> diminished by the facts of war and the Marshall Plan that followed. If
>> anything, these conditions highlight the point.
>
> Like hell they do. The reality is that WW2 produced one hell of a spike
> in GDP and the very high tax rates were used to pay off the cost of WW2.
>
>> Tax policies have to do with maintaining a rational degree of wealth
>> distribution and encouraging investment.
>
> And those very high tax rates produced the stagflation that crippled
> western economys in the 60s and 70s and eventually the entire west got a
> clue on those and reduced the highest marginal income taxes dramatically
> and got the longest boom in recorded history because they did.

Stagflation was cause by the Kennedy tax cuts and the Johnson dual wars
WITHOUT a steeply progressive income tax, you ignorant virus.

http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/tax-inf-int-53_html_4022842d.jpg

Inflation begins with the Kennedy tax cuts of 1964, there is a recession
caused by the Fed in 71 and then more inflation. The "stag" part was the
shutdown of the Vietnam war and the homecoming troops adding to the labor
pool --- again with insufficient progressive rates and taxation and
sufficient safety net.

>> And the current US tax code does not do either of those things.
>
> Another lie. It produced an unemployment rate of 4.x% with an immense
> legal and illegal immigration rate, just before the clowns completely
> imploded the entire world financial system, AGAIN.

That rate was achieved with the more progressive tax code of 1993 and
with a BUBBLE created by the Republican CAPITAL GAINS tax cut for the
rich in 1997.

> Thats BY FAR the best way to do wealth distribution, a low unemploment
> rate.

All you gotta do, virus, is figure out how to _produce_ that low
unemployment rate.

KEY CONCEPT!!!

The unemployment rate is a measure of people wanting employment and
unable to find it. If half the people currently looking for work decide
to just get along on unemployment then there will be more opportunity for
those who want jobs. Wages will also rise.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

== 9 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 3:15 pm
From: clams_casino

Michael Coburn wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:34:11 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
>
>
>
>>On 24 Nov 2009 22:50:49 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:14:19 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 23 Nov 2009 20:08:53 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Your claims concerning lies of others carry as much weight as a Palin
>>>>>claim to experience in "foreign affairs".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Liars are Exposed:
>>>>On 22 Aug 2009 23:31:08 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 17:05:05 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 12 Aug 2009 17:46:25 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:48:29 -0400, Dionysus wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>FROM IBD
>>>>>>>>HEAD: Democrats, bloodied
>>>>>>>>"Democrats, bloodied over their attempt to force health care
>>>>>>>>'reform' on Americans, are looking more unreasonable and
>>>>>>>>hysterical by the day. This isn't healthy for the republic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The "unreasonable and hysterical" label is appropriately applied to
>>>>>>>the Republicans, They know if a "public option" (a choice)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>A "choice" paid for by the top 20% of taxpayers and given for fee to
>>>>>>the bottom 40% of citizens INCLUDING criminal beaners.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>The public option is nothing more and nothing less than a non profit,
>>>>>_NON_SUBSIDIZED_, insurance company that is totally supported by
>>>>>insurance premiums like any other insurance company that just happens
>>>>>to be staffed with government employees as opposed to bonus sucking
>>>>>high salaried private company CEO's.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>If the "public option" was "totally supported by insurance premiums"
>>>>then WHY do we have to budget $630 billion?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The revenue is needed to subsidize
>>>health insurance premiums for lower income people. That has _NOTHING_
>>>to do with the Public Option.
>>>
>>>
>>YOU SAID the "public option" was "totally supported by insurance
>>premiums."
>>
>>YOU LIED.
>>
>>Case closed.
>>
>>
>
>Read the bill, lying pig.
>
>
>
He has problems with 4th-grade math and you expect him to be able to read?

== 10 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 5:27 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Michael Coburn wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>>>> Patriot Games wrote
>>>>>> Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote

>>>>>> Liars are exposed:

>>>>>> Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote

>>>>>>> About 80% work and the rest mooch. And of the 20% that mooch,
>>>>>>> the idle rich are only slightly less of a drain than are the idle poor.

>>>>>> Oops! Caught LYING, again:

>>>>>> The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000.
>>>>>> The richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000.
>>>>>> The bottom 50% paid 3% of income taxes.

>>>>> <<<<<<<<<< truthful but boring numbers deleted and stipulated

>>>>> The fact hat the rich pay more income taxes then the rest is not
>>>>> in dispute. The lie is that this somehow offsets the fact that
>>>>> we are not collecting sufficient tax revenue to fund the
>>>>> activities of government. It is rightraded to focus on that which
>>>>> is not at issue in order to hide from the reality. If the rich
>>>>> need to be paying 80% of the income taxes in order to have a
>>>>> decent society than so be it.

>>>>> The problem with our tax system is that it is not progressive
>>>>> ENOUGH and improperly designed to encourage true capital
>>>>> development. In 1936 the marginal rate on entrepreneurial income
>>>>> of what is now $250K was 15% while the rate on 3 million was 64%.
>>>>> In 1941 the marginal rates were increased and the 3 million was
>>>>> taxed at 71% while the $250K was taxed at 39%. The tax rate on
>>>>> normal working people who earned what would now be $50k was 13%.
>>>>> Meanwhile, the capital gains tax rate was simply half the
>>>>> ordinary rate. So the tax on "capital gains" of 3 million was 36%.

>>>>> That tax code produced a very healthy economy.

>>>> Nothing to do with the tax code, everything to do with the fact that
>>>> Japan and Germany etc were still recovering from the war etc, stupid.

>>> Give the virus its due....

>>> The _FACT_ that the USA during and after WWII was the industrial
>>> giant of the world should not be lost in the discussion of tax rates.

>> Yes, you were just plain wrong.

>>> Yet the fact that 90% rates DID NOT harm the US economy is not
>>> diminished by the facts of war and the Marshall Plan that followed.
>>> If anything, these conditions highlight the point.

