...

Second, based on what they posted here over the years,
they've not had an original thought worth discussing. They
have never done anything but spew what the Democrat party
puts out as talking points.

...

You couldn't answer this:

**************************************************************************

Between 1981 and 2009:

We have had 8 years of Reagan in which the Republicans had
control of the Senate for 6. We had 4 years of Bush 1, we had 8
years of Clinton in which the Republicans had control of
congress for 6, and we had 8 years of Bush, in which the
Republicans had control of congress for 6.

Since 1981, when Reagan took office:

From 1981 till 2009 the Republicans held the presidency for 20
of the 28 years.

The Republicans have the presidency and at least one house of
congress for 16 out of 28 years.

There have been only two years in which the Democrats controlled
the presidency and congress.

From 1995 to 2007 there have been only two years in which the
Republicans did not control both houses of congress. And those
two years they controlled one house. During those two years the
Senate was tied, so the Republican Vice President had the tie
breaking vote, which gave the Republicans control of the
Senate, and thereby the entire congress.

From 2001 till 2007 the Republicans controled the entire federal
government, Presidency, congress and the supreme court. For two
years the senate was evenly divided, but the Vice President
could cast the tie breaking vote.

From Jan 2007 to Jan 2009 the Democrats controled the House,
and the senate was tied 49-49, with two independents who
caucused with the dems, but are not otherwise bound by party
rules.

Since 1981 there has not been one single *DAY* in which the
Democrats have controlled the entire federal government.

From 1981 until 2009 there were only two years, out of 28, that
the Democrats could enact one single law without Republican
cooperation. (Pass in congress and sign.)

Between 2001 and 2007 there was not even one year the
Republicans could *NOT* enact any bill they wanted without one
single Democratic vote.

According to the Federal Budget History files, 2010: At the end
of WW2 the debt load was almost 122% of GDP. It went down under
every president, war and peace, recession or prosperity, liberal
or conservative, republican or democrat, until Reagan. When
Reagan took office it was around 33%.

Under Reagan it started back up, under Clinton it started back
down again. Under Bush II it went back into climb mode.

In 1981, 32.6%, in 1989, 53.1%, in 1993, 66.2%, in 2001 57.4%,
in 2009 90.4%.

So, Obama was handed an economy that was at risk of another
depression, and a debt load that is headed for crushing.

If the country went into depression the GDP could drop as much
as 50%. The debt would not drop, so the debt load would become
horrendous. 90% jumps to 180%. Higher than this country has ever
seen. If the GDP dropped 25% that still pushes up the debt load
to around 130%. That is a crushing debt. And that is why we
might well not be able to get out of another depression.

When Obama took office he was facing a national debt of about
$12 trill. That debt had built up in the 232 years before his
inauguration. Yet almost 80% of that debt had built up under 3
presidents, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

Around 10% under Clinton, though he spent his first term working
to control the debt, and his second to eliminate the deficit and
stop the growth of the debt.

All other presidents combined produced about 10% of the total
debt.

80% of the national debt Obama inherited produced under the last
three republican presidents. And 100% of the growth in the post
WWII debt load.

Obama inherited a rolling disaster, and the right is determined
to undermine anything he attempts to deal with it.
**************************************************************************

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Who are the republicans who were targeted in the domestic terror attacks? --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)

...

Second, based on what they posted here over the years,
they've not had an original thought worth discussing. They
have never done anything but spew what the Democrat party
puts out as talking points.

...

This was original material, and you couldn't answer this:

**************************************************************************

...

You have the opportunity to live better in your old age.

While you are at it, find any investment plan available to the
public that has paid better historically than social security.

Why then do we not all switch to the *plan* that government
workers and professoinal politicians pay into? *That* seems
to do `very' well. If its good enough for government
workers and professional politicians, it should be good
enough for "the public". That way, we'll `all' be doing
good for our old age.

