You gotta start trustin' what I say, Opie. I told you what Kerry planned to do
about taxes and that the Bush **** about him raising everybody taxes was
fear-mongering. Told you he was gonna rescind the Bush cuts only for the top
bracket. So here it is in black and uh... whatever the **** you wanna call that
pasty beige skin color you got on.

Kerry Asking Wealthy to Pay Old Tax Rate
By MIKE GLOVER, AP

CHICAGO (March 10) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said
Wednesday he will ask Americans earning more than $200,000 a year to pay the
taxes they paid under President Clinton and pledged to retain the Bush tax cuts
for the middle class and even add to them.

PM

"Professor Midnite" wrote in message
...
You gotta start trustin' what I say, Opie. I told you what Kerry planned
to do
about taxes and that the Bush **** about him raising everybody taxes was
fear-mongering. Told you he was gonna rescind the Bush cuts only for the
top
bracket. So here it is in black and uh... whatever the **** you wanna
call that
pasty beige skin color you got on.

Kerry Asking Wealthy to Pay Old Tax Rate
By MIKE GLOVER, AP

CHICAGO (March 10) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said
Wednesday he will ask Americans earning more than $200,000 a year to pay
the
taxes they paid under President Clinton and pledged to retain the Bush
tax cuts
for the middle class and even add to them.


You said reduce taxes to the rich. You must have been chokin on
something.

What is Kerry's definition of middle class? He sure doesn't know
from personal experience.

ScottW

From: lete (Professor Midnite)
Date: 3/10/04 9:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

You gotta start trustin' what I say, Opie. I told you what Kerry planned to
do
about taxes and that the Bush **** about him raising everybody taxes was
fear-mongering. Told you he was gonna rescind the Bush cuts only for the top
bracket. So here it is in black and uh... whatever the **** you wanna call
that
pasty beige skin color you got on.

Kerry Asking Wealthy to Pay Old Tax Rate
By MIKE GLOVER, AP

CHICAGO (March 10) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said
Wednesday he will ask Americans earning more than $200,000 a year to pay the
taxes they paid under President Clinton and pledged to retain the Bush tax
cuts
for the middle class and even add to them.

PM



He can't do anything about the tax cuts only Congress can. Kerry is full of
****.

From: George M. Middius
Date: 3/10/04 4:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



Professor Midnite said:

You gotta start trustin' what I say, Opie. I told you what Kerry planned to
do
about taxes and that the Bush **** about him raising everybody taxes was
fear-mongering. Told you he was gonna rescind the Bush cuts only for the
top
bracket. So here it is in black and uh... whatever the **** you wanna call
that
pasty beige skin color you got on.

Kerry Asking Wealthy to Pay Old Tax Rate
By MIKE GLOVER, AP

CHICAGO (March 10) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said
Wednesday he will ask Americans earning more than $200,000 a year to pay
the
taxes they paid under President Clinton and pledged to retain the Bush tax
cuts
for the middle class and even add to them.

Well, at least Kerry isn't for sale to the wealthiest people. That's a
politician with a conscience.


He is the wealthiest people.

From: "ScottW"

You said reduce taxes to the rich. You must have been chokin on
something.

I believe what I said was *rescind* the Bush cuts for the rich and super rich,
not *reduce*. If I said reduce I musta been thinkin' bout someone's fat ass
wife.

What is Kerry's definition of middle class? He sure doesn't know
from personal experience.


C'mon man. You may a right-wing jack- boot Klansman in disguise, but you
smarter than to make that statement given your boy Bush's background. Good ol'
George 'Bootstraps" Bush. From humble beginnings. Had to walk to school ten
miles every day, uphill both ways. Heh heh.

Don't go there, Opie.
Big mistake

Professor Midnight

From: (Mikermckelvy)

He is the wealthiest people.


I've given this a great deal of thought. Long and hard. Lost some sleep over
it, too, before I finally decided. Now don't go takin' no personal offense at
this Mr. Miker, but I finally decided you're just too ****in' stupid to deal
with because the mother ****er might be contagious.