>> Like hell they do. The reality is that WW2 produced one hell of a spike in
>> GDP and the very high tax rates were used to pay off the cost of WW2.

>>> Tax policies have to do with maintaining a rational degree of wealth
>>> distribution and encouraging investment.

>> And those very high tax rates produced the stagflation that crippled
>> western economys in the 60s and 70s and eventually the entire west
>> got a clue on those and reduced the highest marginal income taxes
>> dramatically and got the longest boom in recorded history because they did.

> Stagflation was cause by the Kennedy tax cuts and the Johnson
> dual wars WITHOUT a steeply progressive income tax,

Cant have been when we saw stagflation right thruout the west,
even in countrys that werent even involved in any war at all at
that time, and didnt have tax cuts at that time, fool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation

> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/tax-inf-int-53_html_4022842d.jpg

Just because some fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel, fool.

> Inflation begins with the Kennedy tax cuts of 1964, there is
> a recession caused by the Fed in 71 and then more inflation.

Pity the term was actually invented in Britain, fool.

> The "stag" part was the shutdown of the Vietnam war
> and the homecoming troops adding to the labor pool

How odd that Britain got it without even any
involvement in that particular war at all, fool.

> again with insufficient progressive rates and taxation and sufficient safety net.

Pity Britain had those at that time, fool.

>>> And the current US tax code does not do either of those things.

>> Another lie. It produced an unemployment rate of 4.x% with an
>> immense legal and illegal immigration rate, just before the clowns
>> completely imploded the entire world financial system, AGAIN.

> That rate was achieved with the more progressive tax code of 1993 and with a
> BUBBLE created by the Republican CAPITAL GAINS tax cut for the rich in 1997.

How odd that other countrys got that rate without that, fool.

>> Thats BY FAR the best way to do wealth distribution, a low unemploment rate.

> All you gotta do, virus, is figure out how to _produce_ that low unemployment rate.

Dont need to, those economys clearly had worked out how to do that, fool.

> KEY CONCEPT!!!

> The unemployment rate is a measure of people wanting employment and unable to find it.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist failed truck driving bums ?

> If half the people currently looking for work decide to just get along on
> unemployment then there will be more opportunity for those who want jobs.

Doesnt happen much in the US, essentially because the income they
get that way is so much worse and doesnt last for very long, fool.

> Wages will also rise.

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.

== 11 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 7:16 pm
From: no_one@void.nul

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:27:16 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Michael Coburn wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>>>>> Patriot Games wrote
>>>>>>> Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote
>
>>>>>>> Liars are exposed:
>
>>>>>>> Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote
>
>>>>>>>> About 80% work and the rest mooch. And of the 20% that mooch,
>>>>>>>> the idle rich are only slightly less of a drain than are the idle poor.
>
>>>>>>> Oops! Caught LYING, again:
>
>>>>>>> The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000.
>>>>>>> The richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000.
>>>>>>> The bottom 50% paid 3% of income taxes.
>
>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<< truthful but boring numbers deleted and stipulated
>
>>>>>> The fact hat the rich pay more income taxes then the rest is not
>>>>>> in dispute. The lie is that this somehow offsets the fact that
>>>>>> we are not collecting sufficient tax revenue to fund the
>>>>>> activities of government. It is rightraded to focus on that which
>>>>>> is not at issue in order to hide from the reality. If the rich
>>>>>> need to be paying 80% of the income taxes in order to have a
>>>>>> decent society than so be it.
>
>>>>>> The problem with our tax system is that it is not progressive
>>>>>> ENOUGH and improperly designed to encourage true capital
>>>>>> development. In 1936 the marginal rate on entrepreneurial income
>>>>>> of what is now $250K was 15% while the rate on 3 million was 64%.
>>>>>> In 1941 the marginal rates were increased and the 3 million was
>>>>>> taxed at 71% while the $250K was taxed at 39%. The tax rate on
>>>>>> normal working people who earned what would now be $50k was 13%.
>>>>>> Meanwhile, the capital gains tax rate was simply half the
>>>>>> ordinary rate. So the tax on "capital gains" of 3 million was 36%.
>
>>>>>> That tax code produced a very healthy economy.
>
>>>>> Nothing to do with the tax code, everything to do with the fact that
>>>>> Japan and Germany etc were still recovering from the war etc, stupid.
>
>>>> Give the virus its due....
>
>>>> The _FACT_ that the USA during and after WWII was the industrial
>>>> giant of the world should not be lost in the discussion of tax rates.
>
>>> Yes, you were just plain wrong.
>
>>>> Yet the fact that 90% rates DID NOT harm the US economy is not
>>>> diminished by the facts of war and the Marshall Plan that followed.
>>>> If anything, these conditions highlight the point.
>
>>> Like hell they do. The reality is that WW2 produced one hell of a spike in
>>> GDP and the very high tax rates were used to pay off the cost of WW2.
>
>>>> Tax policies have to do with maintaining a rational degree of wealth
>>>> distribution and encouraging investment.
>
>>> And those very high tax rates produced the stagflation that crippled
>>> western economys in the 60s and 70s and eventually the entire west
>>> got a clue on those and reduced the highest marginal income taxes
>>> dramatically and got the longest boom in recorded history because they did.
>
>> Stagflation was cause by the Kennedy tax cuts and the Johnson
>> dual wars WITHOUT a steeply progressive income tax,
>
>Cant have been when we saw stagflation right thruout the west,
>even in countrys that werent even involved in any war at all at
>that time, and didnt have tax cuts at that time, fool.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation
>
>> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/tax-inf-int-53_html_4022842d.jpg
>
>Just because some fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel, fool.
>
>> Inflation begins with the Kennedy tax cuts of 1964, there is
>> a recession caused by the Fed in 71 and then more inflation.
>
>Pity the term was actually invented in Britain, fool.
>
>> The "stag" part was the shutdown of the Vietnam war
>> and the homecoming troops adding to the labor pool
>
>How odd that Britain got it without even any
>involvement in that particular war at all, fool.
>
>> again with insufficient progressive rates and taxation and sufficient safety net.
>
>Pity Britain had those at that time, fool.
>
>>>> And the current US tax code does not do either of those things.
>
>>> Another lie. It produced an unemployment rate of 4.x% with an
>>> immense legal and illegal immigration rate, just before the clowns
>>> completely imploded the entire world financial system, AGAIN.
>
>> That rate was achieved with the more progressive tax code of 1993 and with a
>> BUBBLE created by the Republican CAPITAL GAINS tax cut for the rich in 1997.
>
>How odd that other countrys got that rate without that, fool.
>
>>> Thats BY FAR the best way to do wealth distribution, a low unemploment rate.
>
>> All you gotta do, virus, is figure out how to _produce_ that low unemployment rate.
>
>Dont need to, those economys clearly had worked out how to do that, fool.
>
>> KEY CONCEPT!!!
>
>> The unemployment rate is a measure of people wanting employment and unable to find it.
>
>You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist failed truck driving bums ?
>
>> If half the people currently looking for work decide to just get along on
>> unemployment then there will be more opportunity for those who want jobs.
>
>Doesnt happen much in the US, essentially because the income they
>get that way is so much worse and doesnt last for very long, fool.
>
>> Wages will also rise.
>
>Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
>