I was not familiar with the Federal Employee's retirement
system, so I looked it up on the web, and downloaded their
material.

I don't know what the elected officials get, if it's the same
plan or not.

Yes, it does look like a good choice. You get an employer
provided pension and social security. Nothing wrong with that.

Actually, it's much like the plan I have. We just had a meeting
after work tonight to go over the changes and the plan itself,
since so many of us are reaching retirement age, and even more
are elegible for early retirement on 30 and out.

The big differences are, what they get depends on what they
earn, whereas mine is based on pay classificiation. So, my
retirement does not increase for overtime or other pay addons. A
federal employee, at my pay level, and with 30 years service,
would get a few thousand a year more than I would. OTOH, I do
get a bit more on just base pay, if they didn't get any
overtime. I just recalculated. I get quite a bit more on base
pay.

The other difference is, they pay into their retirement, I
don't. Then we both get social security, but that's figured the
same for both of us.

Actually, come to think of it, the material I read was not clear
on whether their retirement was figured on pay grade, or actual
pay. I believe it was actual pay.

Oh, they also have a savings plan similar to a 401K, but anyone
can have that.

Bush is not trying to give you any opportunity except to put
lots of money in the pockets of wall street brokers.

Well, what do the payments `government workers' make, do?
Who's "pockets" does `that' money go into?

Social security and their pension plan.

The biggest question I think is; what is it about this
Social Security issue that the democrats are so afraid of?
Why is it they seem to be terrified that Social Security
will be ended and a real, substantial financial security
await non-government workers upon retirement?

Since govt workers under PERS have social security and an
employer provided pension, all private sector workers need is an
employer provided pension. All covered.

Why are democrats so frightened that Social Security
payments no longer be deducted from employees, and sent
(along with the `employers' contributions) *to* the federal
government?

Why? That's what happens to govt employees.

The one single thing I see in all this is the `cash flow'
of Social Security deductions and employer contributions
will one day come to an end.

Yeah, maybe 40 years or more from now.

Why does that frighten democrats so?

Because historical experience shows the private sector will not
give anything they can weasle out of. In England it's already
shown up. Hell, in Michigan it's shown up, in the govt
employee's who opted to the private retirement plans when it was
still legal.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Wisdom is knowing which bridge to cross and which to burn...
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)

...

Second, based on what they posted here over the years,
they've not had an original thought worth discussing. They
have never done anything but spew what the Democrat party
puts out as talking points.

...

This was original material, and you couldn't answer this:

**************************************************************************

Reagan took office with a jobless rate of 7.5% Two years later
the rate had not declined, it had gone up to 10.8%. Obama has
had 6 months, miracles take a bit longer.

OTOH, Reagan's unemployment started declining then, but it was
still over 10% until half way thorough the third year, and
didn't go below the rate when he took office until nearly 3 1/2
years into his 1st term. Obama deserves at least that much
slack.

Chart included at the bottom of this msg. The original went
back to 1948, but I cut out all years before 1975 to save space.
A really interesting thing, the Reagan years stand out quite
well, they are the only years during that period in which the
unemployment rates have two digits before the decimal point.


**************************************************************************
Data extracted on: July 4, 2009 (7:56:40 AM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Seasonal Adjusted
Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:Unemployment rate
Type of data:Percent
Age:16 years and over


Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1975 8.1 8.1 8.6 8.8 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.3 8.2
1976 7.9 7.7 7.6 7.7 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.8 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.8
1977 7.5 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.0 7.2 6.9 7.0 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.4
1978 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.2 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.9 6.0
1979 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.6 5.7 5.7 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.9 6.0
1980 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.9 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.2
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3
1985 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0
1986 6.7 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.6
1987 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.7
1988 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3
1989 5.4 5.2 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4
1990 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.9 5.9 6.2 6.3
1991 6.4 6.6 6.8 6.7 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.3
1992 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.4
1993 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.5
1994 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5
1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6
1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4
1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7
1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.2 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.8
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.9
2008 4.9 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.6 5.8 6.2 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.2
2009 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.5
**************************************************************************


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Who are the republicans who were targeted in the domestic terror attacks? --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)

...

