| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Deuteros" |
| Date: |
12 Dec 2005 08:12:59 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Red states turning blue |
KenStahl <ktsahl@yahoo.com> wrote in news:YOOdnewcbNbbOgDeRVn-pg@comcast.com:
Here is a good web site that illustrates the acceleration
away from the Republican party. At this point there are only
two states where there is a majority who favor corrupt
Republican politics.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/18/91619/117
It looks like there aren't many "red" states and that the
number of blue states is increasing at a rapid pace.
What dailykos doesn't mention is that Democrats have even lower approval
ratings than Republicans.
Democrats sure do like to complain but never offer any solutions.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
16 Dec 2005 02:03:06 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> writes:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> writes:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
As for worker pensions, anyone who rely's on worker pensions this
day and age is a fool. The people who end up retiring rich are the
ones who managed their own retirements.
Yes? And how does that observation shore up the contention that
CEOs -- take Enron as an example -- earn in proportion to
their intrinsic value?
They get paid according to their perceived worth. A company isn't
going to say, "We know you're going to run our company into the
ground but we'll still pay you 50 million dollars a year."
Ah, but the counter-examples are numerous. You say they won't.
I say that nonetheless, they do. It was nightly news fodder for
quite some time a couple of years back. Enron. WorldCom. Adelphia.
Global Crossing. Putnam. Strong. Hollinger...
So what? Their respective CEOs made their companies uncompetetive.
And were granted hugely bloated salaries, stock options, and bonuses
in the process.
So what? It's their company.
No, it isn't.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
16 Dec 2005 02:48:23 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in news:43a31d7a$0$58036
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> writes:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> writes:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
As for worker pensions, anyone who rely's on worker pensions this
day and age is a fool. The people who end up retiring rich are the
ones who managed their own retirements.
Yes? And how does that observation shore up the contention that
CEOs -- take Enron as an example -- earn in proportion to
their intrinsic value?
They get paid according to their perceived worth. A company isn't
going to say, "We know you're going to run our company into the
ground but we'll still pay you 50 million dollars a year."
Ah, but the counter-examples are numerous. You say they won't.
I say that nonetheless, they do. It was nightly news fodder for
quite some time a couple of years back. Enron. WorldCom. Adelphia.
Global Crossing. Putnam. Strong. Hollinger...
So what? Their respective CEOs made their companies uncompetetive.
And were granted hugely bloated salaries, stock options, and bonuses
in the process.
So what? It's their company.
No, it isn't.
How is it not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
16 Dec 2005 03:06:33 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:43a31d7a$0$58036
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> writes:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> writes:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
As for worker pensions, anyone who rely's on worker pensions this
day and age is a fool. The people who end up retiring rich are the
ones who managed their own retirements.
Yes? And how does that observation shore up the contention that
CEOs -- take Enron as an example -- earn in proportion to
their intrinsic value?
They get paid according to their perceived worth. A company isn't
going to say, "We know you're going to run our company into the
ground but we'll still pay you 50 million dollars a year."
Ah, but the counter-examples are numerous. You say they won't.
I say that nonetheless, they do. It was nightly news fodder for
quite some time a couple of years back. Enron. WorldCom. Adelphia.
Global Crossing. Putnam. Strong. Hollinger...
So what? Their respective CEOs made their companies uncompetetive.
And were granted hugely bloated salaries, stock options, and bonuses
in the process.
So what? It's their company.
No, it isn't.
How is it not?
The company belongs to the stockholders. That you don't know that
basic fact really demonstrates your complete ignorance of the business
world.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
16 Dec 2005 03:01:23 PM |
|
|
In article <43a31b98$0$5556$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> writes:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:dnuq9k$131$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article <43a22fba$0$54295$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> writes:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:dnsvna$p15$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article <43a1d7e5$0$62227$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> writes:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:dnpj4l$d8v$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
As for worker pensions, anyone who rely's on worker pensions this
day and age is a fool. The people who end up retiring rich are the
ones who managed their own retirements.
Yes? And how does that observation shore up the contention that
CEOs -- take Enron as an example -- earn in proportion to
their intrinsic value?
They get paid according to their perceived worth. A company isn't
going to say, "We know you're going to run our company into the
ground but we'll still pay you 50 million dollars a year."
Ah, but the counter-examples are numerous. You say they won't.