The FOOL speaks!

== 12 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 9:51 pm
From: Michael Coburn

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:27:16 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

I appreciate you bringing my attention to this swill in wikipedia. It
needs to be corrected and I will get around to it in a while. The oil
price hikes were a response to the inflation and not the cause of it.

>> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/tax-inf-int-53_html_4022842d.jpg
>
> Just because some fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel, fool.

All of the numbers behind that picture are from government sources. No
"winger sites" or Cato crap.

>> Inflation begins with the Kennedy tax cuts of 1964, there is a
>> recession caused by the Fed in 71 and then more inflation.
>
> Pity the term was actually invented in Britain, fool.

Doesn't matter where the term was invented. The first we heard of it was
from Nixon. The guy that did away with the final link to gold.

>> The "stag" part was the shutdown of the Vietnam war and the homecoming
>> troops adding to the labor pool
>
> How odd that Britain got it without even any involvement in that
> particular war at all, fool.

I do need to look into that. But when the largest economy on the planet
takes a dump it tends to be contagious.

>> again with insufficient progressive rates and taxation and sufficient
>> safety net.
>
> Pity Britain had those at that time, fool.
>
>>>> And the current US tax code does not do either of those things.
>
>>> Another lie. It produced an unemployment rate of 4.x% with an immense
>>> legal and illegal immigration rate, just before the clowns completely
>>> imploded the entire world financial system, AGAIN.
>
>> That rate was achieved with the more progressive tax code of 1993 and
>> with a BUBBLE created by the Republican CAPITAL GAINS tax cut for the
>> rich in 1997.
>
> How odd that other countrys got that rate without that, fool.
>
>>> Thats BY FAR the best way to do wealth distribution, a low unemploment
>>> rate.
>
>> All you gotta do, virus, is figure out how to _produce_ that low
>> unemployment rate.
>
> Dont need to, those economys clearly had worked out how to do that,
> fool.
>
>> KEY CONCEPT!!!
>
>> The unemployment rate is a measure of people wanting employment and
>> unable to find it.
>
> You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist failed truck
> driving bums ?
>
>> If half the people currently looking for work decide to just get along
>> on unemployment then there will be more opportunity for those who want
>> jobs.
>
> Doesnt happen much in the US, essentially because the income they get
> that way is so much worse and doesnt last for very long, fool.
>
>> Wages will also rise.
>
> Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

== 13 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 9:55 pm
From: Michael Coburn

