| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Maaxx" |
| Date: |
17 Mar 2005 03:39:18 PM |
| Object: |
We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right or left, you
can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The 51-49 vote in the Senate
to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is causing Liberal
Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and conservative Republicans to get
more excited than the kid in that Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and liberals by
watching their reaction to ANWR.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start tapping
into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will take years to get
the crude flowing out of the ground. That means new jobs for Americans who
handle the drilling and build the pipeline to Alaska. It also means that
we're going to acquire more of the substance that powers our economy without
having to pay out our money to less than friendly countries like Saudi
Arabia & Venezuela. Best of all, the oil is in the absolute middle of
nowhere, so we don't have to inconvenience anyone to drill ANWR. To the
right, developing ANWR is all upside, all positive, an idea that is so
fantastic that they can hardly understand how any rational person could
oppose it.
On the other hand, liberals are enraged that it looks like we may be
drilling ANWR. Part of that is because of their free floating hostility to
the oil industry, but their real beef is that ANWR is such a remote area.
Conservatives may consider that a feature, but to liberals it's a bug. The
very fact that it's a godforsaken region that almost no one visits makes it
so rare and valuable to them that it's worth leaving billions of dollars
worth of oil in the ground and forsaking tens of thousands of jobs just in
case someone wants to ever see what the boonies are like in the future. Oh,
and we mustn't forget, they claim that the pipelines, roads, oilmen and
people going back and forth might -- and I say might because this is heavily
disputed -- disturb the animals. The fact that you could make the exact same
argument about every populated area in North America seems lost on them.
Now you tell me: who's looking out for everyday Americans on this issue?
Conservatives who want more jobs & oil for their fellow countrymen or
liberals who are concerned about future back-packing trips for an
infinitesimal percentage of the population and maybe happier caribou and
polar bears, maybe not. That's not a tough call.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 11:44:00 PM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
People who make more use of government services should pay more.
People who are rich make far greater use of the government.
Wait...proof of this?
Easy. The poor don't buy and sell stocks and create and run
corporations. That means that they don't use government services
related to the exchange of securities.
They don't file 30 page tax returns. That means that they require
much less from the IRS.
People who are rich use what government services
more exactly? Defense? Police? Courts?
Most certainly. More assets to protect. More involvement in civil
litigation. After all, protecting copyrights and patents requires
money for courts.
Welfare (which isn't supposed to
*be* a government service anyway...),
Welfare has largely gone away and never was a big expense.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
31 Mar 2005 12:07:00 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:44:00 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
People who make more use of government services should pay more.
People who are rich make far greater use of the government.
Wait...proof of this?
Easy. The poor don't buy and sell stocks and create and run
corporations. That means that they don't use government services
related to the exchange of securities.
Um...the stock market is not government run. And a great many middle class
people also invest in the stock market.
They don't file 30 page tax returns. That means that they require
much less from the IRS.
Much less...somehow means they use *more* government services?
People who are rich use what government services
more exactly? Defense? Police? Courts?
Most certainly. More assets to protect.
Oh please, the country as a whole is protected by the military, the rich
do not have any greater cost there. That's everyone's responsability.
As for police, the only legitimate *Federal* Police are for investigating
interstate crime, and those other crimes specifically mentioned in the
constitution which they are allowed to investigate. Everything else is
unconstitutional (including the DEA).
More involvement in civil
litigation.
Please, lots of poor and middle class people sue each other all the time.
Small claims courts are packed. This is a litigious country. Rich people
can afford to quickly and quietly settle out of court.
Besides, what does this have to do with Federal taxes? Are not law suits
primarily a State issue?
After all, protecting copyrights and patents requires money for courts.
True, make it fee based then, why does this have to be out of income tax?
Welfare (which isn't supposed to
*be* a government service anyway...),
Welfare has largely gone away and never was a big expense.
Oh please. It has *not* gone away, and it is a big expense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
01 Apr 2005 12:01:18 AM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:44:00 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
People who make more use of government services should pay more.
People who are rich make far greater use of the government.
Wait...proof of this?
Easy. The poor don't buy and sell stocks and create and run
corporations. That means that they don't use government services
related to the exchange of securities.
Um...the stock market is not government run.
It's regulated by the government.
And a great many middle class
people also invest in the stock market.
Do you not know how to read?
"The POOR don't buy and sell stocks and create and run corporations."
They don't file 30 page tax returns. That means that they require
much less from the IRS.
