twitter: rec.crafts.metalworking - 26 new messages in 4 topics

rec.crafts.metalworking
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

rec.crafts.metalworking@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* What's a good endmill for cutting stainless plate? (encountering problems) -
3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/4d77c5bac4b24efa?hl=en
* The rich pay less taxes - 18 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/24b6cdc2cfb01942?hl=en
* Emotional, Radical Right Wing Reactionary ReichTurds Hate Women, Prefer
Other Men, Children & Even Animals For Sex - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/33f22c709e855597?hl=en
* The CRA Scam and its Defenders - 3 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/5ea050d9836aa215?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What's a good endmill for cutting stainless plate? (encountering
problems)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/4d77c5bac4b24efa?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 9:28 am
From: Gunner Asch

On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 14:18:02 +0000, WTF STEEL
<0f8503901d844703eea1acecb7a4938a_1630@example.com> wrote:

>replying to Marshall Johnson, WTF STEEL wrote:
>> Marshallj25 wrote:
>>
>> Hi, I'm currently making a thick flange on a CNC mill. The material is
>> a 1/2" thick plate of 321 stainless. Previously, we made a prototype
>> out of 3/8" mild steel. That piece cut relatively easy, as was
>> expected. We knew that the thicker stainless piece was going to be
>> much tougher to cut, so we made sure that we used lower speeds and
>> plenty of coolant.
>> Here's the problem: Starting with a new Sossner 4 flute high speed
>> steel endmill, the same kind that we used to cut the prototype, we
>> began cutting the 321 stainless. The first 1/8 inch or so it was slow
>> but steady, we expected it to be tough. But after that it began to
>> chatter and the cutting slowed down. By about 1 inch of cutting, the
>> endmill was worn out.
>> Something's not right here. I knew it would be tough but not THAT
>> tough. How come the endmill wore out so quickly? I know that people
>> who work with stainless don't go through 30 endmills to make a
>> relatively small piece.
>> Does anyone have any recommendations of what kind of endmill to use to
>> cut thick 321 stainless? Is the material that our endmill is composed
>> of simply too soft a metal? Replacing cutters every couple of inches
>> isn't an option.
>> I'm sure that someone can lead me in the right direction.
>> Thanks,
>> Marshall
>
>
>sadly you will have to cut a few inches and replace cutter because the 321
>stainless is to tough for it to work

Or use the proper carbide, at the proper Rpms, at the proper feed
rate, with the proper coolant.

Doesnt anybody read materials data sheets anymore????

http://cartech.ides.com/datasheet.aspx?i=103&e=218

Workability
Hot Working

Carpenter Stainless Type 321 can be readily forged, hot headed,
riveted and upset. Because of its high red-hardness, more power for a
given reduction is required than with mild steel.
Forging

Heat uniformly to 2100/2300�F (1149/1260�C). Do not forge below 1700�F
(927�C). Forgings can be air-cooled. For full corrosion resistance,
forgings must be water quenched or annealed.
Cold Working

Carpenter Stainless Type 321 is readily fabricated by cold working.
Being extremely tough and ductile, it responds to deep drawing,
bending, forming and upsetting. After cold working, it is slightly
magnetic. The tensile strength and hardness of Carpenter Stainless
Type 321 can be significantly increased by cold working.
Machinability

Like all the austenitic steels, this alloy machines with a tough and
stringy chip. Rigidly supported tools, with as heavy a cut as
possible, should be used to prevent glazing. Moderate cold working can
improve machined surface finish.

Following are typical feeds and speeds for Carpenter Stainless Type
321.
Machinability Tables

***See link below .....

Additional Machinability Notes

When using carbide tools, surface speed feet/minute (sfpm) can be
increased between 2 and 3 times over the high speed suggestions. Feeds
can be increased between 50 and 100%.

Figures used for all metal removal operations covered are average. On
certain work, the nature of the part may require adjustment of speeds
and feeds. Each job has to be developed for best production results
with optimum tool life. Speeds or feeds should be increased or
decreased in small steps.
Weldability

Carpenter Stainless Type 321 can be satisfactorily welded by the
shielded fusion and resistance welding processes. Oxyacetylene welding
is not recommended, since carbon pickup in the weld may occur. Since
austenitic welds do not harden on air cooling, the welds should have
good toughness. When a filler metal is required, AWS E/ER347 welding
consumables should be considered. To decrease the susceptibility to
hot cracking, keep heat inputs, base metal dilution, and joint
restraint to a minimum. The alloy can be used in the as-welded
condition; however, for elevated temperature service, a postweld
stabilizing heat treatment should be considered."

http://cartech.ides.com/ImageDisplay.aspx?E=218&IMGURL=%2fCarpenterImages%2fB-StainlessSteel%2f49-SS49-Type321%2f01_SS49_TypicalMachining.gif&IMGTITLE=Machinability+Tables

Geeze guys..its not fucking rocket science.....

Gunner

__
"Anyone who things Obama is doing a good job
is either stupid or a perpetual societal leech"

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 9:58 am
From: "Snag"

Pete S wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, now that the OP has work hardened the part,
> how does he get going again? Will the solid carbide cutter do it?
>
> Pete Stanaitis
> ----------------

If it does like 4140 that hard area will only be a skin a few thou thick .
If he can get under that skin it should be OK - and yes , carbide will cut
it . So will diamond ... I have a handful of diamond router bits , they were
too dull to cut particle board/MDF at 35,000 RPM but they do a swell job for
light cuts at lower speeds in very hard materials . They don't like
interrupted cuts ...
--
Snag

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 10:08 am
From: Gunner Asch

On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 10:59:42 -0600, "Pete S"
<spaco@baldwin-telecom.net> wrote:

>Just out of curiosity, now that the OP has work hardened the part, how does
>he get going again? Will the solid carbide cutter do it?
>
>Pete Stanaitis

Well...he can heat it to 1750 F and reanneal it. Or he can hit it hard
and fast and dig into it. With fresh inserts....!!

__
"Anyone who things Obama is doing a good job
is either stupid or a perpetual societal leech"

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The rich pay less taxes
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/24b6cdc2cfb01942?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 9:34 am
From: Gronk

Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> On 1/3/2014 8:18 AM, Gronk wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> On 12/26/2013 8:21 PM, Gronk wrote:
> >>> Gunner Asch wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:57:10 -0600, RD Sandman
> >>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
> >>>>> news:l9cjvo$odu$16@news.mixmin.net:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
> >>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l91ujr$95f$1
> >>>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>> news:l8l7le$vjd$2@news.mixmin.net:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> prime cut wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/8/2013 5:00 PM, Gronk wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> prime cut wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2013 9:57 AM, Gronk wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandersnatch wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2013 2:14 PM, Gronk wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:enne89dqv91dk6vomm9ar1d18627k9fm3u@4ax.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:32:00 -0600, RD Sandman
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l63e1h$5il$1@news.mixmin.net:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scout wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Save The Rich" <yeung@yahoo.ch> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l5mi27$cb1$1@news.albasani.net...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Shatzer wrote on 11/09/2013 :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wayne wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -snips-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats and republicans. Otherwise the mortgage
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest deduction would have been repealed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it should be repealed. I own my home outright
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and get no deduction for ownership.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you do. The property taxes are deductible plus
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you sell
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the old homestead, the first quarter million of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capital gains (half million if you're married) is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exempt from taxes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why the rich should pay any taxes.
After
> >>>>>>> all,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reagan's Trickle Down economic theory dictates that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the wealthier
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rich get, the more jobs await us, trickling down
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to our begging hands.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, and the result was the longest period of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economic growth in US history......
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no trickle down, only trickle up. Income
disparity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grew.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/the-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> myst
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ery-of-i
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nc ome-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the big jump in that disparity
happened
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during the Clinton administration from 1996 through
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then it fell off from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 to 2003 when it started climbing again reaching a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peak in 2007 when the recession come into play.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And 2007 was the year Democrats took both houses of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Congress
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, and not suprisingly no liberals are making any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments
> >>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the trend started under Reagan.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who sent the Dow on a 20 year tear, love it!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the GOP had the House in 1995 when the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inequities skyrocketed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh boo fucking hoo, did you fail to make any money,
dumbass?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that no GOPers are making any comments on
that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything to fuck with YOUR head!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you admit that Reagan lied about "a rising tide lifts all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> boats".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you still draw breath?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you unable to understand
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/the-mystery-of
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>> inc
> >>>>>>>>>> ome-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Interesting that the biggest climb occured during Clinton's term
> >>>>>>>>> from 1994 to when Shrub became president in 2009.....then the
> >>>>>>>>> second
> >>>>>>> biggest
> >>>>>>>>> climb came during Shrub's second term and continued to 2008 when
> >>>>>>>>> Obama took office.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Not blaming anyone just pointing out a couple significant timings
> >>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> chart. ;)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And 1994 is when the GOP took over. Just sayin'
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yep, but for those of you who wish to place a lot of blame on Bush
> >>>>>>> because he was president during certain times, have to eat that
same
> >>>>>>> meal when Clinton or Obama are president.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not really since Reagan started the ball rolling. It appears to be
> >>>>>> hard to halt or reverse.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just appears to me that some people wish to blame the other side no
> >>>>> matter what. If people claim that Bush is responsible simply
> >>>>> because he
> >>>>> was president when the problem was there, then why doesn't that same
> >>>>> logic appear when Obama (for example) is president?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What...blame their Godhead??? Unthinkable!!
> >>>
> >>> Reagan set the tone for that with the Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill Of A
> >>> Fellow Republican commandment.
> >>
> >> That wasn't Reagan. That was the establishment Californian Republican
> >> party of the 1960s/1970s. I know about it. You don't.
> >>
> >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eleventh_Commandment_%28Ronald_Reagan%29
> >>
> >
> > "While popularized by Reagan..."
>
> He never said it.

"Reagan set the tone"

== 2 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 9:37 am
From: Gronk

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 1/3/2014 8:36 AM, Gronk wrote:
>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:l9iu92$jm7$1@news.mixmin.net:
>>>
>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>> news:l9ck51$odu$17@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l9224u$dbi$1
>>>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l8l8hl$18v$1
>>>>>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:l8317o$ge5$3@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> prime cut wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2013 9:57 AM, Gronk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandersnatch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2013 2:14 PM, Gronk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:enne89dqv91dk6vomm9ar1d18627k9fm3u@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:32:00 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l63e1h$5il$1@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Save The Rich" <yeung@yahoo.ch> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l5mi27$cb1$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Shatzer wrote on 11/09/2013 :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wayne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -snips-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats and republicans. Otherwise the mortgage
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest deduction would have been repealed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it should be repealed. I own my home outright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no deduction for ownership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you do. The property taxes are deductible plus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you sell the old homestead, the first quarter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million of capital gains (half million if you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> married) is exempt from taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why the rich should pay any taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After
>>>>>>> all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reagan's Trickle Down economic theory dictates that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the wealthier the rich get, the more jobs await us,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trickling down to our begging hands.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, and the result was the longest period of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained economic growth in US history......
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no trickle down, only trickle up. Income
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disparity
>>>>>>> grew.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/th
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e-
>>>>>>>>> myster
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> y-of-i
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nc ome-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the big jump in that disparity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Clinton administration from 1996 through 2000.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then it fell off from 2000 to 2003 when it started
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climbing again reaching a peak in 2007 when the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recession come into play.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And 2007 was the year Democrats took both houses of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Congress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, and not suprisingly no liberals are making any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the trend started under Reagan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who sent the Dow on a 20 year tear, love it!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the GOP had the House in 1995 when the
>>>>>>>>> inequities
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skyrocketed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh boo fucking hoo, did you fail to make any money,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumbass?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that no GOPers are making any comments on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything to fuck with YOUR head!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you admit that Reagan lied about "a rising tide lifts all
>>>>>>>>> boats".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you still draw breath?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you unable to understand this chart?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/the-myster
>>>>>>>>>>>> y-
>>>>>>> of-
>>>>>>>>> inc
>>>>>>>>>>>> ome-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, see that massive increase in real income for the rich
>>>>>>>>>>> folks
>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>> Clinton's Administration? Why was that? Then a drop off during
>>>>>>> Bush's
>>>>>>>>>>> first term and another steep rise during his second one. Them
>>>>>>>>>>> the recession hit and not much of a real change since.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yep, see where the GOP took Congress?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yep....94. See where the Democrats took Congress?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 94 is when the GOP took the House...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know and acknowledged that. Then I asked if you knew when the
>>>>>>> Democrats took Congress. It was the 2006 elections. Look at the
>>>>>>> chart for 2007 and 2008. Hint: It is the second bump. Then it
>>>>>>> falls off in 2008-2009.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look closer. It went down in 2007. Line the chart up with the
>>>>>> edge of your screen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://b-i.forbesimg.com/louiswoodhill/files/2013/03/Income-Inequalit
>>>>>> y- Chart-032713.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> I did. In 2007 it is still rising. As I said, it falls off in 2008-
>>>>> 2009.
>>>>
>>>> When the democrats had the house AND the Senate. The Senate was a tie,
>>>> but the independents voted with the democrats.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresse
>>>
>>> Democrats had BOTH the House and Senate after the 2006 elections. The
>>> new guys took office in January of 2007.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
>>
>> House, 236 democrats, 199 republicans. Tie in Senate.
>
> Not in 2007 there wasn't, you fucktard liar.
>
> The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for
> the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
> Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had
> an operational majority because the two independent senators
> caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress
>
>
> You stupid lying shitbag.

49/49 is a tie. The independents are in neither party, that is why they
independent.

== 3 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 9:39 am
From: Gronk

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 1/3/2014 8:51 AM, Gronk wrote:
>> prime cut wrote:
>>> On 12/26/2013 8:51 PM, Gronk wrote:
>>>> When the GOP says their highest priority is making sure Obama is a one
>>>> term president, it means they're willing to take the country down doing
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> No need to, Obama already handled that.
>>
>> Obama is
>
> taking the country down. Yes.
>

Is Obama in the GOP?

