OT: "Economic Stimulus" - even Huckabee can see through this electionyear boondoogle [Archive]

Tom Keats

01-04-1970, 01:14 AM

In article <dc750a78-4295-43b9-9cf1-459afb1bc14b@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> writes:
> "We'll....end up borrowing $150 billion from the Chinese. And...most
> people are going to go out and buy stuff that's been imported from
> China. I have to wonder whose economy is going to be stimulated most
> by this package."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2g83k2
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/2g83k2
>
> Geez, if even a dullard like The Huck can see through this......

As we all know, national boundaries are meaningless
in the current Global Economy.

The New World Order is here, and it's Corporate &
multi-national, and we (all over the globe) are
stuck with it.
---
Why do I believe Huckabee is in Buchanan's
pants pocket?

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 01:14 AM

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> "We'll....end up borrowing $150 billion from the Chinese. And...most
> people are going to go out and buy stuff that's been imported from
> China. I have to wonder whose economy is going to be stimulated most
> by this package."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2g83k2
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/2g83k2
>
> Geez, if even a dullard like The Huck can see through this......
>
Public works projects? Was that not a FDR idea? And have not the last 75
years of US politics been about the political "right" trying to undo
everything that FDR did that benefits people who actually work for their
income?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

ilaboo

01-04-1970, 01:14 AM

"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
news:dc750a78-4295-43b9-9cf1-459afb1bc14b@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> "We'll....end up borrowing $150 billion from the Chinese. And...most
> people are going to go out and buy stuff that's been imported from
> China. I have to wonder whose economy is going to be stimulated most
> by this package."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2g83k2
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/2g83k2
>
> Geez, if even a dullard like The Huck can see through this...

i thaught that Ponzi schemes where illegal

fwiw...

Ozark Bicycle

01-04-1970, 01:15 AM

On Jan 25, 12:16*pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 8:44 am, Ozark Bicycle
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > "We'll....end up borrowing $150 billion from the Chinese. And...most
> > people are going to go out and buy stuff that's been imported from
> > China. I have to wonder whose economy is going to be stimulated most
> > by this package."
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/2g83k2
>
> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/2g83k2
>
> > Geez, if even a dullard like The Huck can see through this......
>
> I'm surprised he didn't suggest extermination camps for teh gay.
> Seriously. The religious ****tards around here have gone so far to the
> right that it's openly talked about.

Agreed that The Huck and his merry band of Babble Bangers are
repugnant.

But, he (actually probably an advisor or advisors) is spot on about
this "economic stimulus" package. As they say on Fulton Street, "this
fish stinks from the head down."

neil0502@yahoo.com

01-04-1970, 01:15 AM

On Jan 25, 10:16*am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 8:44 am, Ozark Bicycle
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > "We'll....end up borrowing $150 billion from the Chinese. And...most
> > people are going to go out and buy stuff that's been imported from
> > China. I have to wonder whose economy is going to be stimulated most
> > by this package."
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/2g83k2
>
> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/2g83k2
>
> > Geez, if even a dullard like The Huck can see through this......
>
> I'm surprised he didn't suggest extermination camps for teh gay.
> Seriously. The religious ****tards around here have gone so far to the
> right that it's openly talked about.

Awww.

Somebody needs to be saved ;-)

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 01:15 AM

terra lutra wrote:
> On Jan 25, 8:44 am, Ozark Bicycle
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>> "We'll....end up borrowing $150 billion from the Chinese. And...most
>> people are going to go out and buy stuff that's been imported from
>> China. I have to wonder whose economy is going to be stimulated most
>> by this package."
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2g83k2
>>
>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/2g83k2
>>
>> Geez, if even a dullard like The Huck can see through this......
>
> I'm surprised he didn't suggest extermination camps for teh gay.
> Seriously. The religious ****tards around here have gone so far to the
> right that it's openly talked about.
>
Yet, these same working class fundamentalists and evangelicals who are
so anti-homosexual vote for politicians who economic policies
figuratively ask them to bend over for the rich!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Ozark Bicycle

01-04-1970, 01:17 AM

On Jan 25, 10:47*pm, MLB5...@webtv.net (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> >Group: rec.bicycles.misc Date: Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 1:17pm From:
>
> MLB5...@webtv.net
>
> >(Michael*Baldwin)
> >**I'm a Libertarian. Tax Rebate is code for an admitted
> >over confiscation of property (money) by my government.
> >**Any Democrat or Republican in Congress who would support a
> >tax rebate and NOT support The Fair Tax is a
> >hypocrite.
> >**I do agree however that a token gesture tax rebate
> >will stimulate the economy and create jobs...in CHINA!
> >Best Regards - Mike Baldwin
>
> I support Mike Huckabee because he supports The Fair Tax

Have you other reasons for supporting Huckabee?

<remainder snipped>

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:18 AM

>Have you other reasons for supporting Huckabee?

He's an advocate and strong supporter of the 10th Article of The Bill
of Rights. I'm fully aware of the "implications" associated with that
stance.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Ozark Bicycle

01-04-1970, 01:18 AM

On Jan 26, 6:16*am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <dc750a78-4295-43b9-9cf1-459afb1bc...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> * * * * Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> writes:
>
> > "We'll....end up borrowing $150 billion from the Chinese. And...most
> > people are going to go out and buy stuff that's been imported from
> > China. I have to wonder whose economy is going to be stimulated most
> > by this package."
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/2g83k2
>
> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/2g83k2
>
> > Geez, if even a dullard like The Huck can see through this......
>
> As we all know, national boundaries are meaningless
> in the current Global Economy.

To a large degree, yes. However, how "helpful" to the US economy is it
for the US government to (in essence) borrow money, dole it out in
small parcels to the populace and tell them to "go spend it"? What
happens when that brief little spending spree is over and everyone
wakes up with an even bigger hangover?

>
> The New World Order is here, and it's Corporate &
> multi-national, and we (all over the globe) are
> stuck with it.
> ---
> Why do I believe Huckabee is in Buchanan's
> pants pocket?

Why don't you tell us why?

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:18 AM

>Why do I believe Huckabee is in Buchanan's pants pocket?
>cheers,
>********Tom

I don't see the connection, please enlighten me.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 01:18 AM

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> ...
> To a large degree, yes. However, how "helpful" to the US economy is it
> for the US government to (in essence) borrow money, dole it out in
> small parcels to the populace and tell them to "go spend it"? What
> happens when that brief little spending spree is over and everyone
> wakes up with an even bigger hangover?...
>
butbutbut, the private bankers that control the Federal Reserve (itself
a private institution) will get 3% of all the money created! That is
$4.5 BILLION DOLLARS in their pockets for doing essentially nothing.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Tom Keats

01-04-1970, 01:18 AM

In article <81b71c24-0ed8-4a73-843d-77a1a7e849a1@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> writes:
> On Jan 26, 6:16*am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>> In article <dc750a78-4295-43b9-9cf1-459afb1bc...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>> * * * * Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> writes:
>>
>> > "We'll....end up borrowing $150 billion from the Chinese. And...most
>> > people are going to go out and buy stuff that's been imported from
>> > China. I have to wonder whose economy is going to be stimulated most
>> > by this package."
>>
>> >http://tinyurl.com/2g83k2
>>
>> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/2g83k2
>>
>> > Geez, if even a dullard like The Huck can see through this......
>>
>> As we all know, national boundaries are meaningless
>> in the current Global Economy.

> To a large degree, yes. However, how "helpful" to the US economy is it
> for the US government to (in essence) borrow money, dole it out in
> small parcels to the populace and tell them to "go spend it"?

It's supposed to rejuvenate The Economy by keeping
money flowing.

As long as money flows in the appropriate direction,
all is well.

Of course it's not helpful at all in the long run to
give out free money. Unless you want to be re-elected.

> What
> happens when that brief little spending spree is over and everyone
> wakes up with an even bigger hangover?

You turn into Canada, and think-up ways to artistically
fudge the books. And blame the current state of affairs
on the previous government.

>> The New World Order is here, and it's Corporate &
>> multi-national, and we (all over the globe) are
>> stuck with it.
>> ---
>> Why do I believe Huckabee is in Buchanan's
>> pants pocket?
> Why don't you tell us why?

Just a gut feeling. Buchanan's a lame duck who
still wants to be influential, and needs a front
who isn't Pat, and hasn't said enough controversy
to turn voters away. Pat has already burned his
bridges behind him. Mike hasn't (yet.)

If you want a Good Ol' Boy for a really good Prez,
he's gotta be dragged kickin' & screamin' into office.
Reluctant to get there, but dutiful and answerable
and having Integrity once he's there. I guess such
people haven't existed since the '40s or '50s, when
people had real values, and respect for their fellows,
and were less likely to see the electorate as a
bunch of suckers (although that's a lot to ask of
a politician.)

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Ozark Bicycle

01-04-1970, 01:18 AM

On Jan 26, 7:44*am, MLB5...@webtv.net (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> >Have you other reasons for supporting Huckabee?
>
> *He's an advocate and strong supporter of the 10th Article of The Bill
> of Rights.

With respect, I always get a chuckle out of someone running for POTUS
who gives lip service to "states rights". IIRC, Reagan did that, and
look at the results.

>*I'm fully aware of the "implications" associated with that
> stance.
>

What do you see as the "implications"?

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:18 AM

>Ozark asks
>
>What do you see as the "implications"?