I say that nonetheless, they do. It was nightly news fodder for
quite some time a couple of years back. Enron. WorldCom. Adelphia.
Global Crossing. Putnam. Strong. Hollinger...
So what? Their respective CEOs made their companies uncompetetive.
And were granted hugely bloated salaries, stock options, and bonuses
in the process.
So what? It's their company. Maybe if enough companies go out of business
then other companies will learn from their mistakes.
So what? So your statment that CEOs are paid according to their worth holds
up only if the business plan of a number of companies has been
to collapse, taking their workers and stockholders along with them,
while paying astronomical sums to their CEOs along the way.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
16 Dec 2005 10:30:14 PM |
|
|
On 16 Dec 2005 19:55:04 GMT, in alt.atheism
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in
<43a31b98$0$5556$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:dnuq9k$131$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article <43a22fba$0$54295$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> writes:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:dnsvna$p15$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article <43a1d7e5$0$62227$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> writes:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:dnpj4l$d8v$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
As for worker pensions, anyone who rely's on worker pensions this
day and age is a fool. The people who end up retiring rich are the
ones who managed their own retirements.
Yes? And how does that observation shore up the contention that
CEOs -- take Enron as an example -- earn in proportion to
their intrinsic value?
They get paid according to their perceived worth. A company isn't
going to say, "We know you're going to run our company into the
ground but we'll still pay you 50 million dollars a year."
Ah, but the counter-examples are numerous. You say they won't.
I say that nonetheless, they do. It was nightly news fodder for
quite some time a couple of years back. Enron. WorldCom. Adelphia.
Global Crossing. Putnam. Strong. Hollinger...
So what? Their respective CEOs made their companies uncompetetive.
And were granted hugely bloated salaries, stock options, and bonuses
in the process.
So what? It's their company. Maybe if enough companies go out of business
then other companies will learn from their mistakes.
No, it was not their company. The executive managers ripped off the
shareholders.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morton Davis" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
17 Dec 2005 04:37:15 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:d257q1pgse9k7r7ralcatsu0jihg4l94in@4ax.com...
On 16 Dec 2005 19:55:04 GMT, in alt.atheism
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in
<43a31b98$0$5556$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:dnuq9k$131$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article <43a22fba$0$54295$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> writes:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:dnsvna$p15$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article <43a1d7e5$0$62227$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> writes:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:dnpj4l$d8v$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
As for worker pensions, anyone who rely's on worker pensions this
day and age is a fool. The people who end up retiring rich are the
ones who managed their own retirements.
Yes? And how does that observation shore up the contention that
CEOs -- take Enron as an example -- earn in proportion to
their intrinsic value?
They get paid according to their perceived worth. A company isn't
going to say, "We know you're going to run our company into the
ground but we'll still pay you 50 million dollars a year."
Ah, but the counter-examples are numerous. You say they won't.
I say that nonetheless, they do. It was nightly news fodder for
quite some time a couple of years back. Enron. WorldCom. Adelphia.
Global Crossing. Putnam. Strong. Hollinger...
So what? Their respective CEOs made their companies uncompetetive.
And were granted hugely bloated salaries, stock options, and bonuses
in the process.
So what? It's their company. Maybe if enough companies go out of business
then other companies will learn from their mistakes.
No, it was not their company. The executive managers ripped off the
shareholders.
The stockholders could fire them if they wanted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
17 Dec 2005 08:41:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:37:15 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Morton Davis" <antikerry@go.com> wrote in
<vq0pf.652842$xm3.576422@attbi_s21>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:d257q1pgse9k7r7ralcatsu0jihg4l94in@4ax.com...
On 16 Dec 2005 19:55:04 GMT, in alt.atheism
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in
<43a31b98$0$5556$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:dnuq9k$131$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article <43a22fba$0$54295$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> writes:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:dnsvna$p15$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article <43a1d7e5$0$62227$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> writes:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:dnpj4l$d8v$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
As for worker pensions, anyone who rely's on worker pensions this
day and age is a fool. The people who end up retiring rich are the
ones who managed their own retirements.
Yes? And how does that observation shore up the contention that
CEOs -- take Enron as an example -- earn in proportion to
their intrinsic value?
They get paid according to their perceived worth. A company isn't
going to say, "We know you're going to run our company into the
ground but we'll still pay you 50 million dollars a year."
Ah, but the counter-examples are numerous. You say they won't.