== 4 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 9:53 am
From: Rudy Canoza

On 1/9/2014 9:37 AM, Gronk wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 1/3/2014 8:36 AM, Gronk wrote:
>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>> news:l9iu92$jm7$1@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>
>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>> news:l9ck51$odu$17@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l9224u$dbi$1
>>>>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l8l8hl$18v$1
>>>>>>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l8317o$ge5$3@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> prime cut wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2013 9:57 AM, Gronk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandersnatch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2013 2:14 PM, Gronk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:enne89dqv91dk6vomm9ar1d18627k9fm3u@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:32:00 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l63e1h$5il$1@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Save The Rich" <yeung@yahoo.ch> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l5mi27$cb1$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Shatzer wrote on 11/09/2013 :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wayne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -snips-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats and republicans. Otherwise the mortgage
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest deduction would have been repealed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it should be repealed. I own my home outright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no deduction for ownership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you do. The property taxes are deductible plus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you sell the old homestead, the first quarter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million of capital gains (half million if you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> married) is exempt from taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why the rich should pay any taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After
>>>>>>>> all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reagan's Trickle Down economic theory dictates that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the wealthier the rich get, the more jobs await us,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trickling down to our begging hands.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, and the result was the longest period of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained economic growth in US history......
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no trickle down, only trickle up. Income
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disparity
>>>>>>>> grew.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/th
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e-
>>>>>>>>>> myster
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> y-of-i
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nc ome-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the big jump in that disparity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Clinton administration from 1996 through 2000.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then it fell off from 2000 to 2003 when it started
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climbing again reaching a peak in 2007 when the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recession come into play.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And 2007 was the year Democrats took both houses of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Congress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, and not suprisingly no liberals are making any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the trend started under Reagan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who sent the Dow on a 20 year tear, love it!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the GOP had the House in 1995 when the
>>>>>>>>>> inequities
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skyrocketed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh boo fucking hoo, did you fail to make any money,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumbass?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that no GOPers are making any comments on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything to fuck with YOUR head!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you admit that Reagan lied about "a rising tide lifts all
>>>>>>>>>> boats".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you still draw breath?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you unable to understand this chart?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/the-myster
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> y-
>>>>>>>> of-
>>>>>>>>>> inc
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ome-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, see that massive increase in real income for the rich
>>>>>>>>>>>> folks
>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>>> Clinton's Administration? Why was that? Then a drop off during
>>>>>>>> Bush's
>>>>>>>>>>>> first term and another steep rise during his second one. Them
>>>>>>>>>>>> the recession hit and not much of a real change since.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, see where the GOP took Congress?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yep....94. See where the Democrats took Congress?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 94 is when the GOP took the House...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know and acknowledged that. Then I asked if you knew when the
>>>>>>>> Democrats took Congress. It was the 2006 elections. Look at the
>>>>>>>> chart for 2007 and 2008. Hint: It is the second bump. Then it
>>>>>>>> falls off in 2008-2009.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Look closer. It went down in 2007. Line the chart up with the
>>>>>>> edge of your screen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://b-i.forbesimg.com/louiswoodhill/files/2013/03/Income-Inequalit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> y- Chart-032713.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did. In 2007 it is still rising. As I said, it falls off in 2008-
>>>>>> 2009.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the democrats had the house AND the Senate. The Senate was a tie,
>>>>> but the independents voted with the democrats.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresse
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Democrats had BOTH the House and Senate after the 2006 elections. The
>>>> new guys took office in January of 2007.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
>>>
>>> House, 236 democrats, 199 republicans. Tie in Senate.
>>
>> Not in 2007 there wasn't, you fucktard liar.
>>
>> The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for
>> the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
>> Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had
>> an operational majority because the two independent senators
>> caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress
>>
>>
>> You stupid lying shitbag.
>
> 49/49 is a tie.

The Democrats controlled the Senate starting in January 2007. Not in
rational dispute.

== 5 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 9:51 am
From: Rudy Canoza

On 1/9/2014 9:16 AM, Gronk wrote:
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> > On 1/3/2014 8:17 AM, Gronk wrote:
> > > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > >> On 12/26/2013 8:05 PM, Gronk wrote:
> > >>> RD Sandman wrote:
> > >>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l9ck70$odu$18
> > >>>> @news.mixmin.net:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
> > >>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l92261$dbi$2
> > >>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l8l8jo$18v$2
> > >>>>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
> > >>>>>>>>>> news:l8318q$ge5$4@news.mixmin.net:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> news:l7l500$bh1$1@news.mixmin.net:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> Frontier> cat rc
>
> alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.religion.christian,
> alt.california, or.politics, alt.politics.democrats, talk.politics.guns,
> can.politics, rec.crafts.metalworking,
> rec.bicycles.tech, misc.survivalism, tx.guns
>
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> > On 1/3/2014 8:17 AM, Gronk wrote:
> > > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > >> On 12/26/2013 8:05 PM, Gronk wrote:
> > >>> RD Sandman wrote:
> > >>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l9ck70$odu$18
> > >>>> @news.mixmin.net:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
> > >>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l92261$dbi$2
> > >>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l8l8jo$18v$2
> > >>>>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
> > >>>>>>>>>> news:l8318q$ge5$4@news.mixmin.net:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> news:l7l500$bh1$1@news.mixmin.net:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
> news:l75ncb$kiv$1
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:enne89dqv91dk6vomm9ar1d18627k9fm3u@4ax.com:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:32:00 -0600, RD Sandman
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l63e1h$5il$1@news.mixmin.net:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scout wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Save The Rich" <yeung@yahoo.ch> wrote in message
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l5mi27$cb1$1@news.albasani.net...
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Shatzer wrote on 11/09/2013 :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wayne wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -snips-
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats and republicans. Otherwise the
> mortgage
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest deduction would have been repealed.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it should be repealed. I own my home
> outright
> > >>>> and
> > >>>>>>>> get
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no deduction for ownership.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you do. The property taxes are deductible
> plus
> > >>>> when
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the old homestead, the first quarter million of
> > >>>> capital
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gains (half million if you're married) is
> exempt from
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why the rich should pay any taxes.
> After
> > >>>>>> all,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reagan's Trickle Down economic theory dictates
> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wealthier the rich get, the more jobs await us,
> > >>>> trickling
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down to our begging hands.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, and the result was the longest period of
> sustained
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economic growth in US history......
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no trickle down, only trickle up. Income
> disparity
> > >>>>>> grew.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/the-
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> myster
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> y-
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of-i
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nc ome-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the big jump in that disparity
> happened
> > >>>>>>>> during
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Clinton administration from 1996 through
> 2000. Then
> > >>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fell off
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 to 2003 when it started climbing again
> reaching a
> > >>>> peak
> > >>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2007 when the recession come into play.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And 2007 was the year Democrats took both houses of
> > >>>> Congress
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, and not suprisingly no liberals are making any
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments
> > >>>>>> on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the trend started under Reagan.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the GOP had the House in 1995 when the
> > >>>>>>>> inequities
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skyrocketed.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that no GOPers are making any comments on
> that.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually what is interesting is that deregulation took
> place
> > >>>>>> from
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1980 to 1999.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This has what to do with the earlier claim
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't simply a Republican problem like you seem to
> intimate.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Then why do the facts implicate them?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/the-mystery-
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> of-
> > >>>>>>>> inc
> > >>>>>>>>>>> ome-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> It sure looks like Clinton was complicite in that. After
> all he
> > >>>> had
> > >>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>> sign those bills. Have you really looked at the timing of
> those
> > >>>>>>>>>> increases? I broke it down for you in a previous post.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> It sure looks like Reagan and Bush were comlicit, doesn't it?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> As was Clinton.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Not when a false impeachment hamstrings him
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> IOW, it is so much easier to blame Bush for everything. Gotcha'
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> IOW, it is so much easier for GOPers to evade responsibility.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Why do you think that is? Do you think that the Washington Post,
> > >>>> the New
> > >>>> York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Miami Herald or the LA Times
> > >>>> are all
> > >>>> conservative media?
> > >>>
> > >>> Has Bush
> > >>
> > >> Do you think that the Washington Post, the New York Times, the
> Chicago
> > >> Tribune, the Miami Herald or the LA Times are all conservative media?
> > >
> > > Has Bush apologised for the
> >
> > Stupid question. Answer this one instead: Do you think that the
> > Washington Post, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Miami
> > Herald or the LA Times are all conservative media?
>
> Stupid question.

No, it's a good question.