Much less...somehow means they use *more* government services?
You really do not know how to read.
People who are rich use what government services
more exactly? Defense? Police? Courts?
Most certainly. More assets to protect.
Oh please, the country as a whole is protected by the military, the rich
do not have any greater cost there.
Yes, they do.
As for police, the only legitimate *Federal* Police are for investigating
interstate crime, and those other crimes specifically mentioned in the
Kook.
More involvement in civil
litigation.
Please, lots of poor and middle class people sue each other all the time.
That's it.
You're obviously reduced to stupid lying.
Again.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
01 Apr 2005 09:22:55 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 06:01:18 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:44:00 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
People who make more use of government services should pay more.
People who are rich make far greater use of the government.
Wait...proof of this?
Easy. The poor don't buy and sell stocks and create and run
corporations. That means that they don't use government services
related to the exchange of securities.
Um...the stock market is not government run.
It's regulated by the government.
Oh hell, these days everything's regulated by the government. There's too
*much* regulation going on.
And a great many middle class
people also invest in the stock market.
Do you not know how to read?
"The POOR don't buy and sell stocks and create and run corporations."
Oh I get it, there are just two types of people, the poor, and the
extremely rich...
....in other words you're retarded. But I knew that Ray.
They don't file 30 page tax returns. That means that they require
much less from the IRS.
Much less...somehow means they use *more* government services?
You really do not know how to read.
"That means they require much less from the IRS." Gee, sounds like they
use less of a government service.
People who are rich use what government services
more exactly? Defense? Police? Courts?
Most certainly. More assets to protect.
Oh please, the country as a whole is protected by the military, the rich
do not have any greater cost there.
Yes, they do.
*****. You just have this leftist, bigotted hatred of those who have
done well with themselves.
As for police, the only legitimate *Federal* Police are for
investigating interstate crime, and those other crimes specifically
mentioned in the
Kook.
Gee, saying that the US Government should follow the US Constitution when
it comes to things like law enforcement makes me a kook....
More involvement in civil
litigation.
Please, lots of poor and middle class people sue each other all the
time.
That's it.
You're obviously reduced to stupid lying.
Again.
My working class cousin and his wife got sued by former friends of theirs
recently, over a fucking cat scratch....which left no permanent marks or
damage. Don't tell me only the rich engage in lawsuits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
01 Apr 2005 11:15:08 PM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 06:01:18 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:44:00 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
People who make more use of government services should pay more.
People who are rich make far greater use of the government.
Wait...proof of this?
Easy. The poor don't buy and sell stocks and create and run
corporations. That means that they don't use government services
related to the exchange of securities.
Um...the stock market is not government run.
It's regulated by the government.
Oh hell, these days everything's regulated by the government.
Idiotic non sequitur.
And a great many middle class
people also invest in the stock market.
Do you not know how to read?
"The POOR don't buy and sell stocks and create and run corporations."
Oh I get it, there are just two types of people, the poor, and the
extremely rich...
You really do not know how to read.
They don't file 30 page tax returns. That means that they require
much less from the IRS.
Much less...somehow means they use *more* government services?
You really do not know how to read.
"That means they require much less from the IRS." Gee, sounds like they
use less of a government service.
Yes, the poor use much less of a government service. The rich use
more.
People who are rich use what government services
more exactly? Defense? Police? Courts?
Most certainly. More assets to protect.
Oh please, the country as a whole is protected by the military, the rich
do not have any greater cost there.
Yes, they do.
*****.
Brilliant argument. One of your best.
*****.You just have this leftist, bigotted hatred of those who have
Look in the mirror, bigot.
More involvement in civil
litigation.
Please, lots of poor and middle class people sue each other all the
time.
That's it.
You're obviously reduced to stupid lying.
Again.
My working class cousin and his wife got sued by former friends of theirs
Who gives a *****, *****? Are you too stupid to realize that ONE
example proves nothing about general costs?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
02 Apr 2005 08:49:56 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 05:15:08 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 06:01:18 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:44:00 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
People who make more use of government services should pay more.
People who are rich make far greater use of the government.
Wait...proof of this?
Easy. The poor don't buy and sell stocks and create and run
corporations. That means that they don't use government services
related to the exchange of securities.
Um...the stock market is not government run.
It's regulated by the government.
Oh hell, these days everything's regulated by the government.
Idiotic non sequitur.