Second, based on what they posted here over the years,
they've not had an original thought worth discussing. They
have never done anything but spew what the Democrat party
puts out as talking points.

...

This was original material, and you couldn't answer this:

**************************************************************************

National debt by U.S. presidential terms

Gross federal debt

This table lists the gross U.S. federal debt ^[1] as a
percentage of GDP by Presidential term since World War II .^[2]
The current gross federal debt as a percentage of GDP (*83.4%*
at the end of 2009) is currently the highest it has been since
the late 1940s, reaching briefly over 100% in the aftermath of
the world war.

It is important to note that the President proposes the budget
and then congress can change it before the President must
approve or veto it. While this leaves substantial room for the
legislature to change the deficit, Louis Fisher writes,
"Congress rarely appropriates more than what the President
requests." In the case of Nixon, who fought fiercely with
Congress over the budget, he writes, "Congress was able to
adhere to the President's totals while significantly altering
his priorities." ^[3]

(in percentage points )
U.S. president Start debt/GDP Increase debt ($T)
Party Term years | End debt/GDP | Increase debt/GDP
| | | | |
Roosev/Truman D 1945-1949 117.5% 93.1% 0.05 -24.4%

Truman D 1949-1953 93.1% 71.4% 0.01 -21.5%

Eisenhower R 1953-1957 71.4% 60.4% 0.01 -11.0%

Eisenhower R 1957-1961 60.4% 55.2% 0.02 -5.2%

Kenn/Johnson D 1961-1965 55.2% 46.9% 0.03 -8.3%

Johnson D 1965-1969 46.9% 38.6% 0.05 -8.3%

Nixon R 1969-1973 38.6% 35.6% 0.07 -3.0%

Nixon/Ford R 1973-1977 35.6% 35.8% 0.19 +0.2%

Carter D 1977-1981 35.8% 32.5% 0.28 -3.3%

Reagan R 1981-1985 32.5% 43.8% 0.66 +10.8%

Reagan R 1985-1989 43.8% 53.1% 1.04 +9.3%

HW.Bush R 1989-1993 51.1% 66.1% 1.40 +13.0%

Clinton D 1993-1997 66.1% 65.4% 1.18 -0.7%

Clinton D 1997-2001 65.4% 56.4% 0.45 -9.0%

GW.Bush R 2001-2005 56.4% 63.5% 1.73 +7.1%

GW.Bush R 2005-2009 63.4% 83.4% 2.63 +20.0%

Obama D 2009-2013 83.4%

(Source: Whitehouse FY 2011 Budget - Table 7.1 Federal Debt at
the End of Year PDF , Excel )



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Who are the republicans who were targeted in the domestic terror attacks? --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)

...

Second, based on what they posted here over the years,
they've not had an original thought worth discussing. They
have never done anything but spew what the Democrat party
puts out as talking points.

...

This was original material, and you couldn't answer this:

**************************************************************************

Years back Ann Coulter said they should kill some democrats, to
let them know they can be killed.

Coulter said Timothy McVeigh should have parked his truck in
front of the New York Times. She later made it quite clear, in
an article in Newsmax and later posted on Free Republic that she
meant it.

Pat Buchanan's brother Hank went after journalist Cody Shearer
after he was falsely identified by Chris Mathews and Rush Limbaugh
as a man who confronted Kathleen Willey, a woman who had accused
Bill Clinton of harrassment.

In 2001, shortly after the WTC, envelopes containing anthrax
spores were sent through the mail. All of them were sent to
Democrats, or to news media perceived as liberal. They killed 5
people, but none of the intended targets.