I say that nonetheless, they do. It was nightly news fodder for
quite some time a couple of years back. Enron. WorldCom. Adelphia.
Global Crossing. Putnam. Strong. Hollinger...
So what? Their respective CEOs made their companies uncompetetive.
And were granted hugely bloated salaries, stock options, and bonuses
in the process.
So what? It's their company. Maybe if enough companies go out of business
then other companies will learn from their mistakes.
No, it was not their company. The executive managers ripped off the
shareholders.
The stockholders could fire them if they wanted.
Delaware law has historically been biased toward the management in
power. Only recently have attempts to keep executives from controlling
the board become successful. The board was supposed to be the
representative of the stockholders, but until Sarbanes-Oxley, they were
generally the pet ferrets of the corporation's executives.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
16 Dec 2005 03:21:18 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:55:04 -0600, Deuteros wrote:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:dnuq9k$131$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article <43a22fba$0$54295$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> writes:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:dnsvna$p15$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article <43a1d7e5$0$62227$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> writes:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:dnpj4l$d8v$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
As for worker pensions, anyone who rely's on worker pensions this
day and age is a fool. The people who end up retiring rich are the
ones who managed their own retirements.
Yes? And how does that observation shore up the contention that
CEOs -- take Enron as an example -- earn in proportion to
their intrinsic value?
They get paid according to their perceived worth. A company isn't
going to say, "We know you're going to run our company into the
ground but we'll still pay you 50 million dollars a year."
Ah, but the counter-examples are numerous. You say they won't.
I say that nonetheless, they do. It was nightly news fodder for
quite some time a couple of years back. Enron. WorldCom. Adelphia.
Global Crossing. Putnam. Strong. Hollinger...
So what? Their respective CEOs made their companies uncompetetive.
And were granted hugely bloated salaries, stock options, and bonuses
in the process.
So what? It's their company.
And it's okay if they indulge in embezzlement, fraud, grand theft,
"cooking the books" and other crimes because it's "their company"?
Maybe if enough companies go out of business
then other companies will learn from their mistakes.
The companies named above didn't go out of business (or have
"issues") in the same year, in the same month and on the same day.
It doesn't appear that companies are learning "from their
mistakes".
After hurricane Katrina hit, it was indeed fortunate that there was
a very large building about 10 miles from the state capitol,
Jackson (MS) [and about thirty minutes from here (Vicksburg)], that
was vacant and emergency teams could use.
However, I just do not think that Bernard Ebers built the building
with hurricane recovery in mind. If I remember tomorrow (going over
to the distaff side's for school break & vacation time), I'll see
if there is anything that says "WorldCom" still on it.
Do you really think that criminal acts are mistakes from which
"then other companies will learn"??
Gray Shockley
-----------------------
And, yes, it was intentional.
["sb" & "vt"]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
17 Dec 2005 04:22:23 PM |
|
|
Gray Shockley <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0001HW.BFC88BEE0025E4E1F0284550@news.giganews.com:
And it's okay if they indulge in embezzlement, fraud, grand theft,
"cooking the books" and other crimes because it's "their company"?
No, that's illegal.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
13 Dec 2005 11:03:41 AM |
|
|
In article <dnmurh$dro$1@bolt.sonic.net> writes:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
"Gaia" <starchaser@inorbit.com> wrote in
It's because of Democrats you have a job with benefits (even though
you're an ungrateful *****).
No, it's because of the free market that I have a job with benefits.
LOL! Sucker!
There is no "free market". It's controlled and regulated by the
government.
Most of it is not.
The important parts are regulated.
If the market was wholly free of government involvement
you'd be dirt poor and working for subsistence wages.
According to your logic everybody should be making minimum wage.
And so another dumbshit neocon resorts to outright lying when the
facts won't agree with his cult.
Everybody gets paid what they are worth.
That's nothing more than obviously ***** propaganda designed to
convince suckers like you that CEO really do deserve tens of millions
of dollars for running companies into the ground.
Not mention that "everybody gets paid what they're worth"
is inherently circular.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
13 Dec 2005 03:59:14 PM |
|
|
(Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:dnmutd$88a$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article <dnmurh$dro$1@bolt.sonic.net> writes:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
"Gaia" <starchaser@inorbit.com> wrote in
It's because of Democrats you have a job with benefits (even
though you're an ungrateful *****).