With deep regret

Professor Midnight

From: lete (Professor Midnite)
Date: 3/11/04 4:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

From: (Mikermckelvy)

He is the wealthiest people.


I've given this a great deal of thought. Long and hard. Lost some sleep over
it, too, before I finally decided. Now don't go takin' no personal offense at
this Mr. Miker, but I finally decided you're just too ****in' stupid to deal
with because the mother ****er might be contagious.

With deep regret

Professor Midnight


Surrender noted.

From: (Mikermckelvy)

He is the wealthiest people.


you're just too ****in' stupid to deal
with because the mother ****er might be contagious.

Surrender noted.


Gotta give ya credit, boy, because you got one mother ****in' good strategy and
it took the old professor some time to catch on. So the idea is you work real
hard at sounding like you developmentally disabled and when we walk away you go
*Yay!* like Special Ed on Crank Yankers and declare victory. Yes indeed. You
are one clever mother ****er and I sure do surrender.

Professor Midnite

lete (Professor Midnite) wrote in message ...
From: "ScottW"

You said reduce taxes to the rich. You must have been chokin on
something.

I believe what I said was *rescind* the Bush cuts for the rich and super rich,
not *reduce*. If I said reduce I musta been thinkin' bout someone's fat ass
wife.

Actually you said "back down" as in your throat.
Message ID


What is Kerry's definition of middle class? He sure doesn't know
from personal experience.


C'mon man. You may a right-wing jack- boot Klansman in disguise, but you
smarter than to make that statement given your boy Bush's background. Good ol'
George 'Bootstraps" Bush. From humble beginnings. Had to walk to school ten
miles every day, uphill both ways. Heh heh.

Seriously though, corporate profits are looking up (even if
Wallstreet is to stupid to see it), but the trade deficit is out of
control.

Do you really think raising taxes on the rich and a peanut cut for
the rapidly becoming unemployed middle class is really gonna do
anything?

Will Kerry initiate a trade war with China over their currency
policy?
He hasn't shown the balls yet to go there. Will Americans tolerate
the consequences? If he really wants to play trade hardball, he'll
sound like Pat Buchanon. What is liberal and what is conservative
anymore?

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message news:7jR3c.4525$Nj.2802@fed1read01...
"Professor Midnite" wrote in message
...

Here's another interesting article that highlights one of many unfair trade
practices of China.

http://tinyurl.com/3ekjq

ScottW

From: (ScottW)

Actually you said "back down" as in your throat.

Actually Opie, what I said was:


So Kerry's plan is to raise taxes and increase the government payroll.

More Bush fear-mongering bull****. Kerry's plan in part is to bring tax rates
for the rich and super rich back down to pre-Bush levels while keeping the rest
of the package, especially middle class cuts intact.

Which, in turns out, is exactly what he plan to do. So wtf was *you* goin' on
about?

Seriously though, corporate profits are looking up (even if
Wallstreet is to stupid to see it), but the trade deficit is out of
control.

*Way* out of...

So the the national debt. Now here's some figures. The answer to your question
is 'yes'. According to what I heard on NPR today, if we cut out the entire
budget for education, health, research etc and left only defense, we'd still be
in a deficit situation. So we need more revenue and we need it from those who
can afford it. That would be me, Opie, and I'm willing to pay a bit if helps.
What about you?

Do you really think raising taxes on the rich and a peanut cut for
the rapidly becoming unemployed middle class is really gonna do
anything?


It ain't *RAISING*... It's restoring. And according to the figures I've seen,
the answer is a big mother-****er Y E S!

Will Kerry initiate a trade war with China over their currency
policy?

Don't know. We'll see.

He hasn't shown the balls yet to go there

But he *has* shown the balls to call the Bush boys out for the thievin' lyin'
rich white boy club they is and that's just fine with me.