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:16:32 -0500, no_one wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:27:16 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Michael Coburn wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>>>>>> Patriot Games wrote
>>>>>>>> Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote
>>
>>>>>>>> Liars are exposed:
>>
>>>>>>>> Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote
>>
>>>>>>>>> About 80% work and the rest mooch. And of the 20% that mooch,
>>>>>>>>> the idle rich are only slightly less of a drain than are the
>>>>>>>>> idle poor.
>>
>>>>>>>> Oops! Caught LYING, again:
>>
>>>>>>>> The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000.
>>>>>>>> The richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000.
>>>>>>>> The bottom 50% paid 3% of income taxes.
>>
>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<< truthful but boring numbers deleted and stipulated
>>
>>>>>>> The fact hat the rich pay more income taxes then the rest is not
>>>>>>> in dispute. The lie is that this somehow offsets the fact that we
>>>>>>> are not collecting sufficient tax revenue to fund the activities
>>>>>>> of government. It is rightraded to focus on that which is not at
>>>>>>> issue in order to hide from the reality. If the rich need to be
>>>>>>> paying 80% of the income taxes in order to have a decent society
>>>>>>> than so be it.
>>
>>>>>>> The problem with our tax system is that it is not progressive
>>>>>>> ENOUGH and improperly designed to encourage true capital
>>>>>>> development. In 1936 the marginal rate on entrepreneurial income
>>>>>>> of what is now $250K was 15% while the rate on 3 million was 64%.
>>>>>>> In 1941 the marginal rates were increased and the 3 million was
>>>>>>> taxed at 71% while the $250K was taxed at 39%. The tax rate on
>>>>>>> normal working people who earned what would now be $50k was 13%.
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, the capital gains tax rate was simply half the ordinary
>>>>>>> rate. So the tax on "capital gains" of 3 million was 36%.
>>
>>>>>>> That tax code produced a very healthy economy.
>>
>>>>>> Nothing to do with the tax code, everything to do with the fact
>>>>>> that Japan and Germany etc were still recovering from the war etc,
>>>>>> stupid.
>>
>>>>> Give the virus its due....
>>
>>>>> The _FACT_ that the USA during and after WWII was the industrial
>>>>> giant of the world should not be lost in the discussion of tax
>>>>> rates.
>>
>>>> Yes, you were just plain wrong.
>>
>>>>> Yet the fact that 90% rates DID NOT harm the US economy is not
>>>>> diminished by the facts of war and the Marshall Plan that followed.
>>>>> If anything, these conditions highlight the point.
>>
>>>> Like hell they do. The reality is that WW2 produced one hell of a
>>>> spike in GDP and the very high tax rates were used to pay off the
>>>> cost of WW2.
>>
>>>>> Tax policies have to do with maintaining a rational degree of wealth
>>>>> distribution and encouraging investment.
>>
>>>> And those very high tax rates produced the stagflation that crippled
>>>> western economys in the 60s and 70s and eventually the entire west
>>>> got a clue on those and reduced the highest marginal income taxes
>>>> dramatically and got the longest boom in recorded history because
>>>> they did.
>>
>>> Stagflation was cause by the Kennedy tax cuts and the Johnson dual
>>> wars WITHOUT a steeply progressive income tax,
>>
>>Cant have been when we saw stagflation right thruout the west, even in
>>countrys that werent even involved in any war at all at that time, and
>>didnt have tax cuts at that time, fool.
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation
>>
>>> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/tax-inf-int-53_html_4022842d.jpg
>>
>>Just because some fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel, fool.
>>
>>> Inflation begins with the Kennedy tax cuts of 1964, there is a
>>> recession caused by the Fed in 71 and then more inflation.
>>
>>Pity the term was actually invented in Britain, fool.
>>
>>> The "stag" part was the shutdown of the Vietnam war and the homecoming
>>> troops adding to the labor pool
>>
>>How odd that Britain got it without even any involvement in that
>>particular war at all, fool.
>>
>>> again with insufficient progressive rates and taxation and sufficient
>>> safety net.
>>
>>Pity Britain had those at that time, fool.
>>
>>>>> And the current US tax code does not do either of those things.
>>
>>>> Another lie. It produced an unemployment rate of 4.x% with an immense
>>>> legal and illegal immigration rate, just before the clowns completely
>>>> imploded the entire world financial system, AGAIN.
>>
>>> That rate was achieved with the more progressive tax code of 1993 and
>>> with a BUBBLE created by the Republican CAPITAL GAINS tax cut for the
>>> rich in 1997.
>>
>>How odd that other countrys got that rate without that, fool.
>>
>>>> Thats BY FAR the best way to do wealth distribution, a low
>>>> unemploment rate.
>>
>>> All you gotta do, virus, is figure out how to _produce_ that low
>>> unemployment rate.
>>
>>Dont need to, those economys clearly had worked out how to do that,
>>fool.
>>
>>> KEY CONCEPT!!!
>>
>>> The unemployment rate is a measure of people wanting employment and
>>> unable to find it.
>>
>>You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist failed truck
>>driving bums ?
>>
>>> If half the people currently looking for work decide to just get along
>>> on unemployment then there will be more opportunity for those who want
>>> jobs.
>>
>>Doesnt happen much in the US, essentially because the income they get
>>that way is so much worse and doesnt last for very long, fool.
>>
>>> Wages will also rise.
>>
>>Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
>>
>>
> The FOOL speaks!

The virus made some good observations about the global nature of the
"flation" malady that I need to look at. Like moneys and type writers a
properly spelled word emerges from time to time.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Usury: A Short History of Banking
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1a158a63c70e7662?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 10:47 am
From: Western Voice

Usury: A Short History of Banking

http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/usury.gif

Surely the Government is in control of the country and its supply of
money? Surely money is only a symbolic token to facilitate the
production, exchange and distribution of goods and services? Not so,
say the Third Positionists, who reject both Capitalism and
Communism...

In the old days there was no paper money. The accepted token of
exchange was precious metal minted into coins by the Church and the
Crown. Because there was only a limited amount of gold and silver
available, the economic life of the nation had a certain regularity.

An even greater restriction existed throughout Christendom. This was a
prohibition against usury, or charging interest. The Church held it to
be a grave sin and the code was upheld by the civil powers. There were
harsh penalties for those who broke the law.

The regulation of usury was to prevent the separation of money from
reality. Money is not a good, it is a measure. It is fraud to pretend
otherwise, and constitutes theft. Usury is making money from lending
money; it is making money from nothing. This is exactly what is
happening today on a colossal scale.

Several important things arose from the prohibition of usury in
medieval Christendom. Firstly Jews, who had taken to wandering around
Europe in the Middle Ages, began to specialize in money-lending and
other practices which were forbidden to Christians. Exploited
Christians, both peasants and aristocracy, found themselves being bled
dry by usurers, which is why there were sporadic uprisings,
imprisonments and expulsions of Jews throughout Europe. It is one
reason why King Edward I expelled these perfidious people from England
in 1290. Oliver Cromwell allowed them back when the moral authority of
the Church was undermined and the King was beheaded in 1649.

Secondly, gold coins, jewels and other valuables were deposited with
people who held strongboxes. This was usually with goldsmiths and
money-lenders who, more often than not, were one and the same. These
loan-sharks and scriveners realized that, without much chance of being
found out, they could charge people for looking after their deposits
and then use those deposits – which did not belong to them – to make
loans to other people at interest. They soon became rich and powerful.

Gold coins are heavy and awkward to carry around so the custom arose
whereby the money-lenders would issue credit notes to depositors who
began to trade these notes between themselves in commercial
transactions. Paper money had come into existence.

A new form of usury developed as the swindling money-lenders realized
the immoral benefits that could be obtained from such a situation. It
became apparent to these thieves that they could go one step further
than dishonestly using other people's money for financial advantage at
no cost to themselves. They could invent money from absolutely
nothing. They could issue credit notes with nothing to back them up
and put them into circulation as interest-bearing debts. No-one would
be any the wiser. They calculated that they could safely issue notes
for up to ten times more than the gold deposits they held, because the
depositors would never ask for their deposits back all at the same
time.