No, it's because of the free market that I have a job with
benefits.
LOL! Sucker!
There is no "free market". It's controlled and regulated by the
government.
Most of it is not.
The important parts are regulated.
If the market was wholly free of government involvement
you'd be dirt poor and working for subsistence wages.
According to your logic everybody should be making minimum wage.
And so another dumbshit neocon resorts to outright lying when the
facts won't agree with his cult.
Everybody gets paid what they are worth.
That's nothing more than obviously ***** propaganda designed to
convince suckers like you that CEO really do deserve tens of millions
of dollars for running companies into the ground.
Not mention that "everybody gets paid what they're worth"
is inherently circular.
Of course it is. Your worth whatever someone is willing to pay you and
you're willing to accept. Didn't you ever take an economics class in
college?
.
|
|
|
| User: "KenStahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
13 Dec 2005 04:12:42 PM |
|
|
Deuteros wrote:
Of course it is. Your worth whatever someone is willing to pay you and
you're willing to accept. Didn't you ever take an economics class in
college?
If that were true there wouldn't be a single Republican who
earns more then $50 a week.
--
Blogging at http://HexagonalPeg.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "James H. Hood" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
14 Dec 2005 02:00:13 AM |
|
|
KenStahl <ktsahl@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oomdneTWrNXG2gLeRVn-jA@comcast.com...
Deuteros wrote:
Of course it is. Your worth whatever someone is willing to pay you and
you're willing to accept. Didn't you ever take an economics class in
college?
If that were true there wouldn't be a single Republican who
earns more then $50 a week.
Which still exceeds the average libdem worth of $0.02.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CPTFreedm" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
16 Dec 2005 09:02:51 AM |
|
|
KenStahl wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
Of course it is. Your worth whatever someone is willing to pay you and
you're willing to accept. Didn't you ever take an economics class in
college?
If that were true there wouldn't be a single Republican who earns more
then $50 a week.
Really? People that, for the most part, believe in personal
accountability and initiative and believe in self-sufficiency are likely
to earn at that low a level? While folks who think that everyone is a
"victim" who should be given other people's money and who often sue in
order to get other people's money would make more?
*THAT* is a fascinating fantasy you put forth.
Tell me why a Donkey would (or should?) make more money than an elephant
please.
CPT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
16 Dec 2005 12:54:55 PM |
|
|
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
KenStahl wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
Of course it is. Your worth whatever someone is willing to pay you and
you're willing to accept. Didn't you ever take an economics class in
college?
If that were true there wouldn't be a single Republican who earns more
then $50 a week.
Really? People that, for the most part, believe in personal
accountability and initiative and believe in self-sufficiency are likely
to earn at that low a level?
Is that why republicans demand mass borrowing and shifting debts onto
other people while taking money for themselves?
Oh, that's right: Republicans only believe in "personal
accountability and initiative" for OTHER people and never for
themselves.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
16 Dec 2005 01:48:46 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a30d7f$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
KenStahl wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
Of course it is. Your worth whatever someone is willing to pay you
and you're willing to accept. Didn't you ever take an economics class
in college?
If that were true there wouldn't be a single Republican who earns more
then $50 a week.
Really? People that, for the most part, believe in personal
accountability and initiative and believe in self-sufficiency are likely
to earn at that low a level?
Is that why republicans demand mass borrowing and shifting debts onto
other people while taking money for themselves?
Oh, that's right: Republicans only believe in "personal
accountability and initiative" for OTHER people and never for
themselves.
And then there's the Democrats who don't believe in personal
responsibility period.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
16 Dec 2005 02:01:37 PM |
|
|
On 16 Dec 2005 19:48:46 GMT, in alt.atheism
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in
<43a31a1e$0$5556$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a30d7f$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
KenStahl wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
Of course it is. Your worth whatever someone is willing to pay you
and you're willing to accept. Didn't you ever take an economics class
in college?
If that were true there wouldn't be a single Republican who earns more
then $50 a week.
Really? People that, for the most part, believe in personal
accountability and initiative and believe in self-sufficiency are likely
to earn at that low a level?
Is that why republicans demand mass borrowing and shifting debts onto
other people while taking money for themselves?
Oh, that's right: Republicans only believe in "personal
accountability and initiative" for OTHER people and never for
themselves.
And then there's the Democrats who don't believe in personal
responsibility period.