Professor Midnite

ScottW wrote:

"ScottW" wrote in message news:7jR3c.4525$Nj.2802@fed1read01...

"Professor Midnite" wrote in message
...


Here's another interesting article that highlights one of many unfair trade
practices of China.

http://tinyurl.com/3ekjq


And of course - our governmetn thinks it's SO bright.

They have no intention of becoming like us and are using their
"Most favored nation" status to do everything they can to use
us.

That would be my first change if I was Kerry - move it to
Russia, which badly needs it to prop up their fledgeling democracy.
I hear that a Siberia-Alaska pipeline is technically possible,
btw. We could stem a lot of the hurt from OPEC by tapping
Russia's vast oil reserves in exhacnge for money and technology.
(they lack the means to get it out and transported).

"Professor Midnite" wrote in message
...
From: (ScottW)

Actually you said "back down" as in your throat.

Actually Opie, what I said was:


So Kerry's plan is to raise taxes and increase the government payroll.

More Bush fear-mongering bull****. Kerry's plan in part is to bring tax
rates
for the rich and super rich back down to pre-Bush levels while keeping
the rest
of the package, especially middle class cuts intact.

Which, in turns out, is exactly what he plan to do. So wtf was *you*
goin' on
about?

Is down up and up down in Pa. institutes of higher learning?
You guys must be high.

Let try to help although overcoming your hypocritical arrogance
may prove difficult.

Down means lower or less. You mean up or raise taxes.
Not down. Got it?



Seriously though, corporate profits are looking up (even if
Wallstreet is to stupid to see it), but the trade deficit is out of
control.

*Way* out of...

So the the national debt. Now here's some figures. The answer to your
question
is 'yes'. According to what I heard on NPR today, if we cut out the
entire
budget for education, health, research etc and left only defense, we'd
still be
in a deficit situation. So we need more revenue and we need it from those
who
can afford it. That would be me, Opie, and I'm willing to pay a bit if
helps.
What about you?

Sure, if it helps. If it further damages this fragile economy it will
be counterproductive. Deficits and national debt aren't
short term economic factors.

We need to deal with job loss, trade deficit, and energy costs.
Get those in line and the deficit will be much easier to deal
with.

Do you really think raising taxes on the rich and a peanut cut for
the rapidly becoming unemployed middle class is really gonna do
anything?


It ain't *RAISING*... It's restoring. And according to the figures I've
seen,
the answer is a big mother-****er Y E S!

Reference?


Will Kerry initiate a trade war with China over their currency
policy?

Don't know. We'll see.

He hasn't shown the balls yet to go there

But he *has* shown the balls to call the Bush boys out for the thievin'
lyin'
rich white boy club they is and that's just fine with me.

Give me a break. That's so easy. I want a president who can solve
problems, not just placate the hollow souled haters of the liberal left.

ScottW

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
link.net...


ScottW wrote:

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:7jR3c.4525$Nj.2802@fed1read01...

"Professor Midnite" wrote in message
...


Here's another interesting article that highlights one of many unfair
trade
practices of China.

http://tinyurl.com/3ekjq


And of course - our governmetn thinks it's SO bright.

They have no intention of becoming like us and are using their
"Most favored nation" status to do everything they can to use
us.

That would be my first change if I was Kerry - move it to
Russia, which badly needs it to prop up their fledgeling democracy.

My company tried to do business in Russia. Way to corrupt. The
money just disappeared into a rat hole.
BTW, MFN is no more. It's NTR (Normal Trade Relations)
or something like that.
China is improving its IPR protection but it is still a crazy
place to do businees.
Do you know if you import equipment into China to establish
a factory you can't legally remove it if you choose to discontinue
manufacturing there?


I hear that a Siberia-Alaska pipeline is technically possible,
btw. We could stem a lot of the hurt from OPEC by tapping
Russia's vast oil reserves in exhacnge for money and technology.
(they lack the means to get it out and transported).