The Brother of a democratic congressman found a gas line cut in
his back yard, after a right wing website posted his address,
mistaking it for his brother's.

In the intervening time there were terrorist acts against
democrats, none hitting their target, sometimes targeting the
wrong people.

A man flew a plane into an IRS office building. An attack on a
govt agency reviled by the right.

McVeigh famously killed govt employees in OKC. An attack on the
government so reviled by the right.

Recently the governor of Maryland, a democrat, was sent a
package that contained an incindiary device that ignited when
opened, burning the fingers of the assistant who opened it.

A similar package was sent to Janet Napalitano but ignited in
the post office.

Now Congresswoman Gifford, D-AZ, has been wounded, along with 11
others, and 6 killed.

Notice, every single one of these attacks were against democrats
or perceived liberals. I do not know of one such attack against
conservatives. Have there been any?

You can talk all you want about them being individual nutcases,
but the fact that all the attacks are aimed at targets fingered
by the right is strong evidence the culture of hate propagated
from the right guides these people in choosing their targets.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Who are the republicans who were targeted in the domestic terror attacks? --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)

...

Second, based on what they posted here over the years,
they've not had an original thought worth discussing. They
have never done anything but spew what the Democrat party
puts out as talking points.

...

This was original material, and you couldn't answer this:

**************************************************************************

According to the Federal Budget History files, 2010: At the end
of WW2 the debt load was almost 122% of GDP. It went down under
every president, war and peace, recession or prosperity, liberal
or conservative, republican or democrat, until Reagan. When
Reagan took office it was around 33%.

Under Reagan it started back up, under Clinton it started back
down again. Under Bush II it went back into climb mode.

In 1981, 32.6%, in 1989, 53.1%, in 1993, 66.2%, in 2001 57.4%,
in 2009 90.4%.

So, Obama was handed an economy that was at risk of another
depression, and a debt load that is headed for crushing.

If the country went into depression the GDP could drop as much
as 50%. The debt would not drop, so the debt load would become
horrendous. 90% jumps to 180%. Higher than this country has ever
seen. If the GDP dropped 25% that still pushes up the debt load
to around 130%. That is a crushing debt. And that is why we
might well not be able to get out of another depression.

When Obama took office he was facing a national debt of about
$12 trill. That debt had built up in the 232 years before his
inauguration. Yet almost 80% of that debt had built up under 3
presidents, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

Of the 10% built up under Clinton almost all of it was in his
first term, when he was fighting to bring the Reagan/Bush
debacle under control. In his second term he gave this country
the first balanced budget it had seen in 29 years, and the
second longest string of balanced budgets of the 20th century.
At which time it appeared he stopped the growth of the debt.
However, the republicans had other plans.
(Note:The longest string was the 1920s)

All other presidents combined produced about 10% of the total
debt.

80% of the national debt Obama inherited produced under the last
three republican presidents. And 100% of the growth in the post
WWII debt load.

**************************************************************************

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Who are the republicans who were targeted in the domestic terror attacks? --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)

I did this one long ago. Note that it's been a lot longer than 5
years.

...

Second, based on what they posted here over the years,
they've not had an original thought worth discussing. They
have never done anything but spew what the Democrat party
puts out as talking points.

...

This was original material, and you couldn't answer this:

**************************************************************************

Iraq Troop level quiz.

How many men will it take to win the war? How many years at
that troop level?

The Pentagon said they needed nearly 400,000 men before the
invasion. Donald Rumsfeld and his people said it could be done
with less than 100,000. Those the limits chosen for the high
and low. Between those two, how many would you expect it will
take from this point on?

What is your confidence level that a particular level of
troops will result in a satisfactory outcome in what number of
years? Enter for each troop level, for each number of years to
victory. This is not just how long we will commit our people,
but also how long we can stay as the Iraqis become more and
more convinced they are under permenant occupation. They and
the rest of the Arab world.

1 = No Way 5 = Absolutely.

Number of troops.