How? Your argument is that since it's regulated by the government, it's no
different from a government service and therefore the rich are
using a government service. But hell, you could argue the same
about *literally* anything. The fucking *air* is regulated by the
government. Therefore, by your argument, when a rich person *breathes*
they are using a government service...OH THE SCANDEL!
And a great many middle class
people also invest in the stock market.
Do you not know how to read?
"The POOR don't buy and sell stocks and create and run corporations."
Oh I get it, there are just two types of people, the poor, and the
extremely rich...
You really do not know how to read.
Well, it seems to be what you are implying. You want to completely ignore
the vast majority of the population and concentrate on the extremes,
those being the poor and the rich.
Most people in America are middle-class if you hadn't noticed.
They don't file 30 page tax returns. That means that they require
much less from the IRS.
Much less...somehow means they use *more* government services?
You really do not know how to read.
"That means they require much less from the IRS." Gee, sounds like they
use less of a government service.
Yes, the poor use much less of a government service. The rich use more.
Wrong.
People who are rich use what government services
more exactly? Defense? Police? Courts?
Most certainly. More assets to protect.
Oh please, the country as a whole is protected by the military, the rich
do not have any greater cost there.
Yes, they do.
*****.
Brilliant argument. One of your best.
*****.You just have this leftist, bigotted hatred of those who have
Look in the mirror, bigot.
That's funny, I don't hate those who are successful. I don't hate the poor
either. I've probably done more to *actively* help poor people than you
have I'm willing to bet. You however....seem to have this whole class
hatred thing going on.
More involvement in civil
litigation.
Please, lots of poor and middle class people sue each other all the
time.
That's it.
You're obviously reduced to stupid lying.
Again.
My working class cousin and his wife got sued by former friends of theirs
Who gives a *****, *****? Are you too stupid to realize that ONE
example proves nothing about general costs?
It was just an example, stuff like this happens *all* the time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
02 Apr 2005 02:13:14 PM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 05:15:08 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 06:01:18 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:44:00 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
People who make more use of government services should pay more.
People who are rich make far greater use of the government.
Wait...proof of this?
Easy. The poor don't buy and sell stocks and create and run
corporations. That means that they don't use government services
related to the exchange of securities.
Um...the stock market is not government run.
It's regulated by the government.
Oh hell, these days everything's regulated by the government.
Idiotic non sequitur.
How? Your argument is that since it's regulated by the government, it's no
different from a government service and therefore the rich are
using a government service.
More or less. Stocks with be vastly less worthwhile without
government protection.
But hell, you could argue the same
about *literally* anything.
Since the poor don't deal with stocks, they don't make use of the SEC.
The fucking *air* is regulated by the
government.
Which benefits everybody. But stocks benefit primarily people
with the money to trade in stocks.
And a great many middle class
people also invest in the stock market.
Do you not know how to read?
"The POOR don't buy and sell stocks and create and run corporations."
Oh I get it, there are just two types of people, the poor, and the
extremely rich...
You really do not know how to read.
Well, it seems to be what you are implying.
No wonder you cling to lunatic conspiracy theories - you haven't
the brains to objectively read what is written.
They don't file 30 page tax returns. That means that they require
much less from the IRS.
Much less...somehow means they use *more* government services?
You really do not know how to read.
"That means they require much less from the IRS." Gee, sounds like they
use less of a government service.
Yes, the poor use much less of a government service. The rich use more.
Wrong.
You're an idiot. You think that a 1040EZ form takes just as much
government work to process as does a 40-page 1040 with schedules
A, C, D, and additional supporting forms.
People who are rich use what government services
more exactly? Defense? Police? Courts?
Most certainly. More assets to protect.
Oh please, the country as a whole is protected by the military, the rich
do not have any greater cost there.
Yes, they do.
*****.
Brilliant argument. One of your best.
*****.You just have this leftist, bigotted hatred of those who have
Look in the mirror, bigot.
That's funny, I don't hate those who are successful.
You hate those who don't worship money.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 05:25:26 AM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2dc6t$nta$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The lowest income tax bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%.
The capital gains tax was lowered from 20% to 15%, dividend taxes
were eliminated, inheritance taxes were eliminated. None of those
tax cuts benefit anybody in the lowest income tax brackets.
And those earning over $100,000 a year didn't benefit from the tax
cuts given to the lowest income bracket. What's your point?
There were more tax cuts and bigger tax cuts for the rich.