Republicans lie when they claim to believe in personal responsibility,
anyway. They want a system that smooths life's little problems for those
with money. Even the most liberal Democrat wants to make life a little
smoother for those who don't have money.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "KenStahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
16 Dec 2005 05:32:04 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
KenStahl wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
Of course it is. Your worth whatever someone is willing to pay you and
you're willing to accept. Didn't you ever take an economics class in
college?
If that were true there wouldn't be a single Republican who earns more
then $50 a week.
Really? People that, for the most part, believe in personal
accountability and initiative and believe in self-sufficiency are likely
to earn at that low a level?
Is that why republicans demand mass borrowing and shifting debts onto
other people while taking money for themselves?
Oh, that's right: Republicans only believe in "personal
accountability and initiative" for OTHER people and never for
themselves.
Don't forget raping the Social Security trust fund to spend
on all sorts of frivolous Republican ventures.
--
Blogging at http://HexagonalPeg.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
16 Dec 2005 05:40:06 PM |
|
|
In article <K9OdnftuF9bp0z7enZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com> KenStahl <ktsahl@yahoo.com> writes:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
KenStahl wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
Of course it is. Your worth whatever someone is willing to pay you and
you're willing to accept. Didn't you ever take an economics class in
college?
If that were true there wouldn't be a single Republican who earns more
then $50 a week.
Really? People that, for the most part, believe in personal
accountability and initiative and believe in self-sufficiency are likely
to earn at that low a level?
Is that why republicans demand mass borrowing and shifting debts onto
other people while taking money for themselves?
Oh, that's right: Republicans only believe in "personal
accountability and initiative" for OTHER people and never for
themselves.
Don't forget raping the Social Security trust fund to spend
on all sorts of frivolous Republican ventures.
Well, in all fairness, raiding Social Security to finance the
pork of the day has is a time-honored tradition highly
regarded on both sides of the aisle.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
17 Dec 2005 01:08:48 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
In article <K9OdnftuF9bp0z7enZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com> KenStahl <ktsahl@yahoo.com> writes:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
KenStahl wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
Of course it is. Your worth whatever someone is willing to pay you and
you're willing to accept. Didn't you ever take an economics class in
college?
If that were true there wouldn't be a single Republican who earns more
then $50 a week.
Really? People that, for the most part, believe in personal
accountability and initiative and believe in self-sufficiency are likely
to earn at that low a level?
Is that why republicans demand mass borrowing and shifting debts onto
other people while taking money for themselves?
Oh, that's right: Republicans only believe in "personal
accountability and initiative" for OTHER people and never for
themselves.
Don't forget raping the Social Security trust fund to spend
on all sorts of frivolous Republican ventures.
Well, in all fairness, raiding Social Security to finance the
pork of the day has is a time-honored tradition highly
regarded on both sides of the aisle.
It has been republicans who have been responsible for about 85% of
the national debt.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
17 Dec 2005 04:18:57 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a46240$0$58049$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
In article <K9OdnftuF9bp0z7enZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com> KenStahl
<ktsahl@yahoo.com> writes:
Ray Fischer wrote:
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
KenStahl wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
Of course it is. Your worth whatever someone is willing to pay you
and you're willing to accept. Didn't you ever take an economics
class in college?
If that were true there wouldn't be a single Republican who earns
more then $50 a week.
Really? People that, for the most part, believe in personal
accountability and initiative and believe in self-sufficiency are
likely to earn at that low a level?
Is that why republicans demand mass borrowing and shifting debts
onto other people while taking money for themselves?
Oh, that's right: Republicans only believe in "personal
accountability and initiative" for OTHER people and never for
themselves.
Don't forget raping the Social Security trust fund to spend
on all sorts of frivolous Republican ventures.
Well, in all fairness, raiding Social Security to finance the
pork of the day has is a time-honored tradition highly
regarded on both sides of the aisle.
It has been republicans who have been responsible for about 85% of
the national debt.
Care to back that statement up?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
17 Dec 2005 11:12:37 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
Well, in all fairness, raiding Social Security to finance the
pork of the day has is a time-honored tradition highly
regarded on both sides of the aisle.
It has been republicans who have been responsible for about 85% of
the national debt.
Care to back that statement up?
Lessee, when reagan took office it was at about $1,000,000,000,000.
Thanks to Reagan's spending and tax cuts it rapidly started to grow.