> Has Bush apologised for the Iraq War?

Already addressed, even though it's a stupid question.

== 6 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 9:53 am
From: Rudy Canoza

On 1/9/2014 9:39 AM, Gronk wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 1/3/2014 8:51 AM, Gronk wrote:
>>> prime cut wrote:
>>>> On 12/26/2013 8:51 PM, Gronk wrote:
>>>>> When the GOP says their highest priority is making sure Obama is a one
>>>>> term president, it means they're willing to take the country down
>>>>> doing
>>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> No need to, Obama already handled that.
>>>
>>> Obama is
>>
>> taking the country down. Yes.
>>
>
> Is Obama

Taking the country down? Yes.

== 7 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 9:52 am
From: Rudy Canoza

On 1/9/2014 9:19 AM, Gronk wrote:
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> > On 1/3/2014 8:17 AM, Gronk wrote:
> > > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > >> On 12/26/2013 8:07 PM, Gronk wrote:
> > >>> RD Sandman wrote:
> > >>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l9ck83$odu$19
> > >>>> @news.mixmin.net:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> prime cut wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 12/20/2013 11:27 AM, Gronk wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> It sure looks like Reagan and Bush were comlicit, doesn't it?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> As was Clinton.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Not when a false impeachment hamstrings him
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> He lied to Congress and was disbarred, cope.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Acquitted. Cope.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You are both correct. He lied to Congress, he ended up disbarred
> > >>>> and the
> > >>>> Senate acquitted him from impeachment procedings.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> And is the most popular president ever.
> > >>
> > >> No.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Was Bush invited to
> >
> > Obama is not popular.
>
> Was Bush inv

Obama is not popular. That's settled.

== 8 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 9:53 am
From: Rudy Canoza

On 1/9/2014 9:34 AM, Gronk wrote:
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> > On 1/3/2014 8:18 AM, Gronk wrote:
> > > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > >> On 12/26/2013 8:21 PM, Gronk wrote:
> > >>> Gunner Asch wrote:
> > >>>> On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:57:10 -0600, RD Sandman
> > >>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
> > >>>>> news:l9cjvo$odu$16@news.mixmin.net:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l91ujr$95f$1
> > >>>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
> > >>>>>>>>> news:l8l7le$vjd$2@news.mixmin.net:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> prime cut wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/8/2013 5:00 PM, Gronk wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> prime cut wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2013 9:57 AM, Gronk wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandersnatch wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2013 2:14 PM, Gronk wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:enne89dqv91dk6vomm9ar1d18627k9fm3u@4ax.com:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:32:00 -0600, RD Sandman
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l63e1h$5il$1@news.mixmin.net:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scout wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Save The Rich" <yeung@yahoo.ch> wrote in message
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l5mi27$cb1$1@news.albasani.net...
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Shatzer wrote on 11/09/2013 :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wayne wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -snips-
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats and republicans. Otherwise the
> mortgage
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest deduction would have been repealed.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it should be repealed. I own my home
> outright
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and get no deduction for ownership.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you do. The property taxes are
> deductible plus
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you sell
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the old homestead, the first quarter million of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capital gains (half million if you're
> married) is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exempt from taxes.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why the rich should pay any taxes.
> After
> > >>>>>>> all,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reagan's Trickle Down economic theory dictates
> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the wealthier
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rich get, the more jobs await us,
> trickling down
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to our begging hands.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, and the result was the longest period of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economic growth in US history......
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no trickle down, only trickle up. Income
> disparity
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grew.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/the-
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> myst
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ery-of-i
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nc ome-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the big jump in that disparity
> happened
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during the Clinton administration from 1996 through
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then it fell off from
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 to 2003 when it started climbing again
> reaching a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peak in 2007 when the recession come into play.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And 2007 was the year Democrats took both houses of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Congress
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, and not suprisingly no liberals are making any
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments
> > >>>>>>> on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the trend started under Reagan.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who sent the Dow on a 20 year tear, love it!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the GOP had the House in 1995 when the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inequities skyrocketed.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh boo fucking hoo, did you fail to make any money,
> dumbass?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that no GOPers are making any comments
> on that.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything to fuck with YOUR head!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you admit that Reagan lied about "a rising tide
> lifts all
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> boats".
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you still draw breath?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you unable to understand
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/the-mystery-of
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> -
> > >>>>>>> inc
> > >>>>>>>>>> ome-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Interesting that the biggest climb occured during Clinton's
> term
> > >>>>>>>>> from 1994 to when Shrub became president in 2009.....then the
> > >>>>>>>>> second
> > >>>>>>> biggest
> > >>>>>>>>> climb came during Shrub's second term and continued to 2008
> when
> > >>>>>>>>> Obama took office.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Not blaming anyone just pointing out a couple significant
> timings
> > >>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> chart. ;)
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> And 1994 is when the GOP took over. Just sayin'
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Yep, but for those of you who wish to place a lot of blame on
> Bush
> > >>>>>>> because he was president during certain times, have to eat
> that same
> > >>>>>>> meal when Clinton or Obama are president.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Not really since Reagan started the ball rolling. It appears
> to be
> > >>>>>> hard to halt or reverse.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Just appears to me that some people wish to blame the other
> side no
> > >>>>> matter what. If people claim that Bush is responsible simply
> > >>>>> because he
> > >>>>> was president when the problem was there, then why doesn't that
> same
> > >>>>> logic appear when Obama (for example) is president?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What...blame their Godhead??? Unthinkable!!
> > >>>
> > >>> Reagan set the tone for that with the Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill Of A
> > >>> Fellow Republican commandment.
> > >>
> > >> That wasn't Reagan. That was the establishment Californian
> Republican
> > >> party of the 1960s/1970s. I know about it. You don't.
> > >>
> > >>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eleventh_Commandment_%28Ronald_Reagan%29
> > >>
> > >
> > > "While popularized by Reagan..."
> >
> > He never said it.
>
> "Reagan set the tone"

Reagan never used the expression. Reagan set the tone by example.

== 9 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 10:02 am
From: Gronk

RD Sandman wrote:
> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
> news:la6nqd$qcp$1@news.mixmin.net:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 12/26/2013 8:05 PM, Gronk wrote:
>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l9ck70$odu$18
>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l92261$dbi$2
>>>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l8l8jo$18v$2
>>>>>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:l8318q$ge5$4@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l7l500$bh1$1@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l75ncb$kiv$1 @news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:enne89dqv91dk6vomm9ar1d18627k9fm3u@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:32:00 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l63e1h$5il$1@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Save The Rich" <yeung@yahoo.ch> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l5mi27$cb1$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Shatzer wrote on 11/09/2013 :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wayne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -snips-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats and republicans. Otherwise the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mortgage interest deduction would have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repealed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it should be repealed. I own my home
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outright
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no deduction for ownership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you do. The property taxes are deductible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plus
>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the old homestead, the first quarter million of
>>>>> capital
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gains (half million if you're married) is exempt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why the rich should pay any taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After
>>>>>>> all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reagan's Trickle Down economic theory dictates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the wealthier the rich get, the more jobs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> await us,
>>>>> trickling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down to our begging hands.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, and the result was the longest period of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained economic growth in US history......
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no trickle down, only trickle up. Income
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disparity
>>>>>>> grew.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the-
>>>>>>>>> myster
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> y-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of-i
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nc ome-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the big jump in that disparity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Clinton administration from 1996 through 2000.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then
>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fell off
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 to 2003 when it started climbing again reaching
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>> peak
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2007 when the recession come into play.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And 2007 was the year Democrats took both houses of
>>>>> Congress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, and not suprisingly no liberals are making any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the trend started under Reagan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the GOP had the House in 1995 when the
>>>>>>>>> inequities
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skyrocketed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that no GOPers are making any comments on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually what is interesting is that deregulation took
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1980 to 1999.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has what to do with the earlier claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't simply a Republican problem like you seem to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> intimate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do the facts implicate them?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/the-myst
>>>>>>>>>>>> ery-
>>>>>>> of-
>>>>>>>>> inc
>>>>>>>>>>>> ome-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It sure looks like Clinton was complicite in that. After all
>>>>>>>>>>> he
>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> sign those bills. Have you really looked at the timing of
>>>>>>>>>>> those increases? I broke it down for you in a previous post.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It sure looks like Reagan and Bush were comlicit, doesn't it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As was Clinton.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not when a false impeachment hamstrings him
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IOW, it is so much easier to blame Bush for everything. Gotcha'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IOW, it is so much easier for GOPers to evade responsibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you think that is? Do you think that the Washington Post,
>>>>> the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Miami Herald or the LA
>>>>> Times are all conservative media?
>>>>
>>>> Has Bush
>>>
>>> Do you think that the Washington Post, the New York Times, the
>>> Chicago Tribune, the Miami Herald or the LA Times are all
>>> conservative media?
>>
>> Has Bush apologised for the Iraq War yet?
>
> Why would he need to?