Obviously, since wealthy pay more taxes, any general tax cut will
benefit them more than someone making $10,000 a year.
Pay attention:
The rich got bigger tax cuts and MORE tax cuts. Not just in dollar
amounts but also in percentages. While people in the lowest brackets
got a reduction from 15% to 10%, the richest got reductions from 35%
to 0% and from 20% to 15% IN ADDITION to a reduction in income taxes.
That's good. Taxes are too high anyway.
So you think that tax cuts for the rich and massive debts for
everybody else is a good thing.
Sucker.
Want to buy a bridge?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 09:19:14 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2e2b6$d9v$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2dc6t$nta$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The lowest income tax bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%.
The capital gains tax was lowered from 20% to 15%, dividend taxes
were eliminated, inheritance taxes were eliminated. None of those
tax cuts benefit anybody in the lowest income tax brackets.
And those earning over $100,000 a year didn't benefit from the tax
cuts given to the lowest income bracket. What's your point?
There were more tax cuts and bigger tax cuts for the rich.
Obviously, since wealthy pay more taxes, any general tax cut will
benefit them more than someone making $10,000 a year.
Pay attention:
The rich got bigger tax cuts and MORE tax cuts. Not just in dollar
amounts but also in percentages. While people in the lowest brackets
got a reduction from 15% to 10%, the richest got reductions from 35%
to 0% and from 20% to 15% IN ADDITION to a reduction in income taxes.
That's good. Taxes are too high anyway.
So you think that tax cuts for the rich and massive debts for
everybody else is a good thing.
Everybody got a tax cut. Lower taxes are a good thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 05:31:55 AM |
|
|
In article <424ac372$0$13896$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2e2b6$d9v$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2dc6t$nta$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The lowest income tax bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%.
The capital gains tax was lowered from 20% to 15%, dividend taxes
were eliminated, inheritance taxes were eliminated. None of those
tax cuts benefit anybody in the lowest income tax brackets.
And those earning over $100,000 a year didn't benefit from the tax
cuts given to the lowest income bracket. What's your point?
There were more tax cuts and bigger tax cuts for the rich.
Obviously, since wealthy pay more taxes, any general tax cut will
benefit them more than someone making $10,000 a year.
Pay attention:
The rich got bigger tax cuts and MORE tax cuts. Not just in dollar
amounts but also in percentages. While people in the lowest brackets
got a reduction from 15% to 10%, the richest got reductions from 35%
to 0% and from 20% to 15% IN ADDITION to a reduction in income taxes.
That's good. Taxes are too high anyway.
So you think that tax cuts for the rich and massive debts for
everybody else is a good thing.
Everybody got a tax cut. Lower taxes are a good thing.
Yeah, the middle class got a dollar a week and Bill Gates got millions.
And tax cuts are a bad idea when you have to borrow money to pay for them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 10:04:19 PM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The lowest income tax bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%.
The capital gains tax was lowered from 20% to 15%, dividend taxes
were eliminated, inheritance taxes were eliminated. None of those
tax cuts benefit anybody in the lowest income tax brackets.
And those earning over $100,000 a year didn't benefit from the tax
cuts given to the lowest income bracket. What's your point?
There were more tax cuts and bigger tax cuts for the rich.
Obviously, since wealthy pay more taxes, any general tax cut will
benefit them more than someone making $10,000 a year.
Pay attention:
The rich got bigger tax cuts and MORE tax cuts. Not just in dollar
amounts but also in percentages. While people in the lowest brackets
got a reduction from 15% to 10%, the richest got reductions from 35%
to 0% and from 20% to 15% IN ADDITION to a reduction in income taxes.
That's good. Taxes are too high anyway.
So you think that tax cuts for the rich and massive debts for
everybody else is a good thing.
Everybody got a tax cut.
1) That's a lie.
2) Not everybody got the same tax cut. The rich got more and bigger
tax cuts.
Sucker.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
31 Mar 2005 11:23:19 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2fss2$qet$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The lowest income tax bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%.
The capital gains tax was lowered from 20% to 15%, dividend
taxes were eliminated, inheritance taxes were eliminated. None
of those tax cuts benefit anybody in the lowest income tax
brackets.
And those earning over $100,000 a year didn't benefit from the
tax cuts given to the lowest income bracket. What's your point?
There were more tax cuts and bigger tax cuts for the rich.
Obviously, since wealthy pay more taxes, any general tax cut will
benefit them more than someone making $10,000 a year.