Clinton started to turn around annual deficit, but as soon as Bush
took office the red ink started flowing again and now the debt is
now well over $8,100,000,000,000
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
18 Dec 2005 02:59:03 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a4efc5$0$58118$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
Well, in all fairness, raiding Social Security to finance the
pork of the day has is a time-honored tradition highly
regarded on both sides of the aisle.
It has been republicans who have been responsible for about 85% of
the national debt.
Care to back that statement up?
Lessee, when reagan took office it was at about $1,000,000,000,000.
Thanks to Reagan's spending and tax cuts it rapidly started to grow.
Clinton started to turn around annual deficit, but as soon as Bush
took office the red ink started flowing again and now the debt is
now well over $8,100,000,000,000
Congress makes the budget, not the president. Both Republicans and
Democrats are guilty of slipping their personal riders on every spending
bill.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
18 Dec 2005 04:27:52 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
Well, in all fairness, raiding Social Security to finance the
pork of the day has is a time-honored tradition highly
regarded on both sides of the aisle.
It has been republicans who have been responsible for about 85% of
the national debt.
Care to back that statement up?
Lessee, when reagan took office it was at about $1,000,000,000,000.
Thanks to Reagan's spending and tax cuts it rapidly started to grow.
Clinton started to turn around annual deficit, but as soon as Bush
took office the red ink started flowing again and now the debt is
now well over $8,100,000,000,000
Congress makes the budget, not the president.
Wrong. The president creates a posposed budget which congress then
modifies, then once congress has approved a budget it's sent back to
the president for his signature.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
18 Dec 2005 05:09:28 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a5e268$0$58092$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
Well, in all fairness, raiding Social Security to finance the
pork of the day has is a time-honored tradition highly
regarded on both sides of the aisle.
It has been republicans who have been responsible for about 85% of
the national debt.
Care to back that statement up?
Lessee, when reagan took office it was at about $1,000,000,000,000.
Thanks to Reagan's spending and tax cuts it rapidly started to grow.
Clinton started to turn around annual deficit, but as soon as Bush
took office the red ink started flowing again and now the debt is
now well over $8,100,000,000,000
Congress makes the budget, not the president.
Wrong. The president creates a posposed budget which congress then
modifies, then once congress has approved a budget it's sent back to
the president for his signature.
Congress is the only government body allowed to spend money.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
18 Dec 2005 07:40:59 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a5e268$0$58092$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
Well, in all fairness, raiding Social Security to finance the
pork of the day has is a time-honored tradition highly
regarded on both sides of the aisle.
It has been republicans who have been responsible for about 85% of
the national debt.
Care to back that statement up?
Lessee, when reagan took office it was at about $1,000,000,000,000.
Thanks to Reagan's spending and tax cuts it rapidly started to grow.
Clinton started to turn around annual deficit, but as soon as Bush
took office the red ink started flowing again and now the debt is
now well over $8,100,000,000,000
Congress makes the budget, not the president.
Wrong. The president creates a posposed budget which congress then
modifies, then once congress has approved a budget it's sent back to
the president for his signature.
Congress is the only government body allowed to spend money.
Trite nonsense is _so_ much easier than thinking, even when it's
wrong.
In fact Congress authorizes spending but doesn't actually spend very
much. Most of the US government is part of the executive branch.
And the executive branch is under the president, not congress.
It's not congress that is spending $500,000,000,000 on Iraq.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
18 Dec 2005 08:54:48 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a60fab$0$58050$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a5e268$0$58092$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
Well, in all fairness, raiding Social Security to finance the
pork of the day has is a time-honored tradition highly
regarded on both sides of the aisle.
It has been republicans who have been responsible for about 85% of
the national debt.
Care to back that statement up?
Lessee, when reagan took office it was at about $1,000,000,000,000.
Thanks to Reagan's spending and tax cuts it rapidly started to grow.
Clinton started to turn around annual deficit, but as soon as Bush
took office the red ink started flowing again and now the debt is
now well over $8,100,000,000,000
Congress makes the budget, not the president.
Wrong. The president creates a posposed budget which congress then
modifies, then once congress has approved a budget it's sent back to
the president for his signature.
Congress is the only government body allowed to spend money.
Trite nonsense is _so_ much easier than thinking, even when it's
wrong.
In fact Congress authorizes spending but doesn't actually spend very
much.