At the chance of being baited, I'll reserve comment. I apologize if
your inquiry is sincere.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

landotter

01-04-1970, 01:18 AM

On Jan 26, 8:15 am, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 7:44 am, MLB5...@webtv.net (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>
> > >Have you other reasons for supporting Huckabee?
>
> > He's an advocate and strong supporter of the 10th Article of The Bill
> > of Rights.
>
> With respect, I always get a chuckle out of someone running for POTUS
> who gives lip service to "states rights". IIRC, Reagan did that, and
> look at the results.
>
> > I'm fully aware of the "implications" associated with that
> > stance.
>
> What do you see as the "implications"?

In Huckabee's case, as he's a Christian Dominionist who wants to
dismantle this Republic to rebuild it as a Christian nationalist
state--state's rights can give power to do this drip by drip.
Huckabee's a very dangerous man, save for that crucial mad genius that
he lacks. Ha ha ha!

Bob

01-04-1970, 01:18 AM

On Jan 26, 8:15*am, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 7:44*am, MLB5...@webtv.net (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>
> > >Have you other reasons for supporting Huckabee?
>
> > *He's an advocate and strong supporter of the 10th Article of The Bill
> > of Rights.
>
> With respect, I always get a chuckle out of someone running for POTUS
> who gives lip service to "states rights". IIRC, Reagan did that, and
> look at the results.
>
> >*I'm fully aware of the "implications" associated with that
> > stance.
>
> What do you see as the "implications"?

I don't know what MB sees as the implications nor am I speaking in
support of any political candidate. As far as States' Rights are
concerned though I think it odd that many people who rail against
corporations like Walmart ("There is too much power concentrated
there. Smaller businesses don't stand a chance and we the public are
the real losers.") fail to recognize the similar effects of very
powerful central government and very powerful multinational
corporations. Both limit the power of the little guy. I guess one's
opinion all depends on whether one agrees with the political
philosophy of those in power and/or one's financial investment in the
corporations. I find that those scoffing at States' Rights are, as a
rule, more likely to be advocates of a nanny state while those that
are untroubled by the power of huge corporations tend to be
stockholders. I can't totally agree with either.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:18 AM

Ozark sincerely asks

>What do you see as the "implications"?

I had a friend tell me he "shuddered" when he heard Huckabee was
pro-state rights adding "we [the nation] don't need a segregationist in
the White House." While I was left speechless, my horizon had been
broaden.

The Supreme Court has trampled The Bill of Rights nearly into
obscurity. Take any one of the hot button issues. Abortion, Gun
_Control_, Health Care, Public Education, Public Transportation and the
list goes on These are State issues, not Federal.
Regardless ones political persuasion, we need to collectively take our
country back. Politically that process begins with supporting
candidates who believe the Framers got it correct.
The Framers felt that states should not only be defined by borders, but
by its people as well.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Chalo

01-04-1970, 01:18 AM

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> Michael Baldwin wrote:
>
> With respect, I always get a chuckle out of someone running for POTUS
> who gives lip service to "states rights". IIRC, Reagan did that, and
> look at the results.
>
> > I'm fully aware of the "implications" associated with that
> > stance.
>
> What do you see as the "implications"?

Here in the South, "states' rights" is code for "what we fought the
Civil War over". It's not _only_ about the ability of white people to
own black people literally or figuratively, but that's a big part of
it. Circumspect politicians use a less-loaded term like "Tenth
Amendment rights" which is becoming rapidly more loaded as a result.

People who would like to see states differentiate themselves for the
purpose of doing a better job with regard to social justice and
economic equality do not use terms like "states' rights" or "Tenth
Amendment rights" even if that is technically the sort of thing they
are talking about.

In many or most cases, a reference to "states' rights" isn't really
about rights of any kind but rather the opposite, much like the phrase
"our honor is loyalty" does not have a bearing on honor or loyalty at
all.

Chalo

Chalo

01-04-1970, 01:18 AM

Jym Dyer

01-04-1970, 01:18 AM

>> I'm fully aware of the "implications" associated with that
>> stance.
> What do you see as the "implications"?

=v= You know, "slavery" and "lynchings" and such.
<_Jym_>

Ozark Bicycle

01-04-1970, 01:19 AM

On Jan 26, 11:24*am, MLB5...@webtv.net (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> >Ozark asks
>
> >What do you see as the "implications"?
>
> *At the chance of being baited, I'll reserve comment. *I apologize if
> your inquiry is sincere.
>
> Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

My question is sincere, no baiting intended (and no apologies on your
part needed, either; I can understand your reservations, given the
'climate' here).

bigjimpack@gmail.com

01-04-1970, 01:19 AM

Why would that be bad? We had eight years of clinton's socialist crap
that led to 9/11. We have gays wanting to "marry", welfare has taken
away the edge Americans used to have, and criminals love the abolition
of the death penalty. It's time America became the God-fearing nation
it once was. When God was our leader we prospered, were victorious in
every conflict we fought, our children prayed in school instead of
shooting. I'd love to see America strong again. Huckabee is
America's onlyhope in'08!

On Jan 26, 1:10*pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 8:15 am, Ozark Bicycle
>
>
>
>
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 7:44 am, MLB5...@webtv.net (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>
> > > >Have you other reasons for supporting Huckabee?
>
> > > *He's an advocate and strong supporter of the 10th Article of The Bill
> > > of Rights.
>
> > With respect, I always get a chuckle out of someone running for POTUS
> > who gives lip service to "states rights". IIRC, Reagan did that, and
> > look at the results.
>
> > > I'm fully aware of the "implications" associated with that
> > > stance.
>
> > What do you see as the "implications"?
>
> In Huckabee's case, as he's a Christian Dominionist who wants to
> dismantle this Republic to rebuild it as a Christian nationalist
> state--state's rights can give power to do this drip by drip.
> Huckabee's a very dangerous man, save for that crucial mad genius that
> he lacks. Ha ha ha!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ozark Bicycle

01-04-1970, 01:20 AM

On Jan 26, 12:30*pm, Bob <hunr...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 8:15*am, Ozark Bicycle
>
>
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 7:44*am, MLB5...@webtv.net (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>
> > > >Have you other reasons for supporting Huckabee?
>
> > > *He's an advocate and strong supporter of the 10th Article of The Bill
> > > of Rights.
>
> > With respect, I always get a chuckle out of someone running for POTUS
> > who gives lip service to "states rights". IIRC, Reagan did that, and
> > look at the results.
>
> > >*I'm fully aware of the "implications" associated with that
> > > stance.
>
> > What do you see as the "implications"?
>
> I don't know what MB sees as the implications nor am I speaking in
> support of any political candidate. As far as States' Rights are
> concerned though I think it odd that many people who rail against
> corporations like Walmart ("There is too much power concentrated
> there. Smaller businesses don't stand a chance and we the public are
> the real losers.") fail to recognize the similar effects of very
> powerful central government and very powerful multinational
> corporations. Both limit the power of the little guy. I guess one's
> opinion all depends on whether one agrees with the political
> philosophy of those in power and/or one's financial investment in the
> corporations. I find that those scoffing at States' Rights are, as a
> rule, more likely to be advocates of a nanny state while those that
> are untroubled by the power of huge corporations tend to be
> stockholders. I can't totally agree with either.
>

IMO, 'less government' at both the state and/or federal leval can be a
good thing. OTOH, all to often, the appeal to states rights made by
those aspiring to be POTUS are totally disingenuous. In Huckabee's
case, I beleve it to be a "codeword' meant to appeal to religious
fundamentalists who see the federal government as being responsible
for a more secular society.

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 01:22 AM

Michael Baldwin wrote:
> Ozark sincerely asks
>
>> What do you see as the "implications"?
>
> I had a friend tell me he "shuddered" when he heard Huckabee was
> pro-state rights adding "we [the nation] don't need a segregationist in
> the White House." While I was left speechless, my horizon had been
> broaden.
>
> The Supreme Court has trampled The Bill of Rights nearly into
> obscurity. Take any one of the hot button issues. Abortion, Gun
> _Control_, Health Care, Public Education, Public Transportation and the
> list goes on...
>
Add slavery and "Jim Crow" segregation to other "states rights" the
Federal Government has taken away.

Funny how the availability of health care and public education are
considered fundamental rights in civilized nations.

> These are State issues, not Federal.
> Regardless ones political persuasion, we need to collectively take our
> country back. Politically that process begins with supporting
> candidates who believe the Framers got it correct.
> The Framers felt that states should not only be defined by borders, but
> by its people as well.
>
Funny how the people now have less rights than the non-living entities
of corporations.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:22 AM

>Add slavery and "Jim Crow" segregation to other "states rights"
>the Federal Government has taken away.
>
Wrong - The 13th & 15th Constitutional Amendments were FINALLY enforced.

>Funny how the availability of health care and public education
>are considered fundamental rights in civilized nations.
>
Wrong - Do all Socialist countries provide the forementioned to known
illegal aliens?
>
>
>Funny how the people now have less rights than the
>non-living entities of corporations.
>
Wrong - Individual citizens have LESS POWER because of The 16th
Amendment. Corporations have MORE POWER as a result.
The Framers were opposed income taxes for this very reason.

