Kerry on the phone with Kunich

Tom Paterson wrote:

From: gwhite

On that score, I cannot vote for socialist John
Kerry. To do so would be anti-thetical to the very foundations of our
country,
which is all about individualism. We've strayed.

Yeah, now we have socialism for the upper classes (and of course the Post
Office thing).

Don't paint it like I might favor special breaks for the rich or large
corporations. I don't. I am as fully opposed to "corporate welfare" as Ralph
Nader is.

Kerry is more antithetical to the very foundations of our country than Bush?

Without question. Listen to what they say. Watch what they do. Kerry is for
government solving all our problems, and actually believing that it can actually
achieve that goal as if he could actually know and thus design the purpose of
civilisation!!! Bush is less so. There can't be a serious argument about this.

That said, Bush (or really anyone) stands no chance of getting elected if he
doesn't provide some measure of socialist handouts (basically pandering). That
stinks. The Democrats act as if reformation of social security and simplifying
tax code (both pushed by Bush) are "bad things." It is unbelievable.

From: "Shayne Wissler"

Granted. I'd never defend that sort of thing - but it's an exceedingly
narrow case, it's not the "upper classes", it's some idiot with political
ties.


It's a bunch of "idiots with special ties". They're not idiots, they're very
smart. Stadiums times sports times cities is a fair number of palaces built in
say the last ten to fifteen years largely by taxes. So not such a "narrow
case".

This one you need to back up. "Walmart" isn't a billionare; it's a company.

The owners sure are.

Tim Lines wrote:

gwhite wrote:

"Hi, I'm John Kerry. All your problems are GWB's fault. Presidents control the
economy and jobs.

This line was STOLEN from Ronald Reagan! It's exactly what he said
about Carter! I KNEW Kerry sounded familiar!

in a strange coincidence, the day you wrote this post, earlier in the
day i was reading a book with the following paragraph:

"burns finished his term in february 1978, and jimmy carter
incomprehensibly appointed as his successor g. william miller, ceo of
the conglomerate textron, a corporate lawyer from providence, rhode
island, unversed in central banking.
the white house was going to run the fed." ("the fed", by martin mayer)

first the seattle marathon. now, the fed. i'm worried what else we will
have "in common".
heather

From: "Shayne Wissler"

And just because the company might "duck out" of some taxes doesn't speak to
how much the company pays overall -

Point being that for at least one California town, the local economy was
drained, local businesses closed shop, and the money went elsewhere. Sorry, I'm
not googling this stuff, it was on TV.

you're asserting socialism for upper
classes, which implies that overall they are ducking.

People who own Walmart stock, some of them who own a lot, are not paying the
price of operating a business while they are paid dividends on their stock and
make a profit when they sell off, too.

a company does not constitute an "upper class".

It is an entity, and the "upper class" at least to some extent owns the stock.

It wouldn't matter if the corp didn't pay a dime if all its investors were
paying 50% on their returns.

Yes it would, at minimum to the local communities. And beyond that, of course.
Every penny shirked is paid by someone else.

But I think you're a foaming at the mouth liberal and don't really think
about these things before you start driveling. Prove me wrong.

At least I don't "foam" for Ayn Rand. I think I did just prove you wrong,
besides.

the demigods of finance and business are being shown to be
cheapsuit
scammers.

Foam on... How about we see some real reasoning from you.

Just read the newspaper.

if we had a government
that was based on inalienable individual rights instead of special interests
there wouldn't be the kind of abuse you're seeing and imagining you're
seeing.

Damn, and here I thought I was the one complaining about special interests.

Some special interests are more equal than others, Shayne? --TP

From: "Shayne Wissler"

You don't understand how SS works. It's a pyramid scheme.

I understand that the money paid in has been stolen.

More mouth foaming - the rich pay the majority of the taxes in this country.

As well they should, having used "the system" to their great benefit.

It's not a difference of opinion. It's the difference between right and
wrong, and you're wrong.

Your opinion. --TP

"h squared" wrote in message

first the seattle marathon. now, the fed. i'm worried what else we will
have "in common".
heather

Tim only bathes periodically.

From: ospam (Tom Paterson)

You don't understand how SS works. It's a pyramid scheme.

I understand that the money paid in has been stolen.