Congress gives away your money to spend.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
20 Dec 2005 03:09:29 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in
news:43a620f8$0$97164$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a60fab$0$58050$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a5e268$0$58092$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
Well, in all fairness, raiding Social Security to
finance the pork of the day has is a time-honored
tradition highly regarded on both sides of the
aisle.
It has been republicans who have been responsible
for about 85% of the national debt.
Care to back that statement up?
Lessee, when reagan took office it was at about
$1,000,000,000,000. Thanks to Reagan's spending and
tax cuts it rapidly started to grow. Clinton started
to turn around annual deficit, but as soon as Bush
took office the red ink started flowing again and now
the debt is now well over $8,100,000,000,000
Congress makes the budget, not the president.
Wrong. The president creates a posposed budget which
congress then modifies, then once congress has approved
a budget it's sent back to the president for his
signature.
Congress is the only government body allowed to spend
money.
Trite nonsense is _so_ much easier than thinking, even
when it's wrong.
In fact Congress authorizes spending but doesn't actually
spend very much.
Congress gives away your money to spend.
Gosh, "Deuteros" appears to be still stuck in the 1980s. He's
using the same Reaganesque excuses.
Uh, "Deuteros". YOUR guys are now Congress.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQ6dJgT/rA6+b3AyhAQEHBwf9Fky3MyKnp+kcMPFgcvaVgjh3vgrqOuN6
uVWu59uqScPcREPwYlKDCmzC+R8YcEP6YTyJd0nUM4aE6dWsKdUbbyOFK+JbccFS
LupPBMCAJKWjYlck60XygZoq7LiIkyL+vdZVIqnGNSCHD/Y4JM6jnITF9XyHYiMK
J1YvwsQqqJfT9pqxTvHp0ydb+iannGTUvkM9OaHyfeKsvoSQjhogKmnm98eW1676
aU2Wm3u1szj68bDiNgfK7WKMWKAV0xFYXTSyWYoEyO0E+XGqlKjNTpXwd7gl6f8c
xcEPAWvBHo1b0eIFL6pgSaMDGiSV9KNtyqoxKpDVRBYp4H8/y8x8JA==
=SmUA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
18 Dec 2005 11:29:55 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
Well, in all fairness, raiding Social Security to finance the
pork of the day has is a time-honored tradition highly
regarded on both sides of the aisle.
It has been republicans who have been responsible for about 85% of
the national debt.
Care to back that statement up?
Lessee, when reagan took office it was at about $1,000,000,000,000.
Thanks to Reagan's spending and tax cuts it rapidly started to grow.
Clinton started to turn around annual deficit, but as soon as Bush
took office the red ink started flowing again and now the debt is
now well over $8,100,000,000,000
Congress makes the budget, not the president.
Wrong. The president creates a posposed budget which congress then
modifies, then once congress has approved a budget it's sent back to
the president for his signature.
Congress is the only government body allowed to spend money.
Trite nonsense is _so_ much easier than thinking, even when it's
wrong.
In fact Congress authorizes spending but doesn't actually spend very
much.
Congress gives away your money to spend.
The republican congress.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Red states turning blue |
19 Dec 2005 12:21:02 PM |
|
|
In article <43a620f8$0$97164$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> writes:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a60fab$0$58050$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a5e268$0$58092$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
Well, in all fairness, raiding Social Security to finance the
pork of the day has is a time-honored tradition highly
regarded on both sides of the aisle.
It has been republicans who have been responsible for about 85% of
the national debt.
Care to back that statement up?
Lessee, when reagan took office it was at about $1,000,000,000,000.
Thanks to Reagan's spending and tax cuts it rapidly started to grow.
Clinton started to turn around annual deficit, but as soon as Bush
took office the red ink started flowing again and now the debt is
now well over $8,100,000,000,000
Congress makes the budget, not the president.
Wrong. The president creates a posposed budget which congress then
modifies, then once congress has approved a budget it's sent back to
the president for his signature.
Congress is the only government body allowed to spend money.
Trite nonsense is _so_ much easier than thinking, even when it's
wrong.
In fact Congress authorizes spending but doesn't actually spend very
much.
Congress gives away your money to spend.
The President makes the original budget proposal.
The President has the power to veto the final
budget as submitted by Congress.
The President's branch of government implements
the vast majority of the actual spending.
The President can, and often does, neglect
to spend monies stipulated by Congress.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