100,000 | 150,000 | 200,000 | 250,000 | 300,000 | 400,000
Years_____|_________|_________|_________|_________|________
1 | | | | |
_________|_________|_________|_________|_________|________
2 | | | | |
_________|_________|_________|_________|_________|________
3 | | | | |
_________|_________|_________|_________|_________|________
4 | | | | |
_________|_________|_________|_________|_________|________
5 | | | | |
_________|_________|_________|_________|_________|________
Your | | | | |
Guess______|_________|_________|_________|_________|________

How many troops are you willing to send?
Where will you get them?
How long will you wait for succes?

Chose your limits from the chart you have filled out.

**************************************************************************

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Who are the republicans who were targeted in the domestic terror attacks? --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)

This is another old one. The actual numbers for Bush's economy,
what Obama inherited, was a debt to GDP ratio pushing 90%, not
67%, and a debt pushin $12trillion, and federal spending pushing
25% of GDP, not 20.7%.

...

Second, based on what they posted here over the years,
they've not had an original thought worth discussing. They
have never done anything but spew what the Democrat party
puts out as talking points.

...

This was original material, and you couldn't answer this:

**************************************************************************

The Federal budget is already at $3T per year but that
isn't enough for liberal democrats.

Those liberal democrats managed to push down the debt load,
debt to GDP ratio, every year from the end of WW2 until Reagan
took office. That was through good economy and bad, peace and
war.

Your most conservative presidents since WW2 have pushed the debt
load back up to 67% of the GDP. They managed to wipe out decades
of improvement with nothing to show for it. Hell, FDR and Truman
managed to win a world war in 4 years. Bush can't even win a
'bush league' war in 7.

Republican Reagan left Bush I a budget that spent 21.2% of the
GDP. Republican Bush I left Clinton a budget that spent 21.4% of
the GDP. Democrat Clinton left Bush II a budget that spent 18.4%
of the GDP. Republican Bush is going to leave his successor a
budget that is going to spend 20.7% of the GDP.

Clinton increased federal spending by $455 bill. Bush has
increased federal spending by over $1.1 trillion. IOW, more than
2.5 times what Clinton did.

All these figures from the Bush Admin Budget History File from
the 2009 budget.

Next from the Statistical Abstract 2008 edition.

Clinton inherited a poverty rate of 15.1%. He left Bush a
poverty rate of 11.7%. The rate was 12.7% as of 2005.

The good news is, there are fewer uninsured today than just a
few years ago. The bad news is, they didn't get health
insurance, they went on medicaid. Govt insurance, Socialized
medicine.

Your republicans spent this country's wealth far more than those
"liberal" democrats.

And your latest incarnation of a republican president is
spending us so deep in debt it may yet bankrupt this country.

Bush has given us more socialized medicine, socialized the
banking failures, is socializing the Wall Street failures, and
will probably socialize more before he leaves Washington.

So, tell us again who wants so spend what?


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Who are the republicans who were targeted in the domestic terror attacks? --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)

...

Second, based on what they posted here over the years,
they've not had an original thought worth discussing. They
have never done anything but spew what the Democrat party
puts out as talking points.

...

This was original material, and you couldn't answer this:

**************************************************************************

on the cameras and let's have a real discussion on drilling.

Yes, let's.

Esp lets discuss the fact that, of that est 86 billion barrels
of oil *believed* to be recoverable from our off shore areas,
only about 25% is covered by the congressional moratiorium.
Which leads to the question, why hasn't Bush licensed the 75% he
has always had the authority to license?

Check the Bush administration energy departements report to
congress on offshore oil.

www.snipurl.com/offshoreoil

Or, let's talk about the construction of refineries. Let's
discuss the analyst from the American Petroleum institute, who
reports the oil companies are expanding existing refineries so
much they have added the equilivent of one new refinery every
year for the last ten years.

snipurl.com/newrefinery

And we can wrap is up by looking at the article in the Wall
Street Journal, July 21, 2008, which reported there are more
rigs drilling in this country today than ever before.