Pay attention:
The rich got bigger tax cuts and MORE tax cuts. Not just in dollar
amounts but also in percentages. While people in the lowest
brackets got a reduction from 15% to 10%, the richest got reductions
from 35% to 0% and from 20% to 15% IN ADDITION to a reduction in
income taxes.
That's good. Taxes are too high anyway.
So you think that tax cuts for the rich and massive debts for
everybody else is a good thing.
Everybody got a tax cut.
1) That's a lie.
It's already been proven to you that everyone who pays taxes got a tax
cut. Any denial on your part is just confirming your idiocy.
2) Not everybody got the same tax cut. The rich got more and bigger
tax cuts.
As they should. They do pay more after all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
31 Mar 2005 09:03:42 AM |
|
|
In article <424c3207$0$33339$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2fss2$qet$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The lowest income tax bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%.
The capital gains tax was lowered from 20% to 15%, dividend
taxes were eliminated, inheritance taxes were eliminated. None
of those tax cuts benefit anybody in the lowest income tax
brackets.
And those earning over $100,000 a year didn't benefit from the
tax cuts given to the lowest income bracket. What's your point?
There were more tax cuts and bigger tax cuts for the rich.
Obviously, since wealthy pay more taxes, any general tax cut will
benefit them more than someone making $10,000 a year.
Pay attention:
The rich got bigger tax cuts and MORE tax cuts. Not just in dollar
amounts but also in percentages. While people in the lowest
brackets got a reduction from 15% to 10%, the richest got reductions
from 35% to 0% and from 20% to 15% IN ADDITION to a reduction in
income taxes.
That's good. Taxes are too high anyway.
So you think that tax cuts for the rich and massive debts for
everybody else is a good thing.
Everybody got a tax cut.
1) That's a lie.
It's already been proven to you that everyone who pays taxes got a tax
cut. Any denial on your part is just confirming your idiocy.
2) Not everybody got the same tax cut. The rich got more and bigger
tax cuts.
As they should. They do pay more after all.
And they can afford more. A person making $10,000,000 a year can more
easily afford 30% in taxes (leaving $7,000,000) than a person making
$10,000 a year can (leaving $7,000).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
01 Apr 2005 10:29:02 AM |
|
|
(Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:d2hl0n$hsn$9@puck.cc.emory.edu:
In article <424c3207$0$33339$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2fss2$qet$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The lowest income tax bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%.
The capital gains tax was lowered from 20% to 15%, dividend
taxes were eliminated, inheritance taxes were eliminated.
None of those tax cuts benefit anybody in the lowest income
tax brackets.
And those earning over $100,000 a year didn't benefit from the
tax cuts given to the lowest income bracket. What's your point?
There were more tax cuts and bigger tax cuts for the rich.
Obviously, since wealthy pay more taxes, any general tax cut will
benefit them more than someone making $10,000 a year.
Pay attention:
The rich got bigger tax cuts and MORE tax cuts. Not just in
dollar amounts but also in percentages. While people in the
lowest brackets got a reduction from 15% to 10%, the richest got
reductions from 35% to 0% and from 20% to 15% IN ADDITION to a
reduction in income taxes.
That's good. Taxes are too high anyway.
So you think that tax cuts for the rich and massive debts for
everybody else is a good thing.
Everybody got a tax cut.
1) That's a lie.
It's already been proven to you that everyone who pays taxes got a tax
cut. Any denial on your part is just confirming your idiocy.
2) Not everybody got the same tax cut. The rich got more and bigger
tax cuts.
As they should. They do pay more after all.
And they can afford more. A person making $10,000,000 a year can more
easily afford 30% in taxes (leaving $7,000,000) than a person making
$10,000 a year can (leaving $7,000).
Doesn't matter. Taking more money from someone because they are successful
is counterproductive and unfair.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Coby Beck" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
02 Apr 2005 02:55:41 PM |
|
|
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:424d76cc$0$33322$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:d2hl0n$hsn$9@puck.cc.emory.edu:
[snip discussion on fair taxation]
And they can afford more. A person making $10,000,000 a year can more
easily afford 30% in taxes (leaving $7,000,000) than a person making
$10,000 a year can (leaving $7,000).
Doesn't matter. Taking more money from someone because they are successful
is counterproductive and unfair.