The principle of modern banking was thus established: invent money
from nothing, put it into circulation as "running cash notes" that
have to be paid back with real wealth that is produced from our
labour, sit back and become unbelievably wealthy and powerful men:
hidden rulers of nations.

In England this deceitful system was officially sanctioned in 1694.
The usurper of the throne, William of Orange, had overthrown the
legitimate King James II with the financial backing and plotting of
powerful Jewish financiers in Amsterdam. In return he gave the
sovereignty of England to a group of financiers by means of a Charter
allowing them to call themselves the Bank of England. The Charter made
no mention of issuing the nation's money, but within minutes of
signing the new Bank officials were discussing the form of their
"running cash notes." The same system was adopted in every country by
a process of Masonic revolution and manipulation.

FREEMASONRY AND COMMUNISM

Socialist theorists and ideologues have never attacked the essential
mechanism of capitalism. Although the injustices of the capitalist
system have been attacked in volume after volume, and rightly so, they
have never even hinted at the usury upon which the whole system is
built and from which all the other injustices stem.

Perhaps this is because so many Communist leaders are Jewish. Most of
the 'Russian Revolutionists' of 1917 were actually Jews from the lower
east side of New York City. Two hundred and seventy-five of them were
conveyed to Russia aboard the S.S. Christiana, led by Trotsky and
financed by Kuhns, Loebs, Schiffs and Warburgs. This cosy circle of
Jews and Freemasons financed both sides of the Great War.

Marx and Engels, two more Jews, wrote the Communist Manifesto on
behalf of a secret society calling themselves 'The League of Just
Men.' This secret society was an arm of the Illuminati, whose power
and influence was the catalyst of the French Revolution. One of the
founding members of the Illuminati was the House of Rothschild, the
Jewish banking house which practically invented supra-nationalism for
personal profit.

THE SITUATION TODAY

Nowadays banking has become extremely sophisticated but the hidden and
usurious mechanism behind it remains the same. After a big enquiry,
hushed up as much as possible, the Bank of England was nationalised in
1946. In theory control of the Bank of England should then have passed
from a group of private individuals to the British Government, but
this is still not the case. Nationalisation only added a thin veneer
of respectability.

The British Treasury, in conjunction with the Bank of England's
advisers to the Government, determine how much paper money and coin
will be issued each year. This has to accord with the wealth of the
nation for that year. But because banknotes and coins only account for
a tiny percentage of financial transactions, it makes no difference to
the bankers at all. Most financial transactions are carried out with
abstract figures on a computer screen that have no relationship to
real wealth. Everything has to be paid for at interest though – even
when it doesn't exist!

The Government still has to pay interest on old and new loans from the
Bank. Only a few years ago it was announced that the interest debt on
a loan taken during the Napoleonic War had just been paid off! This is
where much of our tax money goes.

THE NEXT STAGE

The next stage of development for international finance is to get rid
of cash altogether. Then the token accountability of the bankers will
disappear along with the cash. Their intention is that everyone will
have to use credit/debit cards for every type of commercial
transaction.

Electronic technology, when used this way, and when it is not merely
widespread but compulsory, will give them complete control of every
man, woman and child in the world. If you cannot buy or sell – food,
petrol, clothes – without a card you are completely at their mercy. If
you lose the card or it doesn't work for some reason you will suffer
until issued with a replacement. If you make a protest against some
particular injustice they could invalidate your card. The next time
you go to the supermarket your card may not work. You won't officially
exist!

Who benefits from such a scheme? The politicians or the bankers? To
ask the question is to answer it. The Bank of England is the real, but
hidden, government of the country. The Government and the politicians
are merely puppets controlled by the Bank – or, more accurately, the
international banking families. None of our cowardly politicians dare
stand up to these hidden and unelected rulers of the world, so
powerful have they become. Two American presidents, possibly three,
were assassinated for attempting to do so. It is far easier for them
to submit to the system and enjoy a rich life than expose the real
tyrants: tyrants who cause high taxes, unemployment, war, famine and
misery for the rest of us. But these despots of the New World Order
forget that Truth is more powerful than they could ever become. And
Truth brings Justice!

The pen is mightier than the pound! This article first appeared in
issue 5 of 'The Anvil,' published by The Third Position, BCM ITP,
London, WC1N 3XX.

http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/usury.html

Is this still true today? See for yourself: Who are the Jews?

While this list may never be complete, it will cover most of the
Jewish names one is likely to encounter in everyday Western life.
Unlike many gentile names, there is such a thing as a 'Jewish name.'
Many Jewish persons can be recognized as being Jewish by their surname
[last name], although not always--some Jews are adopted, or their
forebears changed the family surname, or their surname simply does not
appear Jewish.

Here are the most common Jewish names likely to be encountered:

-Names ending in "-berg" (Goldberg, Weinberg, etc.)

-Names ending in "-man" (Goldman, Lightman, etc.)

-Names ending in "-stein" (Einstein, Perlstein, etc.)

-Names that sound "precious" (Gold, Silver, Diamond, Ruby (Rubenstein)
etc.)

-Names ending in "-ler" (Adler, Midler, etc.)

-Names ending in "-ner" (Asner, Lardner, etc.)

-Names ending in "-lin" (Gitlin, Sheindlin, etc.)

-Names ending in "-band" (Miliband, Goldband, etc.)

-Names ending in "-witz" (Horowitz, Rabinowitz, etc.) or "-
itz" (Kravitz, etc.)

-Names ending in "-baum" (Teitelbaum, Metzenbaum, etc.)

-Names ending in "-off" (Chartoff, Berkhoff, etc.)

-Names ending in "-nik" (Resnik, Mitnik, etc.)

-Names ending in "-thal" (Blumenthal, Rosenthal, etc.)