There were no WMDs. This was more or less known at the start.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/20/bush-official-iraq_n_4132719.html

New York Times reporter Peter Baker is out with a new book that
reportedly reveals some eyebrow-raising details about the Iraq War.

A senior official from former President George W. Bush's
administration is quoted in Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in the
White House saying American troops went into Iraq because the U.S.
was looking for a fight.

"The only reason we went into Iraq, I tell people now, is we were
looking for somebodys ass to kick. Afghanistan was too easy," the
anonymous official said, according to Politico.

== 10 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 10:03 am
From: Gronk

RD Sandman wrote:
> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
> news:la6oto$sc3$1@news.mixmin.net:
>
>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:l9iu92$jm7$1@news.mixmin.net:
>>>
>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>> news:l9ck51$odu$17@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l9224u$dbi$1
>>>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l8l8hl$18v$1
>>>>>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:l8317o$ge5$3@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> prime cut wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2013 9:57 AM, Gronk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandersnatch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2013 2:14 PM, Gronk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:enne89dqv91dk6vomm9ar1d18627k9fm3u@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:32:00 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l63e1h$5il$1@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Save The Rich" <yeung@yahoo.ch> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l5mi27$cb1$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Shatzer wrote on 11/09/2013 :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wayne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -snips-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats and republicans. Otherwise the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mortgage interest deduction would have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repealed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it should be repealed. I own my home
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outright and
>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no deduction for ownership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you do. The property taxes are deductible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plus when you sell the old homestead, the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quarter million of capital gains (half million if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're married) is exempt from taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why the rich should pay any taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After
>>>>>>> all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reagan's Trickle Down economic theory dictates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the wealthier the rich get, the more jobs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> await us, trickling down to our begging hands.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, and the result was the longest period of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained economic growth in US history......
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no trickle down, only trickle up. Income
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disparity
>>>>>>> grew.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> th e-
>>>>>>>>> myster
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> y-of-i
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nc ome-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the big jump in that disparity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Clinton administration from 1996 through 2000.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then it fell off from 2000 to 2003 when it started
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climbing again reaching a peak in 2007 when the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recession come into play.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And 2007 was the year Democrats took both houses of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Congress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, and not suprisingly no liberals are making any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the trend started under Reagan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who sent the Dow on a 20 year tear, love it!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the GOP had the House in 1995 when the
>>>>>>>>> inequities
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skyrocketed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh boo fucking hoo, did you fail to make any money,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumbass?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that no GOPers are making any comments on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything to fuck with YOUR head!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you admit that Reagan lied about "a rising tide lifts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> boats".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you still draw breath?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you unable to understand this chart?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/the-myst
>>>>>>>>>>>> er y-
>>>>>>> of-
>>>>>>>>> inc
>>>>>>>>>>>> ome-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, see that massive increase in real income for the rich
>>>>>>>>>>> folks
>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>> Clinton's Administration? Why was that? Then a drop off
>>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>> Bush's
>>>>>>>>>>> first term and another steep rise during his second one.
>>>>>>>>>>> Them the recession hit and not much of a real change since.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yep, see where the GOP took Congress?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yep....94. See where the Democrats took Congress?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 94 is when the GOP took the House...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know and acknowledged that. Then I asked if you knew when the
>>>>>>> Democrats took Congress. It was the 2006 elections. Look at the
>>>>>>> chart for 2007 and 2008. Hint: It is the second bump. Then it
>>>>>>> falls off in 2008-2009.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look closer. It went down in 2007. Line the chart up with the
>>>>>> edge of your screen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://b-i.forbesimg.com/louiswoodhill/files/2013/03/Income-Inequal
>>>>>> it y- Chart-032713.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> I did. In 2007 it is still rising. As I said, it falls off in
>>>>> 2008- 2009.
>>>>
>>>> When the democrats had the house AND the Senate. The Senate was a
>>>> tie, but the independents voted with the democrats.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congres
>>>> se
>>>
>>> Democrats had BOTH the House and Senate after the 2006 elections.
>>> The new guys took office in January of 2007.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresse
>> s
>>
>> House, 236 democrats, 199 republicans. Tie in Senate.
>
> Not quite. Those two in the "other" column caucus with the Democrats.
> That mmakes it 51 to 49.

Tie in terms of party.

>> http://b-i.forbesimg.com/louiswoodhill/files/2013/03/Income-Inequality-
>> Chart-032713.jpg
>>
>> Look at 2007 again.
>
> In your mind, Dems simply can do no wrong, eh? ;)

I accept your surrender.

== 11 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 10:05 am
From: Gronk

RD Sandman wrote:
> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
> news:la6p1k$s1q$2@news.mixmin.net:
>
>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:l9iuel$jm7$3@news.mixmin.net:
>>>
>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l9ck83$odu$19
>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> prime cut wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/20/2013 11:27 AM, Gronk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It sure looks like Reagan and Bush were comlicit, doesn't it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As was Clinton.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not when a false impeachment hamstrings him
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He lied to Congress and was disbarred, cope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Acquitted. Cope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are both correct. He lied to Congress, he ended up disbarred
>>>>> and the Senate acquitted him from impeachment procedings.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And is the most popular president ever.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmmm, I smell bullshit. The most popular presidents in modern times
>>> would be Clinton and Reagan.
>>
>> I said Clinton. Your powers of observation do you credit.
>
> You missed Reagan .......your powers of analytical thought do you no
> credit.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx

== 12 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 10:05 am
From: RD Sandman

Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
news:lammoa$nnd$1@news.mixmin.net:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 1/3/2014 8:36 AM, Gronk wrote:
>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>> news:l9iu92$jm7$1@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>
>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>> news:l9ck51$odu$17@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l9224u$dbi$1
>>>>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l8l8hl$18v$1
>>>>>>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l8317o$ge5$3@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> prime cut wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2013 9:57 AM, Gronk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandersnatch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2013 2:14 PM, Gronk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:enne89dqv91dk6vomm9ar1d18627k9fm3u@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:32:00 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l63e1h$5il$1@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Save The Rich" <yeung@yahoo.ch> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l5mi27$cb1$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Shatzer wrote on 11/09/2013 :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wayne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -snips-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats and republicans. Otherwise the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mortgage interest deduction would have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repealed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it should be repealed. I own my home
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outright and
>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no deduction for ownership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you do. The property taxes are deductible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plus when you sell the old homestead, the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quarter million of capital gains (half million
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you're married) is exempt from taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why the rich should pay any taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After
>>>>>>>> all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reagan's Trickle Down economic theory dictates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the wealthier the rich get, the more jobs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> await us, trickling down to our begging hands.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, and the result was the longest period of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained economic growth in US history......
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no trickle down, only trickle up. Income
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disparity
>>>>>>>> grew.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8/th e-
>>>>>>>>>> myster
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> y-of-i
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nc ome-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the big jump in that disparity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Clinton administration from 1996 through 2000.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then it fell off from 2000 to 2003 when it started
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climbing again reaching a peak in 2007 when the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recession come into play.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And 2007 was the year Democrats took both houses of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Congress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, and not suprisingly no liberals are making any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the trend started under Reagan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who sent the Dow on a 20 year tear, love it!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the GOP had the House in 1995 when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> inequities
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skyrocketed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh boo fucking hoo, did you fail to make any money,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumbass?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that no GOPers are making any comments on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything to fuck with YOUR head!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you admit that Reagan lied about "a rising tide lifts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>> boats".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you still draw breath?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you unable to understand this chart?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/the-my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ster y-
>>>>>>>> of-
>>>>>>>>>> inc
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ome-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, see that massive increase in real income for the rich
>>>>>>>>>>>> folks
>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>>> Clinton's Administration? Why was that? Then a drop off
>>>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>> Bush's
>>>>>>>>>>>> first term and another steep rise during his second one.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Them the recession hit and not much of a real change since.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, see where the GOP took Congress?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yep....94. See where the Democrats took Congress?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 94 is when the GOP took the House...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know and acknowledged that. Then I asked if you knew when
>>>>>>>> the Democrats took Congress. It was the 2006 elections. Look
>>>>>>>> at the chart for 2007 and 2008. Hint: It is the second bump.
>>>>>>>> Then it falls off in 2008-2009.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Look closer. It went down in 2007. Line the chart up with the
>>>>>>> edge of your screen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://b-i.forbesimg.com/louiswoodhill/files/2013/03/Income-Inequ
>>>>>>> alit y- Chart-032713.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did. In 2007 it is still rising. As I said, it falls off in
>>>>>> 2008- 2009.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the democrats had the house AND the Senate. The Senate was a
>>>>> tie, but the independents voted with the democrats.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congr
>>>>> esse
>>>>
>>>> Democrats had BOTH the House and Senate after the 2006 elections.
>>>> The new guys took office in January of 2007.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congres
>>> ses
>>>
>>> House, 236 democrats, 199 republicans. Tie in Senate.
>>
>> Not in 2007 there wasn't, you fucktard liar.
>>
>> The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers
>> for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in
>> 1995. Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats,
>> they had an operational majority because the two independent
>> senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational
>> purposes.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress
>>
>>
>> You stupid lying shitbag.
>
> 49/49 is a tie. The independents are in neither party, that is why
> they independent.
>

While true, they do caucus with the Democrats. That gives the Democrats
two more additional votes. To argue that is pointless, Gronk.

--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

One bullet in the possession of a criminal is too many.....
Ten bullets in the possession of a mother trying to protect
her children....may not be enough.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

== 13 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 10:11 am
From: prime cut

On 1/9/2014 11:02 AM, Gronk wrote:
> New York Times reporter Peter Baker is out with a new book

Fuck him, and fuck YOU too, you worthless shitbucket.

== 14 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 10:11 am
From: prime cut

On 1/9/2014 10:39 AM, Gronk wrote:
>
> Is Obama in the GOP?

Are you a communist?

Yes.

== 15 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 10:11 am
From: Gronk

RD Sandman wrote:
> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
> news:la6pta$tbk$2@news.mixmin.net:
>
>> prime cut wrote:
>>> On 12/26/2013 9:05 PM, Gronk wrote:
>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l9ck70$odu$18
>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l92261$dbi$2
>>>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l8l8jo$18v$2
>>>>>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:l8318q$ge5$4@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l7l500$bh1$1@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l75ncb$kiv$1 @news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:enne89dqv91dk6vomm9ar1d18627k9fm3u@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:32:00 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l63e1h$5il$1@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Save The Rich" <yeung@yahoo.ch> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l5mi27$cb1$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Shatzer wrote on 11/09/2013 :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wayne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -snips-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats and republicans. Otherwise the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mortgage interest deduction would have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repealed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it should be repealed. I own my home
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outright
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no deduction for ownership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you do. The property taxes are deductible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plus
>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the old homestead, the first quarter million of
>>>>> capital
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gains (half million if you're married) is exempt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why the rich should pay any taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After
>>>>>>> all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reagan's Trickle Down economic theory dictates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the wealthier the rich get, the more jobs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> await us,
>>>>> trickling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down to our begging hands.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, and the result was the longest period of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained economic growth in US history......
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no trickle down, only trickle up. Income
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disparity
>>>>>>> grew.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the-
>>>>>>>>> myster
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> y-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of-i
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nc ome-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the big jump in that disparity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Clinton administration from 1996 through 2000.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then
>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fell off
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 to 2003 when it started climbing again reaching
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>> peak
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2007 when the recession come into play.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And 2007 was the year Democrats took both houses of
>>>>> Congress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, and not suprisingly no liberals are making any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the trend started under Reagan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the GOP had the House in 1995 when the
>>>>>>>>> inequities
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skyrocketed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that no GOPers are making any comments on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually what is interesting is that deregulation took
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1980 to 1999.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has what to do with the earlier claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't simply a Republican problem like you seem to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> intimate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do the facts implicate them?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/the-myst
>>>>>>>>>>>> ery-
>>>>>>> of-
>>>>>>>>> inc
>>>>>>>>>>>> ome-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It sure looks like Clinton was complicite in that. After all
>>>>>>>>>>> he
>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> sign those bills. Have you really looked at the timing of
>>>>>>>>>>> those increases? I broke it down for you in a previous post.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It sure looks like Reagan and Bush were comlicit, doesn't it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As was Clinton.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not when a false impeachment hamstrings him
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IOW, it is so much easier to blame Bush for everything. Gotcha'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IOW, it is so much easier for GOPers to evade responsibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you think that is? Do you think that the Washington Post,
>>>>> the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Miami Herald or the LA
>>>>> Times are all conservative media?
>>>>
>>>> Has Bush apologised for the Iraq War yet?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Apologize for liberating 26 million and seeding a new democracy?
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Was this our problem? Are we the world's policeman as Cheney said?
>>
>> The reason he invaded was supposed to be WMDs.
>
> It was:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/20/bush-official-iraq_n_4132719.html

New York Times reporter Peter Baker is out with a new book that
reportedly reveals some eyebrow-raising details about the Iraq War.

A senior official from former President George W. Bush's
administration is quoted in Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in the
White House saying American troops went into Iraq because the U.S.
was looking for a fight.

"The only reason we went into Iraq, I tell people now, is we were
looking for somebodys ass to kick. Afghanistan was too easy," the
anonymous official said, according to Politico.

== 16 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 10:11 am
From: prime cut

On 1/9/2014 10:37 AM, Gronk wrote:
> The independents are in neither party,

Are you drugged up again?