A good way of testing a statement of principle is to take it to an extreme,
even if it is not what you might intend. To take your statement as one of
priciple and apply this test, we might get the idea that you would support a
single dollar figure for taxes that each citizen pays regardless of personal
income.
I find that notion to be ridiculous. But we are left with the question of
what is fair? This is complicated. Personally, I don't find anything
intuitively or obviously more fair about a single pertcentage applied to all
regardless of income than the kind of increasing bracket system that seems
to be very common to countries with income taxes.
As long as you have a system where the more you earn the more you have, you
are left with the incentive a capitalist system requires.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
02 Apr 2005 04:18:15 PM |
|
|
Coby Beck <cbeck@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:424d76cc$0$33322$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:d2hl0n$hsn$9@puck.cc.emory.edu:
[snip discussion on fair taxation]
And they can afford more. A person making $10,000,000 a year can more
easily afford 30% in taxes (leaving $7,000,000) than a person making
$10,000 a year can (leaving $7,000).
Doesn't matter. Taking more money from someone because they are successful
is counterproductive and unfair.
A good way of testing a statement of principle is to take it to an extreme,
even if it is not what you might intend. To take your statement as one of
priciple and apply this test, we might get the idea that you would support a
single dollar figure for taxes that each citizen pays regardless of personal
income.
I find that notion to be ridiculous. But we are left with the question of
what is fair? This is complicated. Personally, I don't find anything
intuitively or obviously more fair about a single pertcentage applied to all
regardless of income than the kind of increasing bracket system that seems
to be very common to countries with income taxes.
What's "fair" is an interesting question, and one I find to be
pointless. It doesn't really matter what's "fair" because democracy
and economics aren't dependant upon some notiong of "fair".
What should be considered is whether a tx structure helps or hurts the
people as a whole. Does shifting the majority of the tax burden to
the middle class help? Would raising upper income taxes to 50% cause
people to stop investing in the country?
As long as you have a system where the more you earn the more you have, you
are left with the incentive a capitalist system requires.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
02 Apr 2005 04:28:11 PM |
|
|
Coby Beck <cbeck@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:424d76cc$0$33322$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:d2hl0n$hsn$9@puck.cc.emory.edu:
[snip discussion on fair taxation]
And they can afford more. A person making $10,000,000 a year can more
easily afford 30% in taxes (leaving $7,000,000) than a person making
$10,000 a year can (leaving $7,000).
Doesn't matter. Taking more money from someone because they are successful
is counterproductive and unfair.
A good way of testing a statement of principle is to take it to an extreme,
even if it is not what you might intend. To take your statement as one of
priciple and apply this test, we might get the idea that you would support a
single dollar figure for taxes that each citizen pays regardless of personal
income.
I find that notion to be ridiculous. But we are left with the question of
what is fair? This is complicated. Personally, I don't find anything
intuitively or obviously more fair about a single pertcentage applied to all
regardless of income than the kind of increasing bracket system that seems
to be very common to countries with income taxes.
What's "fair" is an interesting question, and one I find to be highly
subjective. It doesn't really matter what's "fair" because democracy
and economics aren't dependant upon some notion of "fair".
What should be considered is whether a tax structure helps or hurts the
people as a whole. Does shifting the majority of the tax burden to
the middle class help? Would raising upper income taxes to 50% cause
rich people to stop investing in the country?
Given that rich people are not shy about shifting their money out of
the US, even with generous tax laws, it would seem that raising taxes
would have little effect.
As long as you have a system where the more you earn the more you have, you
are left with the incentive a capitalist system requires.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
01 Apr 2005 11:10:30 AM |
|
|
In article <424d76cc$0$33322$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:d2hl0n$hsn$9@puck.cc.emory.edu:
In article <424c3207$0$33339$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2fss2$qet$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The lowest income tax bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%.
The capital gains tax was lowered from 20% to 15%, dividend
taxes were eliminated, inheritance taxes were eliminated.
None of those tax cuts benefit anybody in the lowest income
tax brackets.
And those earning over $100,000 a year didn't benefit from the
tax cuts given to the lowest income bracket. What's your point?
There were more tax cuts and bigger tax cuts for the rich.
Obviously, since wealthy pay more taxes, any general tax cut will
benefit them more than someone making $10,000 a year.
Pay attention:
The rich got bigger tax cuts and MORE tax cuts. Not just in
dollar amounts but also in percentages. While people in the
lowest brackets got a reduction from 15% to 10%, the richest got
reductions from 35% to 0% and from 20% to 15% IN ADDITION to a
reduction in income taxes.