It has been used in other places, not stolen, by the people who are
responsible for providing it as needed. The government has not failed to pay
anyones check yet, so nothing has been "stolen".
How do you propose to deal with the aging population, shrinking labor pool
contributing, and increasing costs? Raise our kids taxes out of sight?

More mouth foaming - the rich pay the majority of the taxes in this
country.

As well they should, having used "the system" to their great benefit.


So, everyone who has been successful has "used the system" and are crooked?
You have no problem with penalizing people for success. Cool we'll pay cat5s
more than pros because they need it more. And we all know that "the pros
must've used the system" to be there, must've been politics, and better dope.
Couldn't have been a lot of hard, smart work?

It's not a difference of opinion. It's the difference between right and
wrong, and you're wrong.

Your opinion. --TP


Depends on whether you hate anyone who has been successful and you believe
that they should have to give up increasingly large portions of what they
worked for to people who weren't as successful.
None of this answers the fundamental problem of the aging population and
stagnant workforce. Europe was trying to offset this, and the negative
birthrates, by bringing in guest workers and immigrants and attempting to
continue to expand the economies. The only problem with that theory is that
when you keep increasing the fiscal burden on companies beyond the advantages
of where they are located they go to another country that will give them a
better deal. Now you not only haven't gained anything, you've driven the jobs
to developing nations, which in the long run will be a good thing for the
planet, but very painful for those countries that don't wake up and find niches
that can't be filled cheaper somewhere else.
my opinion
Bill C

"Tom Paterson" wrote in message
...
From: "Shayne Wissler"

And just because the company might "duck out" of some taxes doesn't speak
to
how much the company pays overall -

Point being that for at least one California town, the local economy was
drained, local businesses closed shop, and the money went elsewhere.
Sorry, I'm
not googling this stuff, it was on TV.

You're making it up or wildly distorting something you heard. The rich in
this country are soaked.

you're asserting socialism for upper
classes, which implies that overall they are ducking.

People who own Walmart stock, some of them who own a lot, are not paying
the
price of operating a business while they are paid dividends on their stock
and
make a profit when they sell off, too.

More fiction you can't back up.

a company does not constitute an "upper class".

It is an entity, and the "upper class" at least to some extent owns the
stock.

Grasping for straws now...

It wouldn't matter if the corp didn't pay a dime if all its investors were
paying 50% on their returns.

Yes it would, at minimum to the local communities. And beyond that, of
course.
Every penny shirked is paid by someone else.

So if they paid 50% tax, you're still foaming at them because of how the
government decided to distribute the funds? You're a real liberal nutcase.

But I think you're a foaming at the mouth liberal and don't really think
about these things before you start driveling. Prove me wrong.

At least I don't "foam" for Ayn Rand. I think I did just prove you wrong,
besides.

Self delusion is your specialty.

the demigods of finance and business are being shown to be
cheapsuit
scammers.

Foam on... How about we see some real reasoning from you.

Just read the newspaper.

Ah, there's your "proof". The fact is that *you* can't read the newspaper,
you distort everything that comes into your brain.


Shayne Wissler

Why can't all you dorky socialists emigrate to France, or Cuba, or North Korea,
or somewhere else. This is a country of individuals. Why must you insist on
the destruction of the most beautiful thing ever discovered? Why are you so
filled with a profound hatred of freedom?


They won't leave ( Alec Baldwin/Cher/Susan Sarandon) because they are
sheep and they would rather bleet loudly and stand in their own poop
then make a move that may have a consequence.

It must suck to never grow up and accept responsibility for
themselves, but that is why they need the almighty nipple you
mentioned. By the way has the great socialist Michael Moore been busy
redistributing his new wealth?

Well damn, when "reforming" Social Security means taking away (stealing)
benefits that have been paid for, and "simplifying" the tax codes means giving
the rich even more than they have already, "it's real believable" to me that
we're seeing a difference of opinion. --TP

TP your social security benefits are in now way p[aid for. That would
imply the money has been put away on your behalf. It hasn't. Current
benefits are paid by current contributions made by the existing
workforce. Some reasons benefits must decline in the future are the
declining work force population and the expansion of social security
benefits to cover more people and situations than originally intended
and masters fatties living longer than Henry thinks they should.

The comment amount giving the rich more of what THEY have already
displays your petty envy and socialist tendencies. It was already
theirs.