== 17 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 10:12 am
From: Gronk

Sancho Panza wrote:
> On 1/3/2014 11:55 AM, Gronk wrote:
>> prime cut wrote:
>>> On 12/26/2013 9:26 PM, Gronk wrote:
>>>> prime cut wrote:
>>>>> On 12/24/2013 11:34 AM, Gronk wrote:
>>>>>> Look closer. It went down in 2007.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/12/new-study-finds-democrats-fully-to-blame-for-subprime-mortgage-crisis-that-caused-financial-collapse/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nothing to do with anything here.
>>>>
>>> Read it again, asshat:
>>>
>>
>> Nothing to do with anything here.
>>
> Confirming the inability to read.

He can't help it.

== 18 of 18 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 10:14 am
From: RD Sandman

Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
news:lamo7d$qjk$1@news.mixmin.net:

> RD Sandman wrote:
>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>> news:la6nqd$qcp$1@news.mixmin.net:
>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 12/26/2013 8:05 PM, Gronk wrote:
>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l9ck70$odu$18
>>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l92261$dbi$2
>>>>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:l8l8jo$18v$2
>>>>>>>>>> @news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l8318q$ge5$4@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l7l500$bh1$1@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l75ncb$kiv$1 @news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:enne89dqv91dk6vomm9ar1d18627k9fm3u@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:32:00 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gronk <invalid@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l63e1h$5il$1@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Save The Rich" <yeung@yahoo.ch> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:l5mi27$cb1$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Shatzer wrote on 11/09/2013 :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wayne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -snips-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats and republicans. Otherwise the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mortgage interest deduction would have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repealed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it should be repealed. I own my home
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outright
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no deduction for ownership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure you do. The property taxes are deductible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plus
>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the old homestead, the first quarter million of
>>>>>> capital
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gains (half million if you're married) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exempt from taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see why the rich should pay any taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After
>>>>>>>> all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reagan's Trickle Down economic theory dictates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the wealthier the rich get, the more jobs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> await us,
>>>>>> trickling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down to our begging hands.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, and the result was the longest period of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained economic growth in US history......
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no trickle down, only trickle up. Income
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disparity
>>>>>>>> grew.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8/ the-
>>>>>>>>>> myster
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> y-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of-i
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nc ome-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the big jump in that disparity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Clinton administration from 1996 through 2000.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fell off
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 to 2003 when it started climbing again
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaching a
>>>>>> peak
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2007 when the recession come into play.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And 2007 was the year Democrats took both houses of
>>>>>> Congress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, and not suprisingly no liberals are making any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the trend started under Reagan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the GOP had the House in 1995 when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> inequities
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skyrocketed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that no GOPers are making any comments on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually what is interesting is that deregulation took
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1980 to 1999.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has what to do with the earlier claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't simply a Republican problem like you seem to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intimate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do the facts implicate them?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/the-my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> st ery-
>>>>>>>> of-
>>>>>>>>>> inc
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ome-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure looks like Clinton was complicite in that. After
>>>>>>>>>>>> all he
>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> sign those bills. Have you really looked at the timing of
>>>>>>>>>>>> those increases? I broke it down for you in a previous
>>>>>>>>>>>> post.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It sure looks like Reagan and Bush were comlicit, doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As was Clinton.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not when a false impeachment hamstrings him
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IOW, it is so much easier to blame Bush for everything.
>>>>>>>> Gotcha'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IOW, it is so much easier for GOPers to evade responsibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you think that is? Do you think that the Washington Post,
>>>>>> the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Miami Herald or the
>>>>>> LA Times are all conservative media?
>>>>>
>>>>> Has Bush
>>>>
>>>> Do you think that the Washington Post, the New York Times, the
>>>> Chicago Tribune, the Miami Herald or the LA Times are all
>>>> conservative media?
>>>
>>> Has Bush apologised for the Iraq War yet?
>>
>> Why would he need to?
>
> There were no WMDs. This was more or less known at the start.

Apparently not everyone got the message. There were comments from both
sides. That means from other than Bush.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

One bullet in the possession of a criminal is too many.....
Ten bullets in the possession of a mother trying to protect
her children....may not be enough.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Emotional, Radical Right Wing Reactionary ReichTurds Hate Women, Prefer
Other Men, Children & Even Animals For Sex
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/33f22c709e855597?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 9:48 am
From: Jeff M

On 1/9/2014 6:47 AM, Mike Smith wrote:

The minute I saw this post, I knew that someone else had hijacked Mike
Smith's nym. It contained facts.

--
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in
moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification
for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 9:55 am
From: Rudy Canoza

On 1/9/2014 9:48 AM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 1/9/2014 6:47 AM, Mike Smith wrote:
>
>
> The minute I saw this post, I knew

that you were reading bullshit left-wing boilerplate by America-hating
shitworms. Yes.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The CRA Scam and its Defenders
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/5ea050d9836aa215?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 10:03 am
From: prime cut

On 1/8/2014 6:38 PM, jim wrote:
> After the market crashed

http://www.businessinsider.com/three-ways-the-cra-pushed-countrywide-to-lower-lending-standards-2009-6

When we discuss the role of the Community Reinvestment Act and other
fair lending rules in contributing to lax lending standards, people bent
on exonerating the CRA often point out that many of the questionable
loans were made by non-depository mortgage companies not covered by the CRA.

Barry Ritholtz has been a prominent critic of the theory that the CRA
has some culpability for lax lending. He has pointed out that 50% of
subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject
comprehensive federal supervision. �How was this caused by either CRA or
GSEs?� Barry asked.

As much as I respect Barry�s formidable analytical powers, I�m afraid
he�s taken too narrow of the view of the matter. His question is far
easier to answer than he suspects. Regulations often touch those who are
not directly regulated. Indeed, the regulation of one group in a
marketplace will almost always wind up affecting other groups.

More concretely, there are three very specific ways in which the CRA
nudged Countrywide and other mortgage companies to adopt lax lending
standards.

1. The Creation Of Artificial Demand For Low-Income Mortgages. Banks
that were regulated by the CRA often found it difficult to meet their
obligations under the CRA directly. Long standing lending practices by
local loan officers were a big problem. But as banks expanded their
deposit bases and other businesses, they often found that they were at
risk of regulators discovering they had fallen behind in making CRA loans.

One way of addressing this problem was buying the loans in the secondary
market. Mortgage companies like Countrywide began to serve this entirely
artificial demand for CRA loans. Countrywide marketed its loans directly
to banks as a way for them to meet CRA obligations. "The result of these
efforts is an enormous pipeline of mortgages to low- and moderate-income
buyers. With this pipeline, Countrywide Securities Corporation (CSC) can
potentially help you meet your Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) goals by
offering both whole loan and mortgage-backed securities that are
eligible for CRA credit,� a Countrywide advertisement on its website read.

2. The Threat Of Regulation Is Often As Good As Regulation. It is
highly misleading to claim that just because mortgage companies were not
technically under the CRA that they were not required by regulators to
meet similar tests. In fact, regulators threatened that if the mortgage
companies didn�t step up to the plate by relaxing lending standards they
would be brought under the CRA umbrella and required to do so.

Here�s how City Journal explains the dynamic:

To meet their goals, the two mortgage giants enlisted large
lenders�including nonbanks, which weren�t covered by the CRA�into the
effort. Freddie Mac began an �alternative qualifying� program with the
Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a
monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most
private mortgage companies wouldn�t exceed 33 percent. The program also
allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took
credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits.
Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on
default rates.

Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn�t
stop with Sears. If it didn�t happen, Clinton officials warned, they�d
seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress,
Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the
CRA �among the most egregious redliners.� To rebuff the criticism, the
Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by
signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join
in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to
sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the
core of the subprime meltdown.