I know the facts are not as "fun" as reading bumper stickers.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Bob

01-04-1970, 01:23 AM

On Jan 26, 6:31*pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > Michael Baldwin wrote:
>
> > With respect, I always get a chuckle out of someone running for POTUS
> > who gives lip service to "states rights". IIRC, Reagan did that, and
> > look at the results.
>
> > > I'm fully aware of the "implications" associated with that
> > > stance.
>
> > What do you see as the "implications"?
>
> Here in the South, "states' rights" is code for "what we fought the
> Civil War over". *It's not _only_ about the ability of white people to
> own black people literally or figuratively, but that's a big part of
> it. *Circumspect politicians use a less-loaded term like "Tenth
> Amendment rights" which is becoming rapidly more loaded as a result.
>
> People who would like to see states differentiate themselves for the
> purpose of doing a better job with regard to social justice and
> economic equality do not use terms like "states' rights" or "Tenth
> Amendment rights" even if that is technically the sort of thing they
> are talking about.
>
> In many or most cases, a reference to "states' rights" isn't really
> about rights of any kind but rather the opposite, much like the phrase
> "our honor is loyalty" does not have a bearing on honor or loyalty at
> all.
>
> Chalo

The flip side of that coin is that people that use terms like "social
justice" and "economic equality" are actually talking about social
engineering and eliminating property rights through confiscatory
taxation.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Jym Dyer

01-04-1970, 01:23 AM

> Here in the South, "states' rights" is code for "what we
> fought the Civil War over".

=v= Never mind that the abolitionist state of Massachusetts
was practicing its "states' rights" by not apprehending escaped
slaves and shipping them back to slavery, that the South wanted
the Feds to help them with that, and fired on Fort Sumter to
underscore the point. Who needs historical accuracy anyway?
<_Jym_>

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:23 AM

Chalo says

>People who would like to see states differentiate themselves for
>the purpose of doing a better job with regard to
>social justice and economic equality do not use terms like
>"states' rights" or "Tenth Amendment rights" even if that is
>technically the sort of thing they are talking about.

Yet Mike Huckabee does. What a shame. It seems our society has chosen
the comfort of political correctness and all it's ambiguity over the
truth.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 01:23 AM

Michael Baldwin wrote:
>> Add slavery and "Jim Crow" segregation to other "states rights"
>> the Federal Government has taken away.
>>
> Wrong - The 13th & 15th Constitutional Amendments were FINALLY enforced.
>
Because the Federal government decided to enforce them - the southern
states that practiced these abominations did not want to give them up.

>> Funny how the availability of health care and public education
>> are considered fundamental rights in civilized nations.
>>
> Wrong - Do all Socialist countries provide the forementioned to known
> illegal aliens?
>>
Some certainly do, while the movement in the US is to prohibit providing
these services.

>> Funny how the people now have less rights than the
>> non-living entities of corporations.
>>
> Wrong - Individual citizens have LESS POWER because of The 16th
> Amendment. Corporations have MORE POWER as a result.
>
Are you seriously suggesting that individuals have more power than
corporations in the contemporary US?

> The Framers were opposed income taxes for this very reason.
>
What do income taxes have to do with the matter at hand (power of
corporations versus income taxes)?

> I know the facts are not as "fun" as reading bumper stickers.
>
What bumper stickers? (I happen to like "Visualize Whirled Peas" and
"Dog is My Co-Pilot".)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:23 AM

>MB states - Individual citizens have LESS POWER because of
>The 16th Amendment. * Corporations have MORE POWER as a
>result.
>
>TS asks - Are you seriously suggesting that individuals have
>more power than corporations in the contemporary US?
>****

uh? I'm suggesting you might want to read what I wrote again. :)

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:23 AM

Tom asks

>What do income taxes have to do with the matter
>at hand (power of corporations versus income taxes)?

On second thought your right. Why just the other day my neighbor told
me he contributed $250,000 to a Congressman's re-election campaign on
speculation that said Congressman would pass a new tax code exempting
middle aged white guys with kids in college, wives on Prozac, and
max'ed out credit cards, from paying income taxes in years 2008, 2009 &
2010.
As luck would have it, I wouldn't qualify. My kids are on Prozac, my
wifes "max'ed out" and I'm in college (2nd job, night shift custodian)

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Tom Keats

01-04-1970, 01:23 AM

In article <4003-479BF09E-489@storefull-3112.bay.webtv.net>,
MLB5611@webtv.net

(Michael Baldwin) writes:
> Chalo says
>
>>People who would like to see states differentiate themselves for
>>the purpose of doing a better job with regard to
>>social justice and economic equality do not use terms like
>>"states' rights" or "Tenth Amendment rights" even if that is
>>technically the sort of thing they are talking about.
>
> Yet Mike Huckabee does. What a shame. It seems our society has chosen
> the comfort of political correctness and all it's ambiguity over the
> truth.

It seems your society has foresaken those who'll stick
their chins out, and take it on the chin, for all the
right reasons.

Or, you don't have enough of those folks.

I guess the whole world doesn't. Canada needs
such a leader too, but all we get is Reformative
mambie-pambies.

Beware of those who stick their chins out a little,
just for appearance's sake.

Eleanor Roosevelt had a mighty chin that
no hack could withstand.

I bet Eleanor Roosevelt could, if she wanted to,
easily turn Mike Huckabee into a willing pony boy.

Where's your leadership nowadays?

Y'know who'd make a good Prez? Chuck Berry.
He'd show up at the White House every once
in a while. He'd drive himself there.
And he'd no doubt drive himself away from there.

Bo Diddley for vip.

I'd like to be their mixologist.

Heh.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Chalo

01-04-1970, 01:23 AM

Michael Baldwin wrote:
>
> Chalo says
> >
> >People who would like to see states differentiate themselves for
> >the purpose of doing a better job with regard to
> >social justice and economic equality do not use terms like
> >"states' rights" or "Tenth Amendment rights" even if that is
> >technically the sort of thing they are talking about.
>
> Yet Mike Huckabee does. What a shame. It seems our society has chosen
> the comfort of political correctness and all it's ambiguity over the
> truth.

I'm pretty sure that Huckabee means more or less the same thing by
"states' rights" that George Wallace and Strom Thurmond did. None for
me, thanks.

In case you hadn't noticed, we are not a Christian nation. "Who gives
a f***?" holds a commanding lead in the race for God, with Jesus,
Mammon, and Ronnie Raygun tied for a distant second.

Chalo

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 01:23 AM

Michael Baldwin wrote:
>> MB states - Individual citizens have LESS POWER because of
>> The 16th Amendment. Corporations have MORE POWER as a
>> result.
>>
>> TS asks - Are you seriously suggesting that individuals have
>> more power than corporations in the contemporary US?
>>
>
> uh? I'm suggesting you might want to read what I wrote again. :)
>
Uh? was my reaction to parts of the previous post that I replied to.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:23 AM

TK says

>It seems your society has foresaken those who'll stick their
>chins out, and take it on the chin, for all
>the right reasons.

Well Tom, believe it or not, I'm an optimist. All dynamic societies
need to be constantly reminded of what leadership is. I agree, currently
the world is overdue for some positive leadership.
I'll give you an example. Everyday I try to be the man my dog thinks
I am. :)

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:24 AM

Chalo claims

>In case you hadn't noticed, we are not a Christian
>nation.

Respectfully Chalo your wrong. A quick Google search of polling data
suggests that a overwhelming majority of Americans consider themselves
Christians.
I'm finding your bullying behavior a bit tedious. Your points been
made, you're afraid of Mike Huckabee, Ronald Reagan and God, so be it.
I'm afraid of The Clintons period.
Linking Mike Huckabee with the likes of Wallace and Thurmond is quite a
leap but I'll respect your opinion. Will you offer me the same accord
regarding the Clintons?

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:24 AM

Chalo - The Bridge Builder & Crew

>I'm pretty sure that Huckabee means more or less the
>same thing by "states' rights" that George Wallace and Strom
>Thurmond did. -

Project Public Relations Director George Wallace stated -"I draw the
line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I
say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

Project Architect & Designer Strom Thurmond added - "Segregation in the
South is honest, open and aboveboard. Of the two systems, or styles of
segregation, the Northern and the Southern, there is no doubt whatever
in my mind which is the better."

...is that the "more or less" of it Chalo?...

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Mike Jacoubowsky

01-04-1970, 01:24 AM

> Respectfully Chalo your wrong. A quick Google search of polling data
> suggests that a overwhelming majority of Americans consider themselves
> Christians.
> I'm finding your bullying behavior a bit tedious. Your points been
> made, you're afraid of Mike Huckabee, Ronald Reagan and God, so be it.
> I'm afraid of The Clintons period.
> Linking Mike Huckabee with the likes of Wallace and Thurmond is quite a
> leap but I'll respect your opinion. Will you offer me the same accord
> regarding the Clintons?

Last I heard, Bill & Hillary profess to be Christians as well. Hillary has
often said it has been her faith that has gotten her through the tough
times. Perhaps not "model" Christians, but at least they have some
willingness to admit their frailties & weaknesses.

> Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Michael Baldwin" <MLB5611@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4003-479C0F1C-505@storefull-3112.bay.webtv.net...
> Chalo claims
>
>>In case you hadn't noticed, we are not a Christian
>>nation.
>
> Respectfully Chalo your wrong. A quick Google search of polling data
> suggests that a overwhelming majority of Americans consider themselves
> Christians.
> I'm finding your bullying behavior a bit tedious. Your points been
> made, you're afraid of Mike Huckabee, Ronald Reagan and God, so be it.
> I'm afraid of The Clintons period.
> Linking Mike Huckabee with the likes of Wallace and Thurmond is quite a
> leap but I'll respect your opinion. Will you offer me the same accord
> regarding the Clintons?
>
> Best Regards - Mike Baldwin
>

Chalo

01-04-1970, 01:24 AM

Michael Baldwin wrote:
>
> Chalo claims
> >
> >In case you hadn't noticed, we are not a Christian
> >nation.
>
> Respectfully Chalo your wrong. A quick Google search of polling data
> suggests that a overwhelming majority of Americans consider themselves
> Christians.

They are "Christians" like they are "Republicans" or "Democrats".
That is, when presented with a multiple-choice list, they'll choose
one. But the vast majority of people in this country are first and
foremost _secular_. Having a theocratic leader wouldn't suit them
even if he came out of the same religious tradition with which they
identify.

Chalo

Tom Keats

01-04-1970, 01:24 AM

In article <4003-479C1493-508@storefull-3112.bay.webtv.net>,
MLB5611@webtv.net (Michael Baldwin) writes:
> TK says
>
>>It seems your society has foresaken those who'll stick their
>>chins out, and take it on the chin, for all
>>the right reasons.
>
> Well Tom, believe it or not, I'm an optimist. All dynamic societies
> need to be constantly reminded of what leadership is. I agree, currently
> the world is overdue for some positive leadership.
> I'll give you an example. Everyday I try to be the man my dog thinks
> I am. :)

I'm sure Hillary would do the same for you.

Up to a point, at least.

Would Ellen Barkin be a better prez than Hillary?
I mean, besides being better lookin'.
(I kinda sweetishly like Ellen Barkin. Her snake eyes
knock me out.)

cheers,
Tom

--
"We're upping our standards. So up yours."
-- Pat Paulsen

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 01:24 AM

Robert Hunt wrote:
> On Jan 26, 6:31 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Baldwin wrote:
>>> With respect, I always get a chuckle out of someone running for POTUS
>>> who gives lip service to "states rights". IIRC, Reagan did that, and
>>> look at the results.
>>>> I'm fully aware of the "implications" associated with that
>>>> stance.
>>> What do you see as the "implications"?
>> Here in the South, "states' rights" is code for "what we fought the
>> Civil War over". It's not _only_ about the ability of white people to
>> own black people literally or figuratively, but that's a big part of
>> it. Circumspect politicians use a less-loaded term like "Tenth
>> Amendment rights" which is becoming rapidly more loaded as a result.
>>
>> People who would like to see states differentiate themselves for the
>> purpose of doing a better job with regard to social justice and
>> economic equality do not use terms like "states' rights" or "Tenth
>> Amendment rights" even if that is technically the sort of thing they
>> are talking about.
>>
>> In many or most cases, a reference to "states' rights" isn't really
>> about rights of any kind but rather the opposite, much like the phrase
>> "our honor is loyalty" does not have a bearing on honor or loyalty at
>> all.
>>
>> Chalo
>
> The flip side of that coin is that people that use terms like "social
> justice" and "economic equality" are actually talking about social
> engineering and eliminating property rights through confiscatory
> taxation.
>
So some people should get to rule the rest, just because they won the
"inheritance lobby"? That is the actual situation in the US, behind the
Potemkin veneer of democracy.

I would be happy to eliminate all such programs that Mr. Hunt derides,
as long as we also eliminate the government functions of protecting the
property of the rich, since those are also a form of welfare.

Need to protect your mansion for the "great unwashed"? Hire your own
private security and firefighters.

Need to keep an uppity developing nation in line (e.g. Mosaddeq in Iran,
Árbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile)? Hire your own corporate
mercenaries and undercover operatives.

Need to repel foreign invaders? Organize your private military.

Need to keep out striking workers down at the factory so the scabs can
be brought in? Hire your own goons.

Need roads, canals, harbors and airport to transport your goods to
market and bring raw materials to your factories? Purchase the needed
land and build your own.

Need educated workers? Build you own schools and universities to train them.

Need electronic communications? Build your own network of fiber optic
cables, launch your own satellites.

But whatever you do, DO NOT COME TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR YOUR WELFARE!

After all, the private sector can do EVERYTHING better than government.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Bob

01-04-1970, 01:24 AM

On Jan 27, 1:32*am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:

>
> Would Ellen Barkin be a better prez than Hillary?
> I mean, besides being better lookin'.
> (I kinda sweetishly like Ellen Barkin. Her snake eyes
> knock me out.)
>

Hillary would likely be a more effective (effective doesn't equal
"good". That value judgement depends on whether one agrees with her
actions.) president but you're 99% correct about Ellen Barkin being
better looking. You would be 100% correct except for using the
unfortunate term "snake eyes". Cat eyes? Yes, but **snake** eyes? You
aren't too lucky with the ladies, are you? <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

r15757@aol.com

01-04-1970, 01:24 AM

On Jan 27, 1:26 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> ... Perhaps not "model" Christians, but at least they have some
> willingness to admit their frailties & weaknesses.

Honestly I have seen very little of that type of willingness from
either of those two characters.

R.

Chalo

01-04-1970, 01:24 AM

Michael Baldwin wrote:
>
> Chalo - The Bridge Builder & Crew
> >
> >I'm pretty sure that Huckabee means more or less the
> >same thing by "states' rights" that George Wallace and Strom
> >Thurmond did. -
>
> Project Public Relations Director George Wallace stated -"I draw the
> line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I
> say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."
>
> Project Architect & Designer Strom Thurmond added - "Segregation in the
> South is honest, open and aboveboard. Of the two systems, or styles of
> segregation, the Northern and the Southern, there is no doubt whatever
> in my mind which is the better."
>
> ..is that the "more or less" of it Chalo?...

Hey, whatever the people choose for themselves in places like Alabama
and South Carolina, right? Just like in the Tenth Amendment that
Huckabee would like to restore to its former glory. States that want
racial equality before the law can have it, and states that don't...
they can have what they like. That's what "reserved to the States
respectively" means.

While we're sprucing up the Founders' right and proper Constitution
and getting rid of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth
Amendments that they never had in mind, let's be sure to put the
Sixteenth and Nineteenth Amendments up on Craigslist too. The
Founding Fathers never intended to collect an income tax, or for women
to have the vote either.

Chalo

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:24 AM

Tom Sherman says

>So some people should get to rule the rest, just
>because they won the "inheritance lobby"? That is the actual
>situation in the US, behind the Potemkin veneer of democracy.

When a Democratic Republic erodes, all that's left _IS_ democracy. The
Framers knew this, hence The Bill of Rights.

Hamilton writes ; Power being almost always the rival of power, the
general government will at all times stand ready to check the
usurpations of the state governments, and these will have same
disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing
themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If
their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as
the instrument of redress.

The 13th & 15th Constitutional Amendments are proof that the Framers
indeed knew what they were doing.

I think Mike Huckabee believes the Framers had it right also, when they
opposed the taxation of income and supported the generation of Federal
Revenue through consumption taxes.

Check out who opposes The Fair Tax. Virtualy all Democrates either
oppose or are uncommitted regarding The Fair Tax. The big box retailers
oppose The Fair Tax. Even the Chi-Comms have lobbists working in
Washington against The Fair Tax.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Bob

01-04-1970, 01:24 AM

On Jan 27, 6:35*am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Robert Hunt wrote:

Chalo wrote:
> >> In many or most cases, a reference to "states' rights" isn't really
> >> about rights of any kind but rather the opposite, much like the phrase
> >> "our honor is loyalty" does not have a bearing on honor or loyalty at
> >> all.
>
> >> Chalo
>
> > The flip side of that coin is that people that use terms like "social
> > justice" and "economic equality" are actually talking about social
> > engineering and eliminating property rights through confiscatory
> > taxation.
>
> So some people should get to rule the rest, just because they won the
> "inheritance lobby"? That is the actual situation in the US, behind the
> Potemkin veneer of democracy.
>
> I would be happy to eliminate all such programs that Mr. Hunt derides,
> as long as we also eliminate the government functions of protecting the
> property of the rich, since those are also a form of welfare.
>
> Need to protect your mansion for the "great unwashed"? Hire your own
> private security and firefighters.
>
> Need to keep an uppity developing nation in line (e.g. Mosaddeq in Iran,
> Árbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile)? Hire your own corporate
> mercenaries and undercover operatives.
>
> Need to repel foreign invaders? Organize your private military.
>
> Need to keep out striking workers down at the factory so the scabs can
> be brought in? Hire your own goons.
>
> Need roads, canals, harbors and airport to transport your goods to
> market and bring raw materials to your factories? Purchase the needed
> land and build your own.
>
> Need educated workers? Build you own schools and universities to train them.
>
> Need electronic communications? Build your own network of fiber optic
> cables, launch your own satellites.
>
> But whatever you do, DO NOT COME TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR YOUR WELFARE!
>
> After all, the private sector can do EVERYTHING better than government.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman

I can see why you failed to quote the text you are arguing against
since I didn't say anything at all like what you imply. If you insist
on using a stalking horse to justify your diatribes, do me a favor and
invent one. Give him a name and stop using mine but as for your
arguments above, if you believe that an interest in protecting
property rights against confiscatory taxation is the exclusive
preserve of the wealthy then I have to wonder if you actually pay
taxes. IIRC, the *average* American will work three months this year
just to pay their taxes. I know I will.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:25 AM

Tom asks

>So when the democratic Weimar Republic eroded, the result was
>democracy?