So polluting Siberia is ok but polluting ANWAR isn't?
We don't need oil direct from Russia. There is already
plenty of movement going on to bring Russian energy to
the far east which reduce pressure on the world oil
markets. We need a plan to get off oil, not
go to Mars. Does Kerry have one?

ScottW

From: "ScottW"

Is down up and up down in Pa.

When you're right, you're right. It don't happen but once a month and this is
one of them times. I kept reading it wrong each time.

Reference?

It stands to reason.

But he *has* shown the balls to call the Bush boys out for the thievin'
lyin'
rich white boy club they is and that's just fine with me.

Give me a break. That's so easy.

So you agree? Good. That's a start.

I want a president who can solve
problems

The ones Georgie created?
George won't solve 'em. That's for **** sure.

PM

"Professor Midnite" wrote in message
...

I want a president who can solve
problems

The ones Georgie created?
George won't solve 'em. That's for **** sure.

You're not going to tell me you think a president
is responsible for the state of the economy a few months
(or even years) after taking office?
The problems facing our economy have been taking root
for decades. (Look at Japan's economy if
you want a glimpse of our future, decade of
slow/no growth).

Frankly, if Bush had not acted to stimulate the
economy to the extent he (and Greenspan) did,
we would still be hurting. That's how bad
things could get. The second dip that might come
as the effects of his economic stimulus decline may
be inevitable but I'm not going to believe Bush
caused it. And I haven't heard anything from Kerry
that leads me to think he has a clue on these
problems.

I'm beginning to think this country has to face the
transition from an economy based on growth to
one that can handle stagnation.
Face it, continuous economic growth means
one day we will have paved the entire nation and
still have a traffic jam.

Time to think about stabilizing the population.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:

We need to deal with job loss, trade deficit, and energy costs.
Get those in line and the deficit will be much easier to deal
with.

And Bush is a known quantity. One that doesn't care about any
of these things. I'll take the unknown evil over the proven
one anyday.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
link.net...
ScottW wrote:

We need to deal with job loss, trade deficit, and energy costs.
Get those in line and the deficit will be much easier to deal
with.

And Bush is a known quantity. One that doesn't care about any
of these things. I'll take the unknown evil over the proven
one anyday.

I can't condone the democrats immigration policy.
I can't condone Bush's immigration policy.
Immigration is about my #1 issue.
I'm screwed.

ScottW

From: "ScottW"

Frankly, if Bush had not acted to stimulate the
economy to the extent he (and Greenspan) did,
we would still be hurting.

Ridiculous! Bush is a one trick pony. Cut taxes for the rich and hope they
spend, expand and hire. It ain't happening. The man's a lying son of a bitch.
Do you remember January 2002 whne the pig said he would never use 9-11 for
political purposes? I do. Find you the quote if you like. You need to stop
listening to right wing radio and parroting what they say.

Time to get my ass on TV and thrown in jail if possible. Be back when I'm out.

PM

ScottW wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
link.net...

ScottW wrote:


We need to deal with job loss, trade deficit, and energy costs.
Get those in line and the deficit will be much easier to deal
with.

And Bush is a known quantity. One that doesn't care about any
of these things. I'll take the unknown evil over the proven
one anyday.


I can't condone the democrats immigration policy.
I can't condone Bush's immigration policy.
Immigration is about my #1 issue.
I'm screwed.

That's why I'm going for Kerry. He's likely to sell
the farm a bit slower AND he has to get it pushed through
congress. Now, Congress is the same, but they will fight
him out of party spite whereas the same idea would sail
through if a Republican President brought it up.

Plus, the transition of power will eat up most of the first
year while he learns the ropes. Give us time to get some
serious ire built up at the local level to fight the insane
proposals.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
link.net

Plus, the transition of power will eat up most of the first
year while he learns the ropes. Give us time to get some
serious ire built up at the local level to fight the insane
proposals.