Or the commentary in the Toledo Blade last Saturday that
reported that the proposed oil drilling will have an effect
equal to about 2/10ths of one percent of the world's oil
production. IOW, no real effect on oil prices. And the Alaska
oil will probably never see America's shores once it goes aboard
those ships, going to Japan or China instead, just like Prudhoe.

Yes, let's have that discussion. Bring on the cameras.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Who are the republicans who were targeted in the domestic terror attacks? --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)

...

Second, based on what they posted here over the years,
they've not had an original thought worth discussing. They
have never done anything but spew what the Democrat party
puts out as talking points.

...

This was original material, and you couldn't answer this:

**************************************************************************

The median salary for a black person with a high school diploma
is equal that that of a white high school dropout. The median
income for a black bachelor's degree holder equals that for a
white high school graduate. For a black master's degree holder
the median income is equal to that of a white bachelor's degree
holder. It's only at the PHD level that the salaries equalize.

The unemployment rate for blacks is twice that for whites.

The infant mortality rate for blacks is twice that for whites.

Above from the statistical abstract of the US.

Aprox 23% of crimes of violence in this country are committed by
blacks, according to the DOJ's report Criminal Victimization in
the United States.

Yet aprox 33% of those arrested for serious crimes are black,
according to the FBI, and over 50% of those in prison are black.

Yes, black people do face obstacles greater than whites face.
**************************************************************************

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Who are the republicans who were targeted in the domestic terror attacks? --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)

...

Second, based on what they posted here over the years,
they've not had an original thought worth discussing. They
have never done anything but spew what the Democrat party
puts out as talking points.

...

This was original material, and you couldn't answer this:

**************************************************************************

From Nov 2006.

Data downloaded Nov. 2006.

**************************************************************************

All these numbers for population 16 and older, Bureau of Labor
statistics doc empsit.cpseepa1.txt - From www.bls.gov.

Clinton inherited an unemployment rate of 6.9%. In 2000 that was
down to 4.0%. You are touting a Sept rate of 4.6% as "down much
more."

You do have to consider that the workforce increased about 9
million over that period, 2000 to 2006.

Then figure the work force participation rate for that period,
from 67% in 2K to 66% in Sept 2006. One percent loss right
there.

The percentage of the population employed went from 64.4% in
2000 to 63.1% in sept 06

The number not in the labor force went from 70 mill in 2K to
77.6 Million in sept 06.

**************************************************************************


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Who are the republicans who were targeted in the domestic terror attacks? --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)

...

Second, based on what they posted here over the years,
they've not had an original thought worth discussing. They
have never done anything but spew what the Democrat party
puts out as talking points.

...

This was original material, and you couldn't answer this:

**************************************************************************

Reagan raised taxes, and his recovery started.

Bush I raised taxes, and his recovery started.

Clinton started out with a tax increase and his economy was one
of the best, if not the best, in the history of the country.

Bush II did not raise taxes, he produced half the entire
national debt accumulated from the founding of this country
until the end of his term, a debt burden running up to 90% of
GDP, and then a near depression that may still become a
depression.

100% of the post WWII increase in the debtburden, the debt as
percentage of GDP, occured under three anti-tax republican
presidents.

80% of the total national debt incurrred by this country over
the 233 years of it's existance, from 1776 to 2009 was incurred
under those 3 anti-tax republican presidents.

Maybe tax increases do help... the evidence seems to suggest
they just might.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Who are the republicans who were targeted in the domestic terror attacks? --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)

...

Second, based on what they posted here over the years,
they've not had an original thought worth discussing. They
have never done anything but spew what the Democrat party
puts out as talking points.

...

This was original material, and you couldn't answer this:

**************************************************************************

Infant mortality alone, the US has a rate of 6.3/thousand.
France has a rate of 3.3/thousand.