That's good. Taxes are too high anyway.
So you think that tax cuts for the rich and massive debts for
everybody else is a good thing.
Everybody got a tax cut.
1) That's a lie.
It's already been proven to you that everyone who pays taxes got a tax
cut. Any denial on your part is just confirming your idiocy.
2) Not everybody got the same tax cut. The rich got more and bigger
tax cuts.
As they should. They do pay more after all.
And they can afford more. A person making $10,000,000 a year can more
easily afford 30% in taxes (leaving $7,000,000) than a person making
$10,000 a year can (leaving $7,000).
Doesn't matter. Taking more money from someone because they are successful
is counterproductive and unfair.
Asking someone who's successful to pay to maintain the society that made
that success possible is fair and right.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
31 Mar 2005 11:59:15 PM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
Everybody got a tax cut.
1) That's a lie.
It's already been proven to you that everyone who pays taxes got a tax
cut.
So people who didn't pay any taxes got a tax cut?
How did you manage to prove THAT?
2) Not everybody got the same tax cut. The rich got more and bigger
tax cuts.
As they should.
You worship the rich just because they have more money, and you're
stupid enough to think that you should give them YOUR money.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 10:18:03 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 02:58:06 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in
Ray Fischer wrote:
That's what I just wrote. "They add in taxes to pay for all of the
costs of cars." And those gas taxes mean lower taxes elsewhere.
Well, the average retarded American doesn't want to pay for anything.
If the things that government provides cost to much, they simply
borrow the money, and let future generations pay for it.
More tax cuts for the rich, George! Let someone else pay for my
lifestyle! I want to drive a huge 4WD SUV!
So reducing the lowest income tax bracket from 15% to 10% is a tax cut for
the rich?
So reducing capital gains and dividend taxes is a 10% to 15% tax cut for
the poor?
That's an economic stimulus nitwit...which benefits *everyone* including
the poor. It promotes investment by the rich into companies....which
causes companies to grow (or more new ones to get investment)....which
provides more jobs. That *directly* benefits the poor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
28 Mar 2005 04:57:06 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2005.03.28.04.18.02.107619@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 02:58:06 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in
Ray Fischer wrote:
That's what I just wrote. "They add in taxes to pay for all of the
costs of cars." And those gas taxes mean lower taxes elsewhere.
Well, the average retarded American doesn't want to pay for anything.
If the things that government provides cost to much, they simply
borrow the money, and let future generations pay for it.
More tax cuts for the rich, George! Let someone else pay for my
lifestyle! I want to drive a huge 4WD SUV!
So reducing the lowest income tax bracket from 15% to 10% is a tax cut
for
the rich?
So reducing capital gains and dividend taxes is a 10% to 15% tax cut for
the poor?
That's an economic stimulus nitwit...which benefits *everyone* including
the poor. It promotes investment by the rich into companies....which
causes companies to grow (or more new ones to get investment)....which
provides more jobs. That *directly* benefits the poor.
Except the economy is still barely growing, far less than in the past. And
jobs have just now reached the level they were when Bush took office in
2001.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
28 Mar 2005 12:18:37 AM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
So reducing the lowest income tax bracket from 15% to 10% is a tax cut for
the rich?
So reducing capital gains and dividend taxes is a 10% to 15% tax cut for
the poor?
That's an economic stimulus nitwit...which benefits *everyone* including
the poor.
LOL!
Sucker! You get screwed and you're stupid enough to believe the
***** you're fed.
Wanna buy a bridge, sucker?
It promotes investment by the rich into companies....
No it doesn't. And did you not notice how much money from the US
is being invested in China, India, Malaysia, and other parts of the
world? When companies shift operations to other countries, it's not
the US that benefits, and you're still stuck with the debt.
Idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
28 Mar 2005 04:17:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:18:37 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
No it doesn't. And did you not notice how much money from the US
is being invested in China, India, Malaysia, and other parts of the
world? When companies shift operations to other countries, it's not
the US that benefits, and you're still stuck with the debt.
1) Foreign companies which are likely to get US investments...often have
significant operations in the US. They are, in effect, multinational
corporations just like "American" companies are...with global reach and
resources. And global jobs and resources. Foreign companies are even
likely to open factories in the US, there's at least one in my home town
that I'm aware of.
