On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:37 PM, denstar <valliants...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's been out of control for as long as I can remember, really, 'cept > for a time towards the end of Clinton's tenure (guess "he" robbed > social security to do that tho?). You pay attention, that's good. Taxes and spending haven't been that bad in recent years. Tomorrow it's going to be bad. > Because then you'd pay *less* taxes, relatively? Get access to a > whole slew of different loopholes and whatnot? Not loopholes. If you get taxed at 50% why take the chance. It's all in th odds, why work twice as hard or take twice the risk for the same money. It's kills initiative. > Ah. When you say "investment" here, you're referring to the ultra > wealthy, I take it? Not exactly hearkening the time where more > Americans lived within their means vs. on credit. I'm talking about all businesses. Investing in a new building or hiring more staff to try top ramp up. > No, they work better when "we the people" fill our role as "we, the people". Who's working the phones then? Indian call centers? > My point is that we've mandated surveillance technology be built into > everything we use. Not a Smart Idea (Re: The Greeks). Ah so you think the whole surveillance idea thing is new, started with Bush. > Nonsense. Knowing you're being listened-in on leads to all *kinds* of > interesting possibilities. So it can be fun yet you complain? > The definition of life must not be *that* tricky, then. LOL. So how high must the sprout be for us to eat it. > Are there only certain things worth saving enough to kill for? Seems > like you'd have to draw the line somewhere, else you're out there > moving bugs off the road, out of harms way and whatnot. War sucks but some times it's a necessary evil. Remember WWII? > Look bub, we *all* know dems ain't fiscally responsible. That's why! > > They don't seem to pretend as much as the Republicans. But they're > also less cohesive. So if Obama says unemployment will stay around 10% for a long time then it's ok because he's honest? > It got a lot bigger under Bush43, but I note that fiscal > responsibility wasn't on that "Bad Bush" list, per-se. Cool that you > put the attempted fix on there tho. Real cool. I don't think anyone was happy with the out-of-control spending during the Bush years. But now it's quadrupled and accelerating. > Be better if some precedents hadn't been set in the first place, IMO. > A good bit of these tea party folks didn't seem to have a problem back > then. If someone comes in five minutes late do you take off the day? > Or maybe they "felt" they were "saving" something, and thus it was "worth it"? Nope, we new he wasn't saving. Sure. Been doing it since before I was born. Why stop now? We had ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:318403 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