-Names ending in "-ling" (Spelling, Sperling, etc.)

-Names ending in "-sky" (Barshefsky, Linsky, etc.)

-Names ending in "-farb" (Himmelfarb, Goldfarb, etc.)

-Names ending in "-feld" (Seinfeld, Rosenfeld, etc.)

-Names ending in "-stone" (Wellstone, Firestone, etc.)

-Some, but certainly not all, names ending in "-son" (Abelson,
Josephson, etc.)

-Surnames that sound "Biblical," e.g., David, Joseph, Abram or
Abraham, Moses, Benjamin, Isaac, etc.

Some other names commonly used by jews:

-Miller -Davis -Ross -Lewis -Roth -Morris -Davidson -Green -Wolf -
Newman -Gross -Harris -Sherman -Myers -Mayer -Jacobs -Aaron -Michael -
Hirsch -Raphael -Tobias -Levy -Brand -Cohen -Kaplan -Weiss -Nathan -
Leo -Levine -Simon -Levin -Samuel -Falk -Wise -Gottfried -Gottlieb -
Mann -Mathis -May -Mars -Marx -Marks -Saul -Gould -Fink -Loeb -Loew -
Rubin -Stern -Shapiro -Klein -Cohn -Singer -Frank -Schwartz -Rich -
Kahn -Kramer

==============================================================================
TOPIC: replacing a muffler on 1994 Dodge Caravan
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/65e53be756dab1c9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 10:50 am
From: Al

On Nov 24, 8:04 pm, Ohioguy <n...@none.net> wrote:
> We started noticing our van sounding louder, and even a slight
> rattling sound while it ran. I took a look at the underneath, and found
> a U-bolt at the front of the muffler that had essentially rusted
> through. It was hanging a bit loosely.
>
> I then noticed some rust spots on the muffler itself. I pushed
> against one, and my finger went through. Now we can smell the exhaust
> when standing next to the vehicle. Obviously, the muffler needs to be
> replaced.
>
> We have a 1994 Dodge Caravan SE 3 Liter. I've read that if I took it
> someplace like Midas, it would probably cost us $160-$260 to replace.
>
> I've looked online and found mufflers ranging from $35 to $150. Most
> of them seem to be "performance" mufflers, which I gather are loud, but
> give the engine a little more power, and slightly better fuel mileage.
>
> What I'd like is something close to the original one. I'm wondering
> if anyone here has experience with this sort of thing.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1) how difficult is it to replace a muffler?
>
> 2) are any special tools needed?
>
> 3) is there a good muffler company online that sells only quality
> mufflers at a good price?
>
> 4) Is it worth doing this project on your own, rather than paying a
> place like Midas or Muffler Brothers?
>
> I've never done this before, but if it is a fairly straightforward
> job of less than 2 hours, I might consider doing it. I just want to
> make sure I don't get something that is the wrong size, and I'd really
> prefer a quieter muffler - not a "performance" one.
>
> Thanks!

As a temporary measure you could put a new clamp on there for a buck
or two and just let the other clamp hand there. If the holes in the
muffler are on the main length portion which is round or elliptical,
you can take sheet metal and attach it with clamps around the muffler.
I have clamps that are long enough to go all the way around, but you
can use radiator type hose clamps concatenated to get the needed
length. If the holes are on the end plates, the situation is more
difficult to seal. You can use muffler putty. Forget about those
aftermarket kits that have material that supposed to seal when heated.
They don't work for me anyway.

The real solution is probably a complete new system and then you are
done with it for years and it will be safer for the family.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 11:39 am
From: "Rod Speed"

Al wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Ohioguy wrote

>>> We started noticing our van sounding louder, and even a slight
>>> rattling sound while it ran. I took a look at the underneath, and
>>> found a U-bolt at the front of the muffler that had essentially
>>> rusted through. It was hanging a bit loosely.

>>> I then noticed some rust spots on the muffler itself. I pushed
>>> against one, and my finger went through. Now we can smell the
>>> exhaust when standing next to the vehicle. Obviously, the muffler
>>> needs to be replaced.

>>> We have a 1994 Dodge Caravan SE 3 Liter. I've read that if I took
>>> it someplace like Midas, it would probably cost us $160-$260 to replace.

>>> I've looked online and found mufflers ranging from $35 to $150.
>>> Most of them seem to be "performance" mufflers, which I gather are
>>> loud, but give the engine a little more power, and slightly better
>>> fuel mileage.

>>> What I'd like is something close to the original one. I'm wondering
>>> if anyone here has experience with this sort of thing.

>>> Questions:

>>> 1) how difficult is it to replace a muffler?

>> Its not necessarily that easy to get the old one off the pipe.

>>> 2) are any special tools needed?

>> Yeah, if it wont come off the pipe.

>>> 3) is there a good muffler company online that sells only quality
>>> mufflers at a good price?

>> Nope.

>>> 4) Is it worth doing this project on your own, rather than paying a
>>> place like Midas or Muffler Brothers?

>> Really depends on how easy it is to get the old one off.

>>> I've never done this before, but if it is a fairly straightforward
>>> job of less than 2 hours, I might consider doing it. I just want to
>>> make sure I don't get something that is the wrong size, and I'd
>>> really prefer a quieter muffler - not a "performance" one.

>> I've always paid more for a stainless steel muffler that lasts much longer.

>> In fact I only ever changed the muffler once on the Golf I kept for 35+ years.

> PS. The reason those quotes are up in the $260 range is because
> they suspect that the entire cat back system needs to be replaced.

Or they are playing safe and including that in the quote.