That's more than 11,000 infants a year who die in the US who
would not die in France.

If you don't think lack of insurance is harmful to your health,
why have insurance at all?


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Who are the republicans who were targeted in the domestic terror attacks? --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)

Infant mortality alone, the US has a rate of 6.3/thousand.
France has a rate of 3.3/thousand.

That's more than 11,000 infants a year who die in the US who
would not die in France.

If you don't think lack of insurance is harmful to your health,
why have insurance at all?

I'm serious. I love you.

You take the fuggin' time to educate these fugs!

All 5 of them!

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303
* Origin: Fidonet Via Newsreader - http://www.easternstar.info (1:123/789.0)

Quoting Michael Loo to Nancy Backus on 03-30-13 15:12 <=-

Most of the evidence points to highly refined foods being problems

If you get your fiber and vities some way, refined food is
probably mostly okay. They say that corn products are worse
than other things, though.

The biggest trick is getting everything that's been taken out some other
way, especially if one doesn't even necessarily know about some of the nutrients one is missing...

nutritionally. Take things out of their original form where the good
and the bad balance out, and end up with the worst parts not being
balanced at all, and you will indeed most likely have problems...

I'm not into obsessive balance, but if your body needs
something and you don't get it from anywhere, I agree that
you have to fix that.

I'm not obsessive about it, but we do try to eat things that are less
highly processed and are in more of a natural state... to cut down on
the balancing acts afterwards, as much as anything else... ;)

But the fiber should count for something, when the kernels
are served (rather than flour, meal, etc.).

I'd think so, too. :) Whole grain corn meal keeps the fiber, too.

I seldom if ever see whole grain corn meal and am sure that
I would not like it if I did.

It makes a pretty good cornbread... :)

Certainly... it helps that we are only needing to feed the two of us,
and that we're less fussy about 3 squares a day nowadays... As long as
I keep the weekly grocery bill under something reasonable, we can get
just about anything we want, so splurges aren't out of the question...

But you choose your splurges.

True.

Here at Annie's, we're on
a rota of prime rib, sirloin strip, ribeye, shad roe ...
when she had people over for dinner, she served them
spag bol for dinner, though; I think that as the guests
are notoriously frugal, she feels that she's going to be
frugal to them as well, which I think is not good, especially
as she serves their rich cousins fancy food, even though they
don't have her or me over at all. I felt a little guilty
about this so did a teriyaki ribeye for appies beforehand.

Maybe if she did more splurging for them, they'd reciprocate...?
Besides, that sort of thing shouldn't really be tit for tat, though I
know of too many that operate that way...

Maybe the guy needs some of the facelift stuff to make him more
plausible...? It's all just hype, anyway... :)

I imagine it is. One of the suppressed bits of evidence is
that those who are somewhat overweight have just as good a
life expectancy as those of ideal BMI and tend to live longer
than the skinny people.

Letting that bit out of the bag would destroy the entire diet
industry... ;)

... Eat healthy, exercise, get plenty of sleep -- die healthy!

Eat vegetarian, you won't live any longer, it'll just seem
that way.

[smile]

Poor man's asparagus, pommes charlotte with caviar
M's note: I find this an interesting recipe even in its
contradictoriness. Poor man, indeed! I would be a really
poor man and leave off the caviar, substituting, if anything,
regular sieved egg. I am not sure about the identity of the
Charlotte potato.

Doesn't sound all that poorman to me, either... :) Asparagus itself is
pretty pricey, although it finally is getting more seasonable... down
from 5.99/lb at the peak to a much more reasonable 1.99... Reminds me
of the famous Marie Antoinette mentality... ;)

ttyl neb

... I don't know how I got over the hill without getting to the top!!!

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- SBBSecho 2.20-Win32
* Origin: The Holodeck telnet://holo.homeip.net (1:261/1381)