_Calling_ my Mongoose a Rivendell doesn't _make_ my Mongoose a
Rivendell.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Ozark Bicycle

01-04-1970, 01:25 AM

On Jan 27, 8:16*am, MLB5...@webtv.net (Michael Baldwin) wrote:

<snipped>

> *I think Mike Huckabee believes the Framers had it right also, when they
> opposed the taxation of income and supported the generation of Federal
> Revenue through consumption taxes.

Michael, if support of "The Fair Tax" is the primary reason behind
your support of Huckabee, perhaps you should take the time to actually
examine Huckabee's *record* as Governor of Arkansas.

Ozark Bicycle

01-04-1970, 01:25 AM

On Jan 27, 9:38*am, MLB5...@webtv.net (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> Tom asks
>
> >So when the democratic Weimar Republic eroded, the result was
> >democracy?
>
> *_Calling_ my Mongoose a Rivendell doesn't _make_ my Mongoose a
> Rivendell.

Count yer blessings!

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 01:25 AM

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Jan 27, 8:16 am, MLB5...@webtv.net (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>> I think Mike Huckabee believes the Framers had it right also, when they
>> opposed the taxation of income and supported the generation of Federal
>> Revenue through consumption taxes.
>
> Michael, if support of "The Fair Tax" is the primary reason behind
> your support of Huckabee, perhaps you should take the time to actually
> examine Huckabee's *record* as Governor of Arkansas.
>
This is America, Ozark! How dare you judge a candidate by his record? A
good American listens to the pundits and campaign advertisements on the
teevee (sic) so he/she will know how to think and vote!!! [end sarcasm]

How anyone with libertarian leanings could support Huckabee is a
different matter, since he would be happy to remove all separation
between church and state - substitute Allah for Jesus and these guys
sound like the Taliban.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 01:25 AM

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Jan 27, 9:38 am, MLB5...@webtv.net (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>> Tom asks
>>
>>> So when the democratic Weimar Republic eroded, the result was
>>> democracy?
>> _Calling_ my Mongoose a Rivendell doesn't _make_ my Mongoose a
>> Rivendell.
>
> Count yer blessings!
>
Well, there is nothing wrong with the bicycles per se. If you found an
almost new Rivendell in your size at a flea market or yard sale for $50,
you could buy it and spend a little more for new decals that say "Huffy"
or "gRant who?", no? Even the dreaded ISO 684 mm (650B) bicycles would
not be bad at that price, since there will likely be one or two decent
rims and tires available for some time.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 01:25 AM

bigjimpack@gmail.com TOP POSTED:
> Why would that be bad? We had eight years of clinton's socialist crap
> that led to 9/11. We have gays wanting to "marry", welfare has taken
> away the edge Americans used to have, and criminals love the abolition
> of the death penalty. It's time America became the God-fearing nation
> it once was. When God was our leader we prospered, were victorious in
> every conflict we fought, our children prayed in school instead of
> shooting. I'd love to see America strong again. Huckabee is
> America's onlyhope in'08!
>
This is either great sarcasm, or Little Jimmy is seriously deluded.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Pat

01-04-1970, 01:25 AM

<bigjimpack@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:08e5e4f0-62a4-4760-be16-5db1908a9ac0@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Why would that be bad? We had eight years of clinton's socialist crap
that led to 9/11. We have gays wanting to "marry", welfare has taken
away the edge Americans used to have, and criminals love the abolition
of the death penalty. It's time America became the God-fearing nation
it once was. When God was our leader we prospered, were victorious in
every conflict we fought, our children prayed in school instead of
shooting. I'd love to see America strong again. Huckabee is
America's onlyhope in'08!

Hey! Great satire!

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:25 AM

In a previous reply I wrote -

Hamilton writes ; Power being almost always the rival of power, the
general government will at all times stand ready to check the
usurpations of the state governments, and these will have same
disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing
themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If
their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as
the instrument of redress.
**The 13th & 15th Constitutional Amendments are proof that the
Framers indeed knew what they were doing.

Yet Chalo still clings on;

>While we're sprucing up the Founders' right and proper Constitution
>and getting rid of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments
>that they never had in mind, let's be sure to
>put the Sixteenth and Nineteenth Amendments up on Craigslist too.
>The Founding Fathers never intended to collect an income tax,
>or for women to have the vote either.
>Chalo

What part of the check and balance system are you not getting Chalo?

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:26 AM

Tom Sherman says

>This is America, Ozark! How dare you judge a candidate
>by his record? A good American listens to the pundits
>and campaign advertisements on the teevee (sic) so he/she will
>know how to think and vote!!! [end sarcasm]

Regarding myself, your assumption couldn't be any more wrong Tom. My
"pundits" are Jefferson, Adams/s, Hamilton, and Henry.

>How anyone with libertarian leanings could support Huckabee is a
>different matter, since he would be happy to remove all
>separation between church and state - substitute Allah for Jesus
>and these guys sound like the Taliban.

I can see how my support of Huckabee (as a Libertarian) confounds you
Tom. The National Libertarian Party is a collective of misfits and
malcontents lacking leadership at all political levels. They seek
utopian values on much to broad of scale.
I practice Libertarianism meaning, "The reward of freedom is
responsibility."

And now I seen you've played the misunderstood, dog-eared separation of
church and state card.
I'm REALLY doubting that on his first day in office or before his last,
Mike Huckabee is going to tell a nation of people what type of religion
the may practice.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Chalo

01-04-1970, 01:26 AM

On Jan 27, 3:01 pm, MLB5...@webtv.net (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> In a previous reply I wrote -
>
> Hamilton writes ; Power being almost always the rival of power, the
> general government will at all times stand ready to check the
> usurpations of the state governments, and these will have same
> disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing
> themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If
> their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as
> the instrument of redress.
> The 13th & 15th Constitutional Amendments are proof that the
> Framers indeed knew what they were doing.
>
> Yet Chalo still clings on;
>
> >While we're sprucing up the Founders' right and proper Constitution
> >and getting rid of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments
> >that they never had in mind, let's be sure to put the Sixteenth and
> > Nineteenth Amendments up on Craigslist too. The Founding Fathers
> > never intended to collect an income tax, or for women to have the vote
> > either.
>
> What part of the check and balance system are you not getting Chalo?

Are you forgetting that numbers 13, 14, and 15 were nominally in
effect through the entire period of Jim Crow, poll taxes/literacy
tests, lynchings, Japanese-American concentration camps, etc? They
can certainly stay on the books but be disregarded, especially if we
get a Christian Ayatollah at the helm.

I think we'd do very well to revive the First, Fourth, Fifth, and
Fourteenth Amendments before wasting effort on the Tenth. While a
President Huckster might be good at upholding #10 (and might not), I
think he'd be pretty detrimental for the others.

Chalo

Tom Keats

01-04-1970, 01:26 AM

In article <d1dfdbd7-6b2a-4b3e-b5d1-38029a62d4c2@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Bob <hunrobe@aol.com> writes:
> On Jan 27, 1:32*am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>>
>> Would Ellen Barkin be a better prez than Hillary?
>> I mean, besides being better lookin'.
>> (I kinda sweetishly like Ellen Barkin. Her snake eyes
>> knock me out.)
>>
> Hillary would likely be a more effective (effective doesn't equal
> "good". That value judgement depends on whether one agrees with her
> actions.) president but you're 99% correct about Ellen Barkin being
> better looking. You would be 100% correct except for using the
> unfortunate term "snake eyes". Cat eyes? Yes, but **snake** eyes? You
> aren't too lucky with the ladies, are you? <g>

Snake eyes are, to me, a lovely, endearing feature
in women. It provides a certain unique mystique.

When Ellen Barkin does that squinty thing, it just
sends me into orbit. Well, she's married and has
a loving family, bless her.