If they are honest, they wont charge for that if it isnt required.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 2:00 pm
From: Al

On Nov 25, 2:39 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Al wrote
>
>
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Ohioguy wrote
> >>> We started noticing our van sounding louder, and even a slight
> >>> rattling sound while it ran. I took a look at the underneath, and
> >>> found a U-bolt at the front of the muffler that had essentially
> >>> rusted through. It was hanging a bit loosely.
> >>> I then noticed some rust spots on the muffler itself. I pushed
> >>> against one, and my finger went through. Now we can smell the
> >>> exhaust when standing next to the vehicle. Obviously, the muffler
> >>> needs to be replaced.
> >>> We have a 1994 Dodge Caravan SE 3 Liter. I've read that if I took
> >>> it someplace like Midas, it would probably cost us $160-$260 to replace.
> >>> I've looked online and found mufflers ranging from $35 to $150.
> >>> Most of them seem to be "performance" mufflers, which I gather are
> >>> loud, but give the engine a little more power, and slightly better
> >>> fuel mileage.
> >>> What I'd like is something close to the original one. I'm wondering
> >>> if anyone here has experience with this sort of thing.
> >>> Questions:
> >>> 1) how difficult is it to replace a muffler?
> >> Its not necessarily that easy to get the old one off the pipe.
> >>> 2) are any special tools needed?
> >> Yeah, if it wont come off the pipe.
> >>> 3) is there a good muffler company online that sells only quality
> >>> mufflers at a good price?
> >> Nope.
> >>> 4) Is it worth doing this project on your own, rather than paying a
> >>> place like Midas or Muffler Brothers?
> >> Really depends on how easy it is to get the old one off.
> >>> I've never done this before, but if it is a fairly straightforward
> >>> job of less than 2 hours, I might consider doing it. I just want to
> >>> make sure I don't get something that is the wrong size, and I'd
> >>> really prefer a quieter muffler - not a "performance" one.
> >> I've always paid more for a stainless steel muffler that lasts much longer.
> >> In fact I only ever changed the muffler once on the Golf I kept for 35+ years.
> > PS. The reason those quotes are up in the $260 range is because
> > they suspect that the entire cat back system needs to be replaced.
>
> Or they are playing safe and including that in the quote.
>
> If they are honest, they wont charge for that if it isnt required.

True enough. The guy calls in that he needs a muffler on a 15 year old
crate. They have to assume the worst or in this case the most likely.
And they did say "up to $260." It won't seem so bad if OG can
understand how various repairs are priced in a shop. Many repairs end
up being about 50/50 parts and labor. For a waterpump, the job might
be $350 and only $50 is for the part. It's labor intensive. However,
exhaust work is parts intensive. A shop could replace OG's entire
system in half an hour and have time for a coffee break. The money is
in the parts. If OG priced out a complete system for parts it might be
about $200. They have to make some money on the parts to cover the
overhead.

In many ways installing a complete system in your driveway is easier
than peacemealing one part. You just cut everything off and the new
parts go up easily. I don't think OG is up to this task. I realize he
has a backup vehicle to depend on, but he's saving that for the
nuclear event.

My bottom line is to suggest OG actually take the vehicle to a shop
where a professional can inspect the system. Beyond the visual, they
can use a tool that clamps on the pipe in various places and
determines the thickness, strength and integrity of the parts. If a
miracle has happened and only the muffler needs replacing, take some
of the savings and purchase a power ball ticket ASAP.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 4:36 pm
From: Shawn Hirn

In article <3p%Om.58506$rE5.27919@newsfe08.iad>,
Ohioguy <none@none.net> wrote:

> We started noticing our van sounding louder, and even a slight
> rattling sound while it ran. I took a look at the underneath, and found
> a U-bolt at the front of the muffler that had essentially rusted
> through. It was hanging a bit loosely.

Try posting your question on the rec.autos.driving.chrysler newsgroup.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Stork Craft, Fisher Price cribs recalled due to entrapment/suffocation
hazard.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b420d2540735be95?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 12:10 pm
From: zooz

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10046.html

Firm's Recall Hotline: (877) 274-0277
CPSC Recall Hotline: (800) 638-2772
CPSC Media Contact: (301) 504-7908
HC Media Contact: (613) 957-2983
Infant Entrapment and Suffocation Prompts Stork Craft to Recall More
Than 2.1 Million Drop-Side Cribs

WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC),
in cooperation with Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc., of British
Columbia, Canada, today announced the voluntary recall of more than
2.1 million Stork Craft drop-side cribs, including about 147,000 Stork
Craft drop-side cribs with the Fisher-Price logo. The recall involves
approximately 1,213,000 units distributed in the United States and
968,000 units distributed in Canada.

CPSC urges parents and caregivers to immediately stop using the
recalled cribs, wait for the free repair kit, and do not attempt to
fix the cribs without the kit. They should find an alternative, safe
sleeping environment for their baby. Consumers should contact Stork
Craft to receive a free repair kit that converts the drop-side on
these cribs to a fixed side.

The cribs' drop-side plastic hardware can break, deform, or parts can
become missing. In addition, the drop-side can be installed upside-
down, which can result in broken or disengaged plastic parts. All of
these problems can cause the drop-side to detach in one or more
corners. When the drop-side detaches, it creates space between the
drop-side and the crib mattress. The bodies of infants and toddlers
can become entrapped in the space which can lead to suffocation.
Complete detachment of drop-sides can lead to falls from the crib.

CPSC, Health Canada, and Stork Craft are aware of 110 incidents of
drop-side detachment; 67 incidents occurred in the United States and
43 in Canada. The incidents include 15 entrapments; 12 in the U.S. and
three in Canada. Four of the entrapments resulted in suffocation: a 7-
month-old in Gouverneur, N.Y.; a 7-month-old in New Iberia, La.; a 6-
month-old in Summersville, W.Va.; and a 9-month-old in Bronx, N.Y.
Included in these incidents are 20 falls from cribs; 12 in the U.S.
and eight in Canada. Fall injuries ranged from concussion to bumps and
bruises. The cribs involved in these incidents had plastic drop-side
hardware that had broken, missing, or deformed claws, connectors,
tracks, or flexible tab stops; loose or missing metal spring clips;
stripped screws; and/or drop-sides installed upside-down.