2) I suppose you're also bringing up outsourcing....but that's *also* good
for the economy. Virtually every US corporation that outsources, later
uses the money saved and profits earned from outsourcing to expand their
domestic operations...which leads to more domestic jobs. Corporations
aren't foolish, they aren't just out to save a few bucks to undercut the
competition...they are out to expand so they can make vastly *more* money.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
29 Mar 2005 02:52:58 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2005.03.28.22.17.25.790302@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:18:37 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
No it doesn't. And did you not notice how much money from the US
is being invested in China, India, Malaysia, and other parts of the
world? When companies shift operations to other countries, it's not
the US that benefits, and you're still stuck with the debt.
1) Foreign companies which are likely to get US investments...often have
significant operations in the US. They are, in effect, multinational
corporations just like "American" companies are...with global reach and
resources. And global jobs and resources. Foreign companies are even
likely to open factories in the US, there's at least one in my home town
that I'm aware of.
2) I suppose you're also bringing up outsourcing....but that's *also* good
for the economy.
Unless you're a worker who loses his job.
Virtually every US corporation that outsources, later
uses the money saved and profits earned from outsourcing to expand their
domestic operations...
Totally false.
which leads to more domestic jobs. Corporations
aren't foolish, they aren't just out to save a few bucks to undercut the
competition...they are out to expand so they can make vastly *more* money.
Exactly, and that means shipping jobs to where they can pay pennies per
hour and no benefits, and workers who complain sometimes "disappear."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
29 Mar 2005 10:26:18 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:52:58 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
Virtually every US corporation that outsources, later
uses the money saved and profits earned from outsourcing to expand their
domestic operations...
Totally false.
Wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 04:57:43 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2005.03.29.16.26.17.734758@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:52:58 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
Virtually every US corporation that outsources, later
uses the money saved and profits earned from outsourcing to expand their
domestic operations...
Totally false.
Wrong.
Then how come the US job market *shrunk* at the time US companies were
sending jobs overseas?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 12:28:02 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:57:43 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <pan.2005.03.29.16.26.17.734758@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:52:58 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
Virtually every US corporation that outsources, later
uses the money saved and profits earned from outsourcing to expand their
domestic operations...
Totally false.
Wrong.
Then how come the US job market *shrunk* at the time US companies were
sending jobs overseas?
According to who?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 08:44:28 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2005.03.30.18.28.01.288345@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:57:43 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <pan.2005.03.29.16.26.17.734758@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:52:58 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
Virtually every US corporation that outsources, later
uses the money saved and profits earned from outsourcing to expand
their
domestic operations...
Totally false.
Wrong.
Then how come the US job market *shrunk* at the time US companies were
sending jobs overseas?
According to who?
US Labor Dept. for one. We lost 2,000,000 jobs during Bush's first term
and have only now rebounded to about where we were when he took office.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 04:00:13 PM |
|
|
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Lloyd Parker
<lparker@emory.edu>
wrote
on Wed, 30 Mar 05 14:44:28 GMT
<d2evgm$41b$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>:
In article <pan.2005.03.30.18.28.01.288345@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:57:43 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <pan.2005.03.29.16.26.17.734758@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:52:58 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
Virtually every US corporation that outsources, later
uses the money saved and profits earned from outsourcing to expand
their
domestic operations...
Totally false.
Wrong.
Then how come the US job market *shrunk* at the time US companies were
sending jobs overseas?
According to who?
US Labor Dept. for one. We lost 2,000,000 jobs during Bush's first term
and have only now rebounded to about where we were when he took office.
Exactly. This means, of course, that we should all vote Republican
as the improvement in the job picture over Bush's 8 years in office
is the best of any recent President's. ;-)
That is, if one doesn't count the time interval between
sometime in early 2000 and 2001-09-11. Start mid-2002 and
fudge the nums a bit, and never mind that pesky deficit.
Don't worry, be happy. It's morning again in America,
and the hangover's gonna be a doozy sometime later on
(will the Dems be able to capitalize in 2008?), but we
shouldn't worry about it, except when it's convenient to do
so -- interesting problem in Medicare but we won't worry
about it now, but Social Security -- OhmyGod! PANIC!!
Everyone run around screaming like chickens!!
My brain hurts.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 04:13:25 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:44:28 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
US Labor Dept. for one. We lost 2,000,000 jobs during Bush's first term
and have only now rebounded to about where we were when he took office.
What happened while he was in his first term?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