I don't wanna be "too" lucky with the ladies; just
with a certain one. And I am. She doesn't have
snake eyes, but she does a pretty good Betty Boop
voice, which does it for me too. She might make
a pretty good POTUS. She's down-to-earth, creative,
and can hold her liquor as well as anybody. But
she's Canadian (of Australian/German ancestry.)
So America loses, and I gain.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.> Regards,
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 01:26 AM

Taxpayer Robert Hunt wrote:
> On Jan 27, 6:35 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Robert Hunt wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
>>>> In many or most cases, a reference to "states' rights" isn't really
>>>> about rights of any kind but rather the opposite, much like the phrase
>>>> "our honor is loyalty" does not have a bearing on honor or loyalty at
>>>> all.
>>>> Chalo
>>> The flip side of that coin is that people that use terms like "social
>>> justice" and "economic equality" are actually talking about social
>>> engineering and eliminating property rights through confiscatory
>>> taxation.
>> So some people should get to rule the rest, just because they won the
>> "inheritance lobby"? That is the actual situation in the US, behind the
>> Potemkin veneer of democracy.
>>
>> I would be happy to eliminate all such programs that Mr. Hunt derides,
>> as long as we also eliminate the government functions of protecting the
>> property of the rich, since those are also a form of welfare.
>>
>> Need to protect your mansion for the "great unwashed"? Hire your own
>> private security and firefighters.
>>
>> Need to keep an uppity developing nation in line (e.g. Mosaddeq in Iran,
>> Árbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile)? Hire your own corporate
>> mercenaries and undercover operatives.
>>
>> Need to repel foreign invaders? Organize your private military.
>>
>> Need to keep out striking workers down at the factory so the scabs can
>> be brought in? Hire your own goons.
>>
>> Need roads, canals, harbors and airport to transport your goods to
>> market and bring raw materials to your factories? Purchase the needed
>> land and build your own.
>>
>> Need educated workers? Build you own schools and universities to train them.
>>
>> Need electronic communications? Build your own network of fiber optic
>> cables, launch your own satellites.
>>
>> But whatever you do, DO NOT COME TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR YOUR WELFARE!
>>
>> After all, the private sector can do EVERYTHING better than government.
>>
>> --
>> Tom Sherman
>
> I can see why you failed to quote the text you are arguing against
> since I didn't say anything at all like what you imply. If you insist
> on using a stalking horse to justify your diatribes, do me a favor and
> invent one. Give him a name and stop using mine but as for your
> arguments above, if you believe that an interest in protecting
> property rights against confiscatory taxation is the exclusive
> preserve of the wealthy then I have to wonder if you actually pay
> taxes. IIRC, the *average* American will work three months this year
> just to pay their taxes. I know I will.
>
So Mr. Hunt does not want to pay so much in taxes - that is fine, but he
should not expect so much in government services in return. Or maybe he
is complaining about government waste - then where is his complaint
about corporate welfare?

"Lower taxes" are code words for preserving privilege and inequality
that came about through immoral actions of the past, when spoken by US
politicians.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 01:26 AM

Michael Baldwin wrote:
> Tom Sherman says
>
>> This is America, Ozark! How dare you judge a candidate
>> by his record? A good American listens to the pundits
>> and campaign advertisements on the teevee (sic) so he/she will
>> know how to think and vote!!! [end sarcasm]
>
> Regarding myself, your assumption couldn't be any more wrong Tom. My
> "pundits" are Jefferson, Adams/s, Hamilton, and Henry.
>
Your assumption that I was referring to you (Michael Baldwin) is wrong.
Mine was a general comment on a portion of "Ozark Bicycle's" post.

>> How anyone with libertarian leanings could support Huckabee is a
>> different matter, since he would be happy to remove all
>> separation between church and state - substitute Allah for Jesus
>> and these guys sound like the Taliban.
>
> I can see how my support of Huckabee (as a Libertarian) confounds you
> Tom. The National Libertarian Party is a collective of misfits and
> malcontents lacking leadership at all political levels. They seek
> utopian values on much to broad of scale.
> I practice Libertarianism meaning, "The reward of freedom is
> responsibility."
>
> And now I seen you've played the misunderstood, dog-eared separation of
> church and state card.
> I'm REALLY doubting that on his first day in office or before his last,
> Mike Huckabee is going to tell a nation of people what type of religion
> the may practice.
>
No, it would be much more insidious - many of our laws and legal
practices are based on fundamentalist/evangelical "Christian" theology,
and not on the principal of the greater good of society. A President
Huckabee would be a step to the return to the governance of 17th Century
Massachusetts.

Hopefully if that comes to pass, emigration would still be allowed, and
there would still be another country that would accept religious refugees.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:27 AM

Chalo the student ask

>Are you forgetting that numbers 13, 14, and 15 were
>nominally in effect through the entire period of Jim Crow,
>poll taxes/literacy tests, lynchings, Japanese-American concentration
camps, etc?

Chalo you test my patience :) I'm not "forgetting" anything.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing.

When ever good people _of the nation_ finally decide to redress the
Federal government to take action, social wrongs may be righted. We as
a nation have a positive history of doing just that. Does it always
occur in a timely manner? Obviously no.
The Federal governments confiscation of our money (income tax) has been
in effect for almost 95 years. Mike Huckabee, The Fair Tax candidate,
gets my support period. If Hillary was a Fair Tax proponent, she'd get
my support.
I've been convinced for decades, that the power structure in Washington
not only survives but grows because of our federal tax code.

Follow the money Chalo. Every hot button issue in America is somehow
controlled, fostered, advanced or stymied through the favors owed and
favors due system of the politicians, bureaucrats & lobbists. It's
time for good people to say "No more."

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:28 AM

Finally Tom Sherman makes sense and says

>Lower taxes" are code words for preserving privilege and inequality
>that came about through immoral actions of the past, when
>spoken by US politicians.

The Fair Tax can change that Tom.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Ron Wallenfang

01-04-1970, 01:28 AM

On Jan 27, 8:00 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:

> A President
> Huckabee would be a step to the return to the governance of 17th Century
> Massachusetts.
>
> Hopefully if that comes to pass, emigration would still be allowed, and
> there would still be another country that would accept religious refugees.

I doubt it. Read Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Freedom, and
meditate on it on your next bike ride ?! Religious freedom now has
doctrinal status in the Church.

Admittedly, that's Catholic teaching and Huckabee's a Baptist. But I
think the Protestant Churches have generally reached the same
conclusion, after mature reflection on the thin theological support
for, and unfortunate consequences of, past periods of intolerance.

Let us hope (and pray, some of us) for a similar development of Islam.

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 01:28 AM

Michael Baldwin wrote:
> Chalo the student ask
>
>> Are you forgetting that numbers 13, 14, and 15 were
>> nominally in effect through the entire period of Jim Crow,
>> poll taxes/literacy tests, lynchings, Japanese-American concentration
> camps, etc?
>
> Chalo you test my patience :) I'm not "forgetting" anything.
>
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
> nothing.
>
> When ever good people _of the nation_ finally decide to redress the
> Federal government to take action, social wrongs may be righted. We as
> a nation have a positive history of doing just that. Does it always
> occur in a timely manner? Obviously no.
> The Federal governments confiscation of our money (income tax) has been
> in effect for almost 95 years. Mike Huckabee, The Fair Tax candidate,
> gets my support period. If Hillary was a Fair Tax proponent, she'd get
> my support.
> I've been convinced for decades, that the power structure in Washington
> not only survives but grows because of our federal tax code.
>
> Follow the money Chalo. Every hot button issue in America is somehow
> controlled, fostered, advanced or stymied through the favors owed and
> favors due system of the politicians, bureaucrats & lobbists. It's
> time for good people to say "No more."
>
Follow the money - OK.

These interests control the Federal Reserve through about 300 stockholders:
Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris
Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy
Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam
Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
Kuhn, Loeb and Co. of New York
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
Goldman, Sachs of New York

These unelected (and many foreign) bankers control the US economy.

See anything wrong with that?

The last US President who dared challenge the power of the Federal
Reserve (by the government printing money instead of the Federal
Reserve) was JFK, and he ended up dead.

The Federal Reserve also gets a 3% cut on all the money it "creates", at
the expense of the US taxpayer.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:28 AM

Tom Sherman reminds us

>The Federal Reserve also gets a 3% cut on all
>the money it "creates", at the expense of the US
>taxpayer.

Yep. Americans pay the "premium" for the _worlds_ preventative economic
depression insurance policy.

Have you ever asked yourself Tom, why, how and when it was, our nations
currency fell into the control of so few people?

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 01:28 AM

Michael Baldwin wrote:
> Finally Tom Sherman makes sense and says
>
>> Lower taxes" are code words for preserving privilege and inequality
>> that came about through immoral actions of the past, when
>> spoken by US politicians.
>
> The Fair Tax can change that Tom.
>
Well, the very rich only spend a tiny fraction of their income on
consumption, so why would this "Fair Tax" not lead to an even greater
concentration of wealth, and therefore further undermining of democracy?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 01:28 AM

Ron Wallenfang wrote:
> On Jan 27, 8:00 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A President
>> Huckabee would be a step to the return to the governance of 17th Century
>> Massachusetts.
>>
>> Hopefully if that comes to pass, emigration would still be allowed, and
>> there would still be another country that would accept religious refugees.
>
>
> I doubt it. Read Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Freedom, and
> meditate on it on your next bike ride ?! Religious freedom now has
> doctrinal status in the Church.
>
> Admittedly, that's Catholic teaching and Huckabee's a Baptist. But I
> think the Protestant Churches have generally reached the same
> conclusion, after mature reflection on the thin theological support
> for, and unfortunate consequences of, past periods of intolerance.
>
Well, the fundamentalists are already trying to impose their views on
what we can read, watch and hear, not to mention their plan to prohibit
birth control to enforce their idea of sexual morality on the rest of
the population.

I have heard many a fundamentalist say the Bible should be the basis for
law in the US. Even if they do not make us line up and attend church on
Sunday morning the way the theocrats of colonial Massachusetts still
did, they would still use the law to control behavior between consenting
adults.

> Let us hope (and pray, some of us) for a similar development of Islam.
>
This development in Islam already exists, primarily in SE Asia. For
example, in Malaysia, Sharia Law only applies to Muslim's, so it is not
imposed on anyone else.

Historically, the Arab Muslims have also been tolerant of other
religious - the Jews were tolerated and respected members of the
community (until convinced to leave for Israel by the European colonial
Zionist Ashkenazim Jews). The current wave of fundamentalism is due to
western backed totalitarian governments repressing all other political
outlets and otherwise interfering in their internal affairs in a way
USians would find intolerable if another nation was doing it to them.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:28 AM

Tom asks

>Well, the very rich only spend a tiny fraction of
>their income on consumption, so why would this "Fair Tax"
>not lead to an even greater concentration of wealth, and
>therefore further undermining of democracy?