3. The CRA Distorted the Mortgage Market. With banks offering
mortgages with high loan to value, delayed payment schedules and other
enticing features, the mortgage companies would have quickly found
themselves unable to compete if they didn�t offer similar loans. The
requirement to offer risky loans from banks created a situation where
other lenders found they had to offer similar products if they wanted to
expand their business.

Of course, Angelo Mozillo didn't need very much prompting on this score.
He believed exactly what the CRA regulators believed: that these lax
lending practices were the wave of the future, democratizing the glories
of home ownership.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 10:04 am
From: prime cut

On 1/8/2014 8:09 PM, jim wrote:
> CRA is a law that requires bank

http://www.businessinsider.com/three-ways-the-cra-pushed-countrywide-to-lower-lending-standards-2009-6

When we discuss the role of the Community Reinvestment Act and other
fair lending rules in contributing to lax lending standards, people bent
on exonerating the CRA often point out that many of the questionable
loans were made by non-depository mortgage companies not covered by the CRA.

Barry Ritholtz has been a prominent critic of the theory that the CRA
has some culpability for lax lending. He has pointed out that 50% of
subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject
comprehensive federal supervision. �How was this caused by either CRA or
GSEs?� Barry asked.

As much as I respect Barry�s formidable analytical powers, I�m afraid
he�s taken too narrow of the view of the matter. His question is far
easier to answer than he suspects. Regulations often touch those who are
not directly regulated. Indeed, the regulation of one group in a
marketplace will almost always wind up affecting other groups.

More concretely, there are three very specific ways in which the CRA
nudged Countrywide and other mortgage companies to adopt lax lending
standards.

1. The Creation Of Artificial Demand For Low-Income Mortgages. Banks
that were regulated by the CRA often found it difficult to meet their
obligations under the CRA directly. Long standing lending practices by
local loan officers were a big problem. But as banks expanded their
deposit bases and other businesses, they often found that they were at
risk of regulators discovering they had fallen behind in making CRA loans.

One way of addressing this problem was buying the loans in the secondary
market. Mortgage companies like Countrywide began to serve this entirely
artificial demand for CRA loans. Countrywide marketed its loans directly
to banks as a way for them to meet CRA obligations. "The result of these
efforts is an enormous pipeline of mortgages to low- and moderate-income
buyers. With this pipeline, Countrywide Securities Corporation (CSC) can
potentially help you meet your Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) goals by
offering both whole loan and mortgage-backed securities that are
eligible for CRA credit,� a Countrywide advertisement on its website read.

2. The Threat Of Regulation Is Often As Good As Regulation. It is
highly misleading to claim that just because mortgage companies were not
technically under the CRA that they were not required by regulators to
meet similar tests. In fact, regulators threatened that if the mortgage
companies didn�t step up to the plate by relaxing lending standards they
would be brought under the CRA umbrella and required to do so.

Here�s how City Journal explains the dynamic:

To meet their goals, the two mortgage giants enlisted large
lenders�including nonbanks, which weren�t covered by the CRA�into the
effort. Freddie Mac began an �alternative qualifying� program with the
Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a
monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most
private mortgage companies wouldn�t exceed 33 percent. The program also
allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took
credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits.
Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on
default rates.

Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn�t
stop with Sears. If it didn�t happen, Clinton officials warned, they�d
seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress,
Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the
CRA �among the most egregious redliners.� To rebuff the criticism, the
Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by
signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join
in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to
sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the
core of the subprime meltdown.

3. The CRA Distorted the Mortgage Market. With banks offering
mortgages with high loan to value, delayed payment schedules and other
enticing features, the mortgage companies would have quickly found
themselves unable to compete if they didn�t offer similar loans. The
requirement to offer risky loans from banks created a situation where
other lenders found they had to offer similar products if they wanted to
expand their business.

Of course, Angelo Mozillo didn't need very much prompting on this score.
He believed exactly what the CRA regulators believed: that these lax
lending practices were the wave of the future, democratizing the glories
of home ownership.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 2014 10:04 am
From: prime cut

On 1/9/2014 5:53 AM, jim wrote:
> The story about lax GSE lending

http://www.businessinsider.com/three-ways-the-cra-pushed-countrywide-to-lower-lending-standards-2009-6

When we discuss the role of the Community Reinvestment Act and other
fair lending rules in contributing to lax lending standards, people bent
on exonerating the CRA often point out that many of the questionable
loans were made by non-depository mortgage companies not covered by the CRA.

Barry Ritholtz has been a prominent critic of the theory that the CRA
has some culpability for lax lending. He has pointed out that 50% of
subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject
comprehensive federal supervision. �How was this caused by either CRA or
GSEs?� Barry asked.

As much as I respect Barry�s formidable analytical powers, I�m afraid
he�s taken too narrow of the view of the matter. His question is far
easier to answer than he suspects. Regulations often touch those who are
not directly regulated. Indeed, the regulation of one group in a
marketplace will almost always wind up affecting other groups.

More concretely, there are three very specific ways in which the CRA
nudged Countrywide and other mortgage companies to adopt lax lending
standards.

1. The Creation Of Artificial Demand For Low-Income Mortgages. Banks
that were regulated by the CRA often found it difficult to meet their
obligations under the CRA directly. Long standing lending practices by
local loan officers were a big problem. But as banks expanded their
deposit bases and other businesses, they often found that they were at
risk of regulators discovering they had fallen behind in making CRA loans.

One way of addressing this problem was buying the loans in the secondary
market. Mortgage companies like Countrywide began to serve this entirely
artificial demand for CRA loans. Countrywide marketed its loans directly
to banks as a way for them to meet CRA obligations. "The result of these
efforts is an enormous pipeline of mortgages to low- and moderate-income
buyers. With this pipeline, Countrywide Securities Corporation (CSC) can
potentially help you meet your Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) goals by
offering both whole loan and mortgage-backed securities that are
eligible for CRA credit,� a Countrywide advertisement on its website read.

2. The Threat Of Regulation Is Often As Good As Regulation. It is
highly misleading to claim that just because mortgage companies were not
technically under the CRA that they were not required by regulators to
meet similar tests. In fact, regulators threatened that if the mortgage
companies didn�t step up to the plate by relaxing lending standards they
would be brought under the CRA umbrella and required to do so.

Here�s how City Journal explains the dynamic:

To meet their goals, the two mortgage giants enlisted large
lenders�including nonbanks, which weren�t covered by the CRA�into the
effort. Freddie Mac began an �alternative qualifying� program with the
Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a
monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most
private mortgage companies wouldn�t exceed 33 percent. The program also
allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took
credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits.
Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on
default rates.

Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn�t
stop with Sears. If it didn�t happen, Clinton officials warned, they�d
seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress,
Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the
CRA �among the most egregious redliners.� To rebuff the criticism, the
Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by
signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join
in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to
sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the
core of the subprime meltdown.

3. The CRA Distorted the Mortgage Market. With banks offering
mortgages with high loan to value, delayed payment schedules and other
enticing features, the mortgage companies would have quickly found
themselves unable to compete if they didn�t offer similar loans. The
requirement to offer risky loans from banks created a situation where
other lenders found they had to offer similar products if they wanted to
expand their business.

Of course, Angelo Mozillo didn't need very much prompting on this score.
He believed exactly what the CRA regulators believed: that these lax
lending practices were the wave of the future, democratizing the glories
of home ownership.

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.crafts.metalworking"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.crafts.metalworking+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

twitter

Thursday, January 9, 2014

rec.crafts.metalworking - 26 new messages in 4 topics - digest

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Previous Posts