This agrees with my policy of rotating the thieves on a regular basis.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Joseph Oberlander said:

That's why I'm going for Kerry. He's likely to sell
the farm a bit slower AND he has to get it pushed through
congress. Now, Congress is the same, but they will fight
him out of party spite whereas the same idea would sail
through if a Republican President brought it up.

One-third of the Senate is up, you know, and it's 51-49 now. If the
Senate changes sides, this country has a chance of making some
serious improvements.

IOW, be deadlocked with the president and accomplish nothing.

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:40:37 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Sure, if it helps. If it further damages this fragile economy it will
be counterproductive. Deficits and national debt aren't
short term economic factors.

We need to deal with job loss, trade deficit, and energy costs.
Get those in line and the deficit will be much easier to deal
with.

The trade deficit is always precisely equal to the difference between
national savings and investment. The budget deficit, if household
savings stay the same, will therefore produce a trade deficit. (The
reason the trade deficit persisted in the 90s despite the budget
deficit was because household savings turned negative--people spent
savings as their assets grew.) The huge and growing trade deficit is
the result of the huge and growing budget deficit.

The real question I think is does the growing trade deficit inhibit
job growth. It would seem to be possible, if it means that people are
buying from abroad instead of at home. So there could be a connection
between the growing trade deficit and outsourcing. The parallel was
in the 1980s with the growth of auto and steel imports and the decline
of employment in those sectors. This could take place even if the
economy is growing, if the trade deficit grows as a share of output.

If so, that would mean that the real immediate impact of the budget
deficit is the decline jobs number.

--

Jacob Kramer

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:06:27 GMT, Jacob Kramer
wrote:

(The
reason the trade deficit persisted in the 90s despite the budget
deficit was because household savings turned negative--people spent
savings as their assets grew.)

This should say "despite the budget surplus."

--

Jacob Kramer

lete (Professor Midnite) wrote in message ...
From: "ScottW"

Frankly, if Bush had not acted to stimulate the
economy to the extent he (and Greenspan) did,
we would still be hurting.

Ridiculous! Bush is a one trick pony. Cut taxes for the rich and hope they
spend, expand and hire.

It was a pretty substantial cut across the board. Didn't even you get
a rebate check?


It ain't happening. The man's a lying son of a bitch.
Do you remember January 2002 whne the pig said he would never use 9-11 for
political purposes? I do. Find you the quote if you like. You need to stop
listening to right wing radio and parroting what they say.

Time to get my ass on TV and thrown in jail if possible. Be back when I'm out.

Hope you get a cell with Bubba and have a grand old time.

ScottW

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
link.net...


Plus, the transition of power will eat up most of the first
year while he learns the ropes. Give us time to get some
serious ire built up at the local level to fight the insane
proposals.


Oh goody, the terrorists will testing his will, first thing, and he
still will be at the bottom of the learning curve.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

From: lete (Professor Midnite)
Date: 3/11/04 2:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

From: (ScottW)

Actually you said "back down" as in your throat.

Actually Opie, what I said was:


So Kerry's plan is to raise taxes and increase the government payroll.

More Bush fear-mongering bull****. Kerry's plan in part is to bring tax
rates
for the rich and super rich back down to pre-Bush levels while keeping the
rest
of the package, especially middle class cuts intact.

Which, in turns out, is exactly what he plan to do. So wtf was *you* goin' on
about?

Seriously though, corporate profits are looking up (even if
Wallstreet is to stupid to see it), but the trade deficit is out of
control.

*Way* out of...

So the the national debt. Now here's some figures. The answer to your
question
is 'yes'. According to what I heard on NPR today, if we cut out the entire
budget for education, health, research etc and left only defense, we'd still
be
in a deficit situation.

And if we keep the economy growing at 4.3% we'll be out of deficit in 10 years.



So we need more revenue and we need it from those who
can afford it. That would be me, Opie, and I'm willing to pay a bit if helps.
What about you?

Why should people pay more taxes when it's much easier to grow the economy and
create more tax payers. It worked for Kennedy and for Reagan. It works every
time. reduce taxes so people can save and invest and you get more tax revenue
and more employment and teh rich pay more taxes.