Tom, I've learned the answers to your questions and you can too!

goto www.fairtax.org

...thanks for all of the great discussion. I've never learned a thing
from a man who only agreed with me :)...

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Ron Wallenfang

01-04-1970, 01:28 AM

On Jan 27, 9:23 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:

There are distinctions to be made and facts to question. I sense this
isn't the forum to do that, because as a group, we just don't share
enough common ground. Send me your e-mail address (to
rwallenfang@wi.rr.com) and I'd be happy to pursue these topics
privately, to see whether the two of us share enough common ground to
carry forward a meaningful discussion.

Ron Wallenfang wrote:
> > On Jan 27, 8:00 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> A President
> >> Huckabee would be a step to the return to the governance of 17th Century
> >> Massachusetts.
>
> >> Hopefully if that comes to pass, emigration would still be allowed, and
> >> there would still be another country that would accept religious refugees.
>
> > I doubt it. Read Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Freedom, and
> > meditate on it on your next bike ride ?! Religious freedom now has
> > doctrinal status in the Church.
>
> > Admittedly, that's Catholic teaching and Huckabee's a Baptist. But I
> > think the Protestant Churches have generally reached the same
> > conclusion, after mature reflection on the thin theological support
> > for, and unfortunate consequences of, past periods of intolerance.
>
> Well, the fundamentalists are already trying to impose their views on
> what we can read, watch and hear, not to mention their plan to prohibit
> birth control to enforce their idea of sexual morality on the rest of
> the population.
>
> I have heard many a fundamentalist say the Bible should be the basis for
> law in the US. Even if they do not make us line up and attend church on
> Sunday morning the way the theocrats of colonial Massachusetts still
> did, they would still use the law to control behavior between consenting
> adults.
>
> > Let us hope (and pray, some of us) for a similar development of Islam.
>
> This development in Islam already exists, primarily in SE Asia. For
> example, in Malaysia, Sharia Law only applies to Muslim's, so it is not
> imposed on anyone else.
>
> Historically, the Arab Muslims have also been tolerant of other
> religious - the Jews were tolerated and respected members of the
> community (until convinced to leave for Israel by the European colonial
> Zionist Ashkenazim Jews). The current wave of fundamentalism is due to
> western backed totalitarian governments repressing all other political
> outlets and otherwise interfering in their internal affairs in a way
> USians would find intolerable if another nation was doing it to them.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
> - A. Derleth

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 01:29 AM

Michael Baldwin wrote:
> Tom Sherman reminds us
>
>> The Federal Reserve also gets a 3% cut on all
>> the money it "creates", at the expense of the US
>> taxpayer.
>
> Yep. Americans pay the "premium" for the _worlds_ preventative economic
> depression insurance policy.
>
> Have you ever asked yourself Tom, why, how and when it was, our nations
> currency fell into the control of so few people?
>
Since most countries have central banks NOT run by elected
representatives of the people, the most likely scenario is that a small
group who became wealthy through rapacious behavior used their wealth
and power to bribe, blackmail or otherwise coerce national leaders into
surrendering part of their sovereignty.

Alan Greenspan even admitted that it was his job to serve Wall Street,
and not Main Street.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

dgk

01-04-1970, 01:29 AM

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:11:55 -0500, MLB5611@webtv.net (Michael
Baldwin) wrote:

>Tom asks
>
>>Well, the very rich only spend a tiny fraction of
>>their income on consumption, so why would this "Fair Tax"
>>not lead to an even greater concentration of wealth, and
>>therefore further undermining of democracy?
>
>Tom, I've learned the answers to your questions and you can too!
>
>goto www.fairtax.org
>
>..thanks for all of the great discussion. I've never learned a thing
>from a man who only agreed with me :)...
>
>Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Ah, so just how much will I pay on everything I buy in order to
support our war machine?

Bob

01-04-1970, 01:30 AM

On Jan 28, 12:51*am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:

> I don't wanna be "too" lucky with the ladies; just
> with a certain one. *

I've read your posts here for years now and I think this is the first
time I've read a post of yours and thought, "Liar!" That thought was
quickly followed though by, "Maybe that certain lady reads this NG
too. Smart man." <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

P.S.- Just for the record, I still think you'll be on safer ground if
you refrain from describing any woman's attributes as being in any way
reptilian. Compliment-wise, telling a woman she has snake eyes or a
even sexy slither to her walk ranks right up there with, "Gee, you
sweat less than any fat girl I know". HTH

Chalo

01-04-1970, 01:30 AM

On Jan 28, 7:28 am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:11:55 -0500, MLB5...@webtv.net (Michael
>
>
>
> Baldwin) wrote:
> >Tom asks
>
> >>Well, the very rich only spend a tiny fraction of
> >>their income on consumption, so why would this "Fair Tax"
> >>not lead to an even greater concentration of wealth, and
> >>therefore further undermining of democracy?
>
> >Tom, I've learned the answers to your questions and you can too!
>
> >goto www.fairtax.org
> >
> >..thanks for all of the great discussion. I've never learned a thing
> >from a man who only agreed with me :)...
>
> Ah, so just how much will I pay on everything I buy in order to
> support our war machine?

You'll spend 23% or more on everything you buy.

Since the same tariff won't apply to financial instruments, that means
the super-rich will get off without having to pay taxes on the vast
majority of their revenues. The so-called "fair tax" is in fact the
most regressive tax proposal I have ever seen. It's robbing from
working people and giving the spoils to the idle rich-- to the people
who are so wealthy that they can't possibly spend most of their
profits except on more investments. (I've worked for a billionaire,
and I've done the math.) Middle class consumer gluttons are the ones
who'll really get soaked.

This tax proposal has a thin populist veneer on it, but beneath the
surface it's a dream come true for the ultra-wealthy and a screw job
for almost everybody else. Fortunately, very few people are taken in,
by it or by the Huckster pushing it either.

Chalo

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:30 AM

Tom Sherman asks

>Ah, so just how much will I pay on everything
>I buy in order to support our war machine?

Tom, Tom, Tom, I know you're smarter than that statement. You didn't
go to the website do you?

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 01:31 AM

Chalo Colina wrote:
> On Jan 28, 7:28 am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:11:55 -0500, MLB5...@webtv.net (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>>> Tom asks
>>>> Well, the very rich only spend a tiny fraction of
>>>> their income on consumption, so why would this "Fair Tax"
>>>> not lead to an even greater concentration of wealth, and
>>>> therefore further undermining of democracy?
>>> Tom, I've learned the answers to your questions and you can too!
>>> goto www.fairtax.org
>>>
>>> ..thanks for all of the great discussion. I've never learned a thing
>> >from a man who only agreed with me :)...
>>
>> Ah, so just how much will I pay on everything I buy in order to
>> support our war machine?
>
> You'll spend 23% or more on everything you buy.
>
> Since the same tariff won't apply to financial instruments, that means
> the super-rich will get off without having to pay taxes on the vast
> majority of their revenues. The so-called "fair tax" is in fact the
> most regressive tax proposal I have ever seen. It's robbing from
> working people and giving the spoils to the idle rich-- to the people
> who are so wealthy that they can't possibly spend most of their
> profits except on more investments. (I've worked for a billionaire,
> and I've done the math.) Middle class consumer gluttons are the ones
> who'll really get soaked.
>
> This tax proposal has a thin populist veneer on it, but beneath the
> surface it's a dream come true for the ultra-wealthy and a screw job
> for almost everybody else. Fortunately, very few people are taken in,
> by it or by the Huckster pushing it either.
>
butbutbut Chalo, you forget that the proletariat was put on Earth by God
to serve the wealthy. Of course the rich are that way because God favors
them for being better people. At least that is what the preacher on
teevee told me Jesus said.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:31 AM

Chalo claims he knows that;

>You'll spend 23% or more on everything you buy.

Wrong - The effective tax rate for the average middle class consumer
will actually be 9% to 12% AFTER prebates.

>Since the same tariff won't apply to financial instruments, that
>means the super-rich will get off without having to pay
>taxes on the vast majority of their revenues.

Wrong on two counts - The Fair Tax is based solely on consumption, it's
certainly NOT a tariff. Next, "the super rich" maintain about $12
Trillion dollars in foreign accounts to avoid existing tax burden
already. The Fair Tax eliminates this issue.

>"fair tax" is in fact the most regressive tax proposal
>I have ever seen. It's robbing from working people and
>giving the spoils to the idle rich-- to the people

Wrong - The Fair Tax is progressive. Those earning $200,000 and more
spend a higher percentage of their disposable income then those earning
$100,000 or less.

>who are so wealthy that they can't possibly spend most
>of their profits except on more investments. (I've worked for
>a billionaire, and I've done the math.)

Wrong - Chalo that statement is SO ironic I bet you wish you could take
it back, LOL! Allowing "billionaires" to invest more of THEIR money
would "certainly" be the demise of capitalism. Tell us Chalo, when you
were machining rocket parts, was that a minimum wage job?

