--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozg...@...> wrote: > > ShempMcGurk wrote: > > The federal government is pushing a $4 trillion budget this year. When > > Clinton left office 9 years ago, he oversaw a $2 trillion budget. Doubling > > an already bloated federal government in 9 years. > > > You're (conveniently) forgetting that he left office with a surplus.
Not "conveniently"...I have always praised Clinton for that and leaving that great point out weakens my case. You strengthen it by reminding me of the omission. Thanks. > > So the Supreme Court says corporations can spend what they want. Well, I > > don't see how letting more voices being heard is going to create any worse > > spending than we already have on the part of government. Indeed, perhaps a > > voice from a sector -- business -- that actually has to curtail costs and > > spend responsibly and answer to shareholders will be a benefit to the > > public and the lawmakers who so wantonly spend our money. > > > > Because it causes fewer voices to actually be heard. Can you raise $5 > million to put your voice on TV spots? NO. But the corporations CAN. > That is inequality. > > I say: not only should corporations be allowed to spend as much as they > > want in campaign advertising, we should actually SUBSIDIZE them to do so in > > the hope that they can influence our insane politicians from spending our > > money and putting us into debt so recklessly. > > > > No, I'm going to go even further. > > > > You want things to really work in government? LET WAL-MART RUN THE SHOW. > > And we should pay them billions to do it. I guarantee you that in a few > > months that the budget will be balanced and we'll have the greatest and > > cheapest health care insurance program possible. > Once again Shemp verifies he is a retard and a loony tunes. > > This court decision will the Dread Scott decision of the 21st century. >
