Re: Anyone using perimiter fence protection

[JoeRaisin <joeraisin2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:
> "JoeRaisin" wrote:
>>
>>> Me, too.  The idiot Bush spent almost everything on his stupid war,
>>> then gave the rest away to his corporate sponsors.  Thank God, now
>>> that we have adult supervision of the economy we can start to work
>>> our way out of the hole Bush dug.
>>
>> I always wondered what the definition of "adult supervision" was and
>> now I know.  It's taking a bad situation and making it worse.  Thanks
>> for clearing that up.
>
> Glad to help.  We gave the Republicans a chance at running things and
> the results have been disastrous.  I don't know if Obama's plan will
> work or not, but I sure hope it does.  Either way, we know for a fact
> that Bush's methods failed miserably on every front.
>

Of course they did.  Both major parties looted the treasury.

It cracks me up to hear B.O. anguishing over the deficit he inherited
when the first thing he did was triple it.

>>>> Or the money being pissed away on this stimulus plan...
>>>
>>> How dare they try to create jobs for Americans.  The very nerve!
>>
>> Except it only creates temporary jobs.
>
> Compared to the previous administration's methods which destroyed 5
> million jobs, I'd say the plan is a plus.
>

When the jobs start.  Haven't heard of any yet.

You would think that with all the money supposedly being spent on
infrastructure projects Caterpillar wouldn't still be laying off.

You remember Caterpillar, that was the place Obama lied about what the
CEO told him.

>>> Not really.  We tried that for the past eight years and it ruined the
>>> economy.
>>
>> No, we didn't try it - read it again.  What I suggested has never been
>> tried.  Probably because it would work...
>
> OK, I'll grant you that.
>
>> Using B.O.'s logic, the answer to money shortfalls in my home would
>> not be to tighten up the budget but to get a bunch of new credit cards
>> and max them out.
>>
>> How does that make sense?
>
> There's a huge difference between microeconomics (that which affects a
> single home or a single small business) and macroeconomics (that which
> pertains to the overall economy.  While it may seem logical to believe
> that what applies to the one should also apply to the other, that's
> usually not the case.  If you have only a little savings and you lose
> your job, you'd be crazy to spend using credit cards.  But if the whole
> economy is down, the only way to bring it back is to create low and
> middle income jobs, even if that means operating in the red for a time.
> If *everyone* refuses to spend, there will be no jobs for anyone.  When
> we gave huge tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, they didn't trickle
> it down to the middle class.  They hid it away in offshore accounts,
> spent some on mega-mansions, etc.  When we create jobs for lower income
> families, they take the moneyt and spend it.  That gives stores and
> restaurants more business.  That sells stuff like cars and houses.  And
> that, in turn, creates more jobs.  The cycle goes on.
>

Which is why I think that by simply not collecting the taxes (and not
screwing folks on the other end like the current withholding scheme) in
the first place is the way to go.

It puts a couple hundred dollars directly into the pockets of the
low/middle income folks right now.  Money they, as you pointed out,
would spend in stores, restaurants, and other places which would
stimulate the economy immediately - saving and creating jobs.

They way they are doing it, well, let's just say that it would be great
if it does work the way he says it will.  I will be more than happy to
admit I was wrong - but I don't have a lot of confidence in the theory.

>> What is his tax policy answer?  To reduce the withholding tables but
>> not the tax tables.  If this scheme stands, a whole lot of folks are
>> going to be very surprised come next tax day when their refund is
>> reduced or they end up having to pay.
>
> My accountant says that my taxes will actually go down under Obama's
> plan. The again, I don't net $250,000.  If you're over that, expect to
> pay a few percent more than last year.
>

Except they are going to let the bush tax cuts expire which will raise
taxes on the middle class.

>>> Yep, just like they did in 2000 and 2004.
>>
>> I must have missed the polls and interviews those years.  You know,
>> the ones where they found bush supporters, fed them all of
>> Gore's/Kerry's positions and had the interviewee slavishly gushing
>> about what great positions their candidate held.
>
> Having received some of the auto-calls from both the Bush and McCain
> campaigns, I can tell you the methods *they* used were disgusting.
>

Non-sequitur.  Disgusting and typical of both major parties, it doesn't
address the fact that many Obama voters hadn't a clue as to his positions.