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 01:32 AM

Michael Baldwin wrote:
> Tom Sherman [DID NOT] ask, but "dgk" did:
>
>> Ah, so just how much will I pay on everything
>> I buy in order to support our war machine?
>
> Tom, Tom, Tom, I know you're smarter than that statement. You didn't
> go to the website do you?
>
Please be careful with attributions. The above question was written by
"dgk" and not me.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:33 AM

Tom Sherman rightfully and politely reminds me

>Please be careful with attributions. The above question was written
>by "dgk" and not me.
>--
>Tom Sherman

I _sincerely_ do apologize.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Chalo

01-04-1970, 01:33 AM

Michael Baldwin wrote:
>
> Chalo claims he knows that;
> >
> >"fair tax" is in fact the most regressive tax proposal
> >I have ever seen. It's robbing from working people and
> >giving the spoils to the idle rich--
>
> Wrong - The Fair Tax is progressive. Those earning $200,000 and more
> spend a higher percentage of their disposable income then those earning
> $100,000 or less.

No, that's those _spending_ $200k/year will pay a slightly higher
effective tax rate than those _spending_ $100k. It's a good incentive
for individuals to save, which is in turn a good excuse to phase out
the social safety net, right? I'm guessing that-- and the reduction
of taxes on oligarchs to effectively zero-- is the real point.

I don't think Americans are ready to take their retirement Red China-
style, or their governance post-Soviet style. You are more than
welcome to do so, though. Remember you'll need a passport to come
back should you change your mind.

> >who are so wealthy that they can't possibly spend most
> >of their profits except on more investments. (I've worked
> >for a billionaire, and I've done the math.)
>
> Wrong - Chalo that statement is SO ironic I bet you wish you could take
> it back, LOL! Allowing "billionaires" to invest more of THEIR money
> would "certainly" be the demise of capitalism.

It is. There is such a thing as too much money chasing too little
investment opportunity; we're seeing exactly that situation unravel
now. The fallout from the current finance-sector debacle is going to
rank with the Great Depression, all because we let the richest of the
richest of the rich decide how they were to invest their gains instead
of obligating them to invest a portion of it back into the society
that gave them such wild success.

What do the ultra-rich stick their money in when they have just way
too much of it? Turns out it's useless crap like "CDO of CDO", which
benefits no one and destroys wealth hundreds of times faster than the
rest of us can generate it. Right now we have a GDP of something like
$14 trillion tenuously holding up a stinking pile of credit
derivatives nominally in excess of $500 trillion. Nobody sneeze (or
admit it's all worthless junk), or the next thing you know we're all
out of a job!

Making the employed classes pay society's bills while giving the
richest few a free pass _is_ the demise of capitalism. You will live
to see this folly that pretends to be a free market come tumbling
down-- that is, if you don't decide to end it all after watching
Huckabee get his ass handed to him.

Chalo

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:33 AM

Chalo reminds us that;

>we let the richest of the richest of the rich
>decide how they were to invest their gains instead of
>obligating them to invest a portion of it back into
>the society that gave them such wild success.

Chalo, this may be the ever so thin common ground between us...IF we
can agree that the rewriting of tax code every four years by
lobbyist-bureaucrats-elected officials is _the_ "we let" you are
referring to.

You mentioned tariffs earlier. I'm sure you know that effective
tariffs on imported goods can actually raise the standard of living of
the country exporting those goods. That's a win-win isn't?

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Chalo

01-04-1970, 01:34 AM

Michael Baldwin wrote:
>
> Chalo reminds us that;
>
> >we let the richest of the richest of the rich
> >decide how they were to invest their gains instead of
> >obligating them to invest a portion of it back into
> >the society that gave them such wild success.
>
> Chalo, this may be the ever so thin common ground between us...IF we
> can agree that the rewriting of tax code every four years by
> lobbyist-bureaucrats-elected officials is _the_ "we let" you are
> referring to.

On this we agree; corruption has made a mockery of progressive
taxation in our country.

But just because corruption can make a progressive tax system into a
regressive one, it does not make an intrinsically regressive one into
a fair one. There's nothing about a national sales tax that makes it
immune to tampering for further benefit of the elite wealthy. Try
this on for size, because you know lobbyists will: "Really, really
big purchases are good stimulators for the economy, so they should
qualify for tax abatements."

Reflect also that the things that ordinary people buy we call "goods"
and "services" and as such will be taxed. Things that wealthy people
buy are often called "assets" and are not taxed under a retail sales
tax. But why should a working guy pay 23% on his bass boat while a
fantastically rich guy pays nothing on a private getaway island? Why
should a small entrepreneur pay 23% on a hot dog cart while a business
tycoon pays no tax buying a controlling interest of a publicly traded
company?

If you want to make a tax-and-rebate system that's harder for cheaters
to game, how about taxing gross income, regardless of where in the
world the money was made? It's more difficult to cancel out huge
revenue streams and play deceptive shell games with transnational
businesses if all the taxing authority has to prove is that the money
changed hands to begin with. That would be far more fair to working
people than the so-called "Fair Tax".

> You mentioned tariffs earlier. I'm sure you know that effective
> tariffs on imported goods can actually raise the standard of living of
> the country exporting those goods. That's a win-win isn't?

I was using term "tariff" in a generic sense-- but what you suggest
here could be true in some circumstances. Manipulating makets often
has some counterintuitive effects like that. However, the first-order
effect of tariffs on the exporting country is to reduce the volume of
trade in whatever commodity is being traded, thereby causing workers
to reallocate themselves to other activities-- and it's the other
activities that in turn raise or lower the standard of living there.

The benefits of trade tariffs are primarily to the native industries
being protected; consumers can be beneficially or adversely affected
depending on how much they depend on the protected industry.

There is a problem with the game as played between the First World and
Third World, though, which is a double standard for things being
exported from the respective economies. Tariffs can be equal or
absent for all commodities, but the technologically advanced nation
can still raise trade barriers on other premises. "We agree that our
two counties should have free and open trade, which will benefit your
producers of coconut products and our producers of genetically
modified corn-- but for reasons of public health and safety our rich
country can't allow pharmaceuticals from your poor country to enter."
The intention, and the effect, is the same as that of a prohibitively
high tariff.

Chalo

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:37 AM

Chalo unwittingly spreads misinformation and writes;

>Why should a small entrepreneur pay 23% on a hot
>dog cart

Chalo, Chalo, Chalo....under The Fair Tax _ALL_ business to business
transactions are exempt. That is why every small business
_association_ supports The Fair Tax.

Get the facts at www.fairtax.org

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Michael Baldwin

01-04-1970, 01:37 AM

Chalo suggests;

>If you want to make a tax-and-rebate system that's harder
>for cheaters to game, how about taxing gross income,

I knew an sole proprietor who deliberately kept his businesses _GROSS_
earnings below $300,000 to avoid paying his State's Single Business Tax.
There many self-employed folks who do the same after they learn that
they KEEP more of their money when they EARN less.
The tax codes cause the governent to lose more revenue by people
_avoiding_ tax liabilities than by people _evading_ tax payments.
Boston University, Harvard, MIT, The Cato Institute, to name only a
few, have collectively invested $22,000,000 to study and "de-bunk" The
Fair Tax. I'm sure you know where this is going. They ALL support The
Fair Tax.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 01:38 AM

Pat ? wrote:
> <bigjimpack@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:08e5e4f0-62a4-4760-be16-5db1908a9ac0@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> Why would that be bad? We had eight years of clinton's socialist crap
>> that led to 9/11. We have gays wanting to "marry", welfare has taken
>> away the edge Americans used to have, and criminals love the abolition
>> of the death penalty. It's time America became the God-fearing nation
>> it once was. When God was our leader we prospered, were victorious in
>> every conflict we fought, our children prayed in school instead of
>> shooting. I'd love to see America strong again. Huckabee is
>> America's onlyhope in'08!
>
> Hey! Great satire!
>
I fixed Pat's improper formating, to distinguish his contribution from
Little Jimmy's quoted post.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 01:41 AM

Michael Baldwin wrote:
> Chalo unwittingly spreads misinformation and writes;
>
>> Why should a small entrepreneur pay 23% on a hot
>> dog cart
>
> Chalo, Chalo, Chalo....under The Fair Tax _ALL_ business to business
> transactions are exempt. That is why every small business
> _association_ supports The Fair Tax....
>
So the businessman/woman just purchases items officially for his/her
business, but then puts them to personal use to avoid the tax?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Chalo

01-04-1970, 01:41 AM

Michael Baldwin wrote:
>
> Chalo unwittingly spreads misinformation and writes;
> >
> >Why should a small entrepreneur pay 23% on a hot
> >dog cart
>
> Chalo, Chalo, Chalo....under The Fair Tax _ALL_ business to business
> transactions are exempt. That is why every small business
> _association_ supports The Fair Tax.
>
> Get the facts at www.fairtax.org

I assumed otherwise because if all business transactions are tax-free
regardless of size, and all personal transactions of any size are
taxed at a punishing rate, then the inevitable result will be massive,
pervasive, and irremediable fraud. The magnitude of the bureaucracy
that could keep people from making any possible purchase a tax-free
"business expense" would make our current IRS look like a hot dog
stand by comparison. Then there's the issue of merchants who could
make taxable sales, claim nontaxable sales, and pocket the
difference. Then there's the overwhelming likelihood that much of the
economy will be moved to the black market where everything's on sale
for 23% off.

It's the next best thing to taxation by the honor system. And about
as feasible.

Chalo