Do you really think raising taxes on the rich and a peanut cut for
the rapidly becoming unemployed middle class is really gonna do
anything?


It ain't *RAISING*... It's restoring.

To restore you have to raise, try some intellectual honesty.

And according to the figures I've seen,
the answer is a big mother-****er Y E S!

The answer is no, if you increase taxes you slow investment and job creation.

Will Kerry initiate a trade war with China over their currency
policy?

Don't know. We'll see.

He hasn't shown the balls yet to go there

But he *has* shown the balls to call the Bush boys out for the thievin' lyin'
rich white boy club they is and that's just fine with me.

So it's OK with you if your candiate is a liar?

From: lete (Professor Midnite)
Date: 3/11/04 10:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

From: (Mikermckelvy)

He is the wealthiest people.


you're just too ****in' stupid to deal
with because the mother ****er might be contagious.

Surrender noted.

Gotta give ya credit, boy, because you got one mother ****in' good strategy
and
it took the old professor some time to catch on. So the idea is you work
real
hard at sounding like you developmentally disabled and when we walk away you
go
*Yay!* like Special Ed on Crank Yankers and declare victory. Yes indeed. You
are one clever mother ****er and I sure do surrender.

Professor Midnite


I knew you'd say that.

Just curious, do you ever think it important to back up any of your slander
with any actual data?

I didn't think so.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:40:37 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Sure, if it helps. If it further damages this fragile economy it
will
be counterproductive. Deficits and national debt aren't
short term economic factors.

We need to deal with job loss, trade deficit, and energy costs.
Get those in line and the deficit will be much easier to deal
with.

The trade deficit is always precisely equal to the difference between
national savings and investment.

I'd really like to see some proof of this.

This guy disagrees.

http://tinyurl.com/2e8rv

Hope this works as it links to a doc.

ScottW

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
link.net...


Plus, the transition of power will eat up most of the first
year while he learns the ropes. Give us time to get some
serious ire built up at the local level to fight the insane
proposals.



Oh goody, the terrorists will testing his will, first thing, and he
still will be at the bottom of the learning curve.

Nah - foriegn affairs are simple. That's one area that he's
at least as well versed in as Bush as he IS a Senator.
Plus, it's not like he wouldn;t have as many pros and
advisors.

He's certainly not going to take any crap. He may be
a liberal, but he's a hardass when it comes to protecting
America.

On that one area alone he's twice the person Gore ever was.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
hlink.net...


Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
link.net...


Plus, the transition of power will eat up most of the first
year while he learns the ropes. Give us time to get some
serious ire built up at the local level to fight the insane
proposals.



Oh goody, the terrorists will testing his will, first thing, and he
still will be at the bottom of the learning curve.

He may be
a liberal, but he's a hardass when it comes to protecting
America.

You have GOT to be kidding.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
hlink.net...
ScottW wrote:

I hope so. Even India would be a better choice,


Except India is an ally and I am not aware of any
patently unfair trade practices they are engaged in.
They simply do the work for less.

Exactly my point. If we want cheap labor, go to where we
know they like us and won't use our technology to later
stab us in the back.

I thought you meant India would be a better choice to
initiate a trade war.

ScottW

George M. Middius wrote:


Joseph Oberlander said:


Exactly my point. If we want cheap labor, go to where we
know they like us and won't use our technology to later
stab us in the back.


I'll bet you can buy a really nice PC loaded with goodies for about
$150 in India.

I'd rather give our money to India than China.

ScottW wrote:

I thought you meant India would be a better choice to
initiate a trade war.

Ah. Now it makes sense. Sorry.

China=trade war.
India or simmilar friendly country=partner.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
link.net...
ScottW wrote:

I thought you meant India would be a better choice to
initiate a trade war.

Ah. Now it makes sense. Sorry.

China=trade war.

for unfair trade practices,
(like fixed currency, restrictions on removing
capital etc.)