>>> So you agree that Burr was being spiteful -- not responsible.  I knew
>>> we would find more common ground here.
>>
>> On this one appointment it sounds as though there was a legitimate
>> reason. I'm sure they will play those games though.
>
> Burr is the one who was playing games.  Unfortunately, the ones who paid
> for it were American veterans (you know, the "troops").
>

Refusal to admit facts doesn't mean they don't exist.

Besides if I have my facts straight, The United States Senate confirmed
Duckworth as Assistant Secretary of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs
for the United States Department of Veterans Affairs on April 22, 2009.

See, once the questions were answered he stopped holding it up.  I'm not
saying you won't find such shenanigans on the part of republicans, just
that this one doesn't sound like one.

>> Just as the dems did over the last eight years - as you just agreed
>> happened.
>
> Yep.
>
>> I just wish they had used a little courage regarding the appointments
>> of a tax cheat to head the IRS and a documented liar as Secretary of
>> State.
>
> We couldn't find anyone interested in the State job who wasn't a
> documented liar.  What we did get is someone who has good working
> relationships and strong friendships with more heads of state than I
> could even name.  That's a far sight better than any of the clowns Bush
> hired.
>

How about someone with a shred of credibiilty that we didn't have to be
ashamed of.

>> Locking up a weapon is just common sense.  Though too often, common
>> sense doesn't come until after something bad happens.
>
> Yep.  Using the CDC's website, I found that on average, more than 12
> children are killed every day by guns.  This, and not the left nor the
> "One World Government", is the reason gun control efforts keep coming to
> the fore.
>
>> There is a couple in my grief support group who lost a 4 year old
>> child when he got his hands on his father's police service weapon.  It
>> was routinely stored on top of a bookcase that the dad had to stand on
>> tippy-toes to reach.  They had assumed the child couldn't get to it
>> but, unfortunately, he climbed like a monkey.
>>
>> These days, in my house, I lock up guns and all my big knives as well.
>
> How sad.  The reality is that kids will always find a way to get at
> something they're not supposed to touch.  The only safe gun is one they
> can't reach.  A secure gun cabinet and/or good trigger locks would save
> a lot of lives.
>
>> Only if they also hold responsible all members of congress who were
>> aware of the "illegal" actions and at best did nothing or, in the
>> worst cases, gave a stamp of approval.
>
> Absolutely!
>
>> The only thing that bothers me about this is his partial release of
>> the memos.  Whenever someone claims "transparency" but then releases
>> only partial information it makes me wonder what they are not saying
>> and why.
>
> I suspect most of the rest will be forthcoming.  Once you open the flood
> gates it's really hard to close them again.
>

I won't hold my breath.  I understand that some of the still classified
memos may contain information that won't support the current actions.

On the other hand it, if the statute is applied fairly, it could be fun
watching Pelosi try to defend her support of water-boarding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/04/23/pelosi-was-cool-with-waterboarding/


>>>> It eliminates the secret ballot.  Bad... very bad...
>>>
>>> No, it does not.  The secret ballot is currently a second phase --
>>> *after* an open petition.  The proposed act says that in certain
>>> circumstances the open petition (which is already required) is
>>> enough. This would make it eqsier to unionize.  The act specifically
>>> addresses workplaces where the company is likely to interfere with
>>> the process -- IOW, places where a union is most urgently needed.
>>
>> A simple petition should never be enough.
>
> To create a union?  Sorry, but I disagree.  If more than half the
> workers want a union, let them have one.
>

I agree, but the only truly fair way to find out if half the workers
really want one is to hold a secret ballot.

>> A secret ballot eliminates the potential for intimidation, coercion or
>> bribery - from either side of the issue.  The petitions do not.
>
> Historically, this has not been the case.
>

That makes no sense.  Upon what history do you base this?

>> Once we begin elimination of the secret ballot here, where will it end?
>
> Again, the proposed statute does not eliminate secret ballots.  Either
> you misunderstand the wording of the act or you're intentionally being
> obtuse (sound familiar?)
>

No, but perhaps you are (either condition).  If the statute is passed
then unions can be imposed *WITHOUT* a secret ballot.


> Regards,
> Robert