This recall involves Stork Craft drop-side cribs and Stork Craft drop-
side cribs with the Fisher-Price logo. This recall does not involve
any cribs that do not have a drop-side. This recall does not involve
any cribs with metal rod drop-side hardware. It involves only those
cribs with plastic trigger and one-hand-system drop-side hardware.

This recall includes Stork Craft cribs with manufacturing and
distribution dates between January 1993 and October 2009. This recall
also includes Stork Craft cribs with the Fisher-Price logo that have
manufacturing dates between October 1997 and December 2004. The Stork
Craft cribs with the Fisher-Price logo were first sold in the U.S. in
July 1998 and in Canada in September 1998. The cribs were sold in
various styles and finishes. The manufacture date, model number, crib
name, country of origin, and the firm's name, address, and contact
information are located on the assembly instruction sheet attached to
the mattress support board. The firm's insignia "storkcraft baby" or
"storkling" is inscribed on the drop-side teething rail of some cribs.
In Stork Craft cribs that contain the "Fisher-Price" logo, this logo
can be found on the crib's teething rail, in the manufacturer's
instructions, on the assembly instruction sheet attached to the
mattress support board, and on the end panels of the Twinkle-Twinkle
and Crystal crib models.

Major retailers in the United States and Canada sold the recalled
cribs including BJ's Wholesale Club, J.C. Penney, Kmart, Meijer,
Sears, USA Baby, and Wal-Mart stores and online at Amazon.com,
Babiesrus.com, Costco.com, Target.com, and Walmart.com from January
1993 through October 2009 for between $100 and $400.

The cribs were manufactured in Canada, China and Indonesia.

For additional information, contact Stork Craft toll-free at (877)
274-0277 anytime to order the free repair kit, or log on to www.storkcraft.com
Important Message from CPSC:

CPSC would like to remind parents not to use any crib with missing,
broken, or loose parts. Make sure to tighten hardware from time to
time to keep the crib sturdy. When using a drop-side crib, parents
should check to make sure the drop-side or any other moving part
operates smoothly. Always check all sides and corners of the crib for
disengagement. Any disengagement can create a gap and entrap a child.
In addition, do not try to repair any side of the crib, especially
with tape, wire or rope.

Note: Health Canada's press release can be seen at
http://cpsr-rspc.hc-sc.gc.ca/PR-RP/recall-retrait-eng.jsp?re_id=888

For more information on Crib Safety, visit CPSC's Crib Information
Center

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Opposition to Obama's destruction of the health care sector is not
about race
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/28531844efc1bbfe?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 4:35 pm
From: Shawn Hirn

In article <HMmdndq9N4R0Qk7XnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:

> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
> it's about race know they've lost the debate.

Geez! Isn't it obvious that the health care system in the United States
is imploding? We Americans pay the highest rates for our health care of
any westernized nation, yet we rank near the bottom for most metrics
that determine the quality of our health care such as life expectancy,
infant mortality, etc.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 4:40 pm
From: High Miles <2blues1723@comcast.net>

Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article <HMmdndq9N4R0Qk7XnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
>> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
>> it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>
> Geez! Isn't it obvious that the health care system in the United States
> is imploding? We Americans pay the highest rates for our health care of
> any westernized nation, yet we rank near the bottom for most metrics
> that determine the quality of our health care such as life expectancy,
> infant mortality, etc.

Not obvious to the morons who believe rush and beck.
They can't read well enough, or think well enough to understand, so
they simply parrot what they've heard.
Imagine.........that dimwit Alaskan tart and her - death committees.
She's a lying shit sack, like most republicans. Fits right in.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 5:17 am
From: "Dave C."

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:35:05 -0500
Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:

> In article <HMmdndq9N4R0Qk7XnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
> > access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who
> > say it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>
> Geez! Isn't it obvious that the health care system in the United
> States is imploding? We Americans pay the highest rates for our
> health care of any westernized nation, yet we rank near the bottom
> for most metrics that determine the quality of our health care such
> as life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.

So you think we should fix it by making it a lot worse? What passed
the House amounts to fixing a flat tire by pushing the car off a
cliff. -Dave

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 7:14 pm
From: no_one@void.nul

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:40:24 -0600, High Miles
<2blues1723@comcast.net> wrote:

>Shawn Hirn wrote:
>> In article <HMmdndq9N4R0Qk7XnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
>>> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
>>> it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>>
>> Geez! Isn't it obvious that the health care system in the United States
>> is imploding? We Americans pay the highest rates for our health care of
>> any westernized nation, yet we rank near the bottom for most metrics
>> that determine the quality of our health care such as life expectancy,
>> infant mortality, etc.
>
>Not obvious to the morons who believe rush and beck.
>They can't read well enough, or think well enough to understand, so
>they simply parrot what they've heard.
>Imagine.........that dimwit Alaskan tart and her - death committees.
>She's a lying shit sack, like most republicans. Fits right in.

What will you do if she's right?

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 25 2009 8:21 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

no_one@void.nul wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:40:24 -0600, High Miles
> <2blues1723@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>>> In article <HMmdndq9N4R0Qk7XnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>>> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
>>>> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters
>>>> who say it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>>>
>>> Geez! Isn't it obvious that the health care system in the United
>>> States is imploding? We Americans pay the highest rates for our
>>> health care of any westernized nation, yet we rank near the bottom
>>> for most metrics that determine the quality of our health care such
>>> as life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.
>>
>> Not obvious to the morons who believe rush and beck.
>> They can't read well enough, or think well enough to understand, so
>> they simply parrot what they've heard.
>> Imagine.........that dimwit Alaskan tart and her - death committees.
>> She's a lying shit sack, like most republicans. Fits right in.
>
> What will you do if she's right?

She never ever is. NOT ONE other modern first or second world country has
anything even remotely resembling anything like that, so it aint gunna happen.

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 6 topics - digest