India or simmilar friendly country=partner.

or fair trading country.

I have no problem competing with countries who
are primarily trying to raise their standard of living
by educating their people.

ScottW

"Professor Midnite" wrote in message
...
From: "ScottW"

Frankly, if Bush had not acted to stimulate the
economy to the extent he (and Greenspan) did,
we would still be hurting.

Ridiculous! Bush is a one trick pony. Cut taxes for the rich and hope they
spend, expand and hire. It ain't happening.

snip

You're right. You know what they're doing, don't you? They
(corporations/employers) are using this supposed economic upswing to reap
some formerly lost profits (due to the recession) at their loyal workers
expense. Laying off long-standing employees and hiring H1B foreign workers.

R

ScottW wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
link.net...

ScottW wrote:


I thought you meant India would be a better choice to
initiate a trade war.

Ah. Now it makes sense. Sorry.

China=trade war.


for unfair trade practices,
(like fixed currency, restrictions on removing
capital etc.)



India or simmilar friendly country=partner.


or fair trading country.

I have no problem competing with countries who
are primarily trying to raise their standard of living
by educating their people.

India would be my vote. They are by and large educated,
democratic, and willing to work hard. Tons of people and
not enough work - a perfect combination. Oh - and they
respect international copyrights and private land ownership.

That call centers and such for major corporations are being
set up there is a sign that it's a viable alternative.

Now - I'd rather we NOT ship jobs offshore, but if we
must, at least be sane about it and choose someplace other
than China.

George M. Middius wrote:


Joseph Oberlander said:


I'll bet you can buy a really nice PC loaded with goodies for about
$150 in India.

I'd rather give our money to India than China.


In 30 years, that will turn out to have been a huge mistake.

China isn't going to turn into a democracy and isn't
politically stable as one decision from their leaders
and we're out a few days later with nothing to show for
it.

Mikermckelvy wrote:

From: Joseph Oberlander
Date: 3/13/04 5:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: k.net


Mikermckelvy wrote:


Economy is glutted with low-wage earners and illegals who don't pay
taxes. Something like 4-6 million illegals in the U.S. currently.
Another 4-6 million jobs shipped offshore in the last decade or two.


And there are new jobs and businesses being created here as well. It's not
static unless taxation gets to be too high.

We're still waiting for all those new jobs.


You mean you're unemployed?

No. Self-employed but always looking for a better job. Computers
is getting old fast these days. The whole field is imploding as
it has reached a technical level that only large companies can
compete in.

But cutting taxes is NOT the same as spending less. That's the
primary fallacy of our curent economic system.


Cutting taxes equals more money into the treasury as it stimulates economic
growth and job creation, it happens every time.

Except for this time. Something's wrong. People aren't spending
like they were. There is no trickle of funds from the rich, either.

Remember - the SAME PEOPLE who started the mess in Korea and
Vietnam are in power. If they decide tommorrow to kick us out,
withing 48 hours, every American will be expelled with only
the clothes on their backs.

They don't respect our patents or copyrights, spy on our
companies over there, and if we do leave, the factory becomes
state property at OUR expense.

I aaume you mean the Chinese?
I never thought we should be doing business with them in the first place.

You see - almost everyone agrees with this. Yet we are over there.

"RB" wrote in message
...

"Professor Midnite" wrote in message
...
From: "ScottW"

Frankly, if Bush had not acted to stimulate the
economy to the extent he (and Greenspan) did,
we would still be hurting.

Ridiculous! Bush is a one trick pony. Cut taxes for the rich and hope
they
spend, expand and hire. It ain't happening.

snip

You're right. You know what they're doing, don't you? They
(corporations/employers) are using this supposed economic upswing to reap
some formerly lost profits (due to the recession) at their loyal workers
expense. Laying off long-standing employees and hiring H1B foreign
workers.

R



And what happens to these 'profits'?
Dividends, capital reinvestment, or repayment of debt, that's what happens
to them.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---