« Obama and the Jewish vote | Main | McCain veepstakes postscript »


Hopefully it's just a barbecue, but lots of folks are looking at the guest list for John McCain's Memorial Day shindig and speculating that it might have something to do with his veep choice.

I kinda hope not. I'd rather believe it's a gathering of friends and supporters who were instrumental in helping McCain clinch the nomination with no overarching agenda. The most widely rumored veep candidates in attendance range from the merely uninspiring (Crist) to the crushingly disappointing (Romney) all the way to the disastrous (Huckabee.)

Fortunately, if you read past the first few grafs you learn that the guest list also includes Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman. Granted, they're probably only there because they're joined at the hip to McCain these days, but it still makes me feel better. As unlikely as I think they are to be veep candidates, I'd love to see either one of them on the ticket -- I like Graham (my former congresscritter) for all the same reasons I like John McCain, and I'd really like the star power that Lieberman would bring to the ticket. Then there's also Bobby Jindal, who'd make an interesting choice, and is certainly someone I could live with.

I just really hope McCain doesn't screw this up. Despite all the media attention it gets, I really don't think the VP nominee usually does much to boost a ticket. A bad pick, however, can certainly drag a ticket down -- especially for a candidate who's 71 years old.

UPDATE: Hmm. After re-reading my link, I realized I don't see Mike Huckabee's name anywhere in there. Hopefully I just imagined it.


Don't you find the whole Joe Lieberman-as-babysitter/minder kind of odd? After the last 8 years, isn't it time we had a President who didn't need a minder?
Lieberman as VP? Besides Iraq, where's the convergence of viewpoints? How about a unit ticket with that feminist vicitim/c-word Geraldine Ferraro, who seems to be FoxNews' favorite Democrat these days, given her penchant for whining.

Lieberman would assure him victory. Huckabee would probably cost him the election. I'm not sure about Romney. He could probably win with Romney.

He can win with a no-name as well, just not a moron like Huckabee.

Lieberman is the best choice, and it is about time Lieberman just admitted that he has always been a Republican.

I couldn't disagree more with your affection for Lieberman, Barry.

Lieberman would be as "disastrous" a choice as Huckabee but for different reasons. Huckabee's prone to embarrassing verbal gaffes, while Lieberman's exhibited common sense on one issue (the WoT).

He once exhibited common sense on race-based preferences (opposing them) but he embarrasingly shit the bed, when he had to kiss Maxine Water's ass to get the approval to be Gore's running mate back in 2000.

Lieberman is anathema to Conservatives.

McCain NEEDS a bona fide Right-winger, a guy sure to alienate the hard-Left (Huckabee's NOT that), and signal Conservatives that he's willing to play ball with them.

I think, I will paradoxically, agree with JMK on this. The best pick for the interest of McCain would be a right-winger, a "conservative". McCain needs to consolidate and create enthusiasm among the religious extremist right-wingers. Otherwise he has no chance.
Lieberman would not help him. He is a lying unprincipled warmonger, exactly as McCain is, and he would not bring anything unique to the ticket.

I attended an anti-terror conference in Israel (Hadera) last Fall and came in worrying that there were too many naive people in government positions that would support a "negotiated peace" with the forces of radicalized Islam.

I was happily proven wrong.

Israel is adament that they COULD NOT accept a negotiated settlement, the U.S. State Dept (the careerists, not just the appointees) feel the same way, but so does the Sarkozy administration in France, Merckel's administration in Germany and many other European nations.

Many in the U.S. military, and its various Intelligence agencies feel greatly under-appreciated and believe that a "softer approach" (which we might get) will invite aggression from the terror sponsoring rogue nations. NONE of those people want or prefer war, but they recognize its inevitability (with radicalized Islam) at this point.

Much as I wouldn't want to witness another successful attack on our own soil, I'd accept that RATHER than see a negotiated settlement forged by naive peaceniks work.

You're not a Liberal BW...Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton are Liberals, you're just hopelessly naive and hopeless naivete does not a Liberal make.

JMK, I wouldn't say I have any "affection" for Joe Lieberman. I don't, and I'm mystified as to why so many conservatives do, frankly. But whereas the Bush/Rove strategy was to turn out the base in near 100% numbers, McCain is trying a different strategy -- pulling votes from the center, including some registered Democrats. I think that McCain/Lieberman ticket could really deliver on that score, but who knows?

But there are certainly other ways to win, too. I was really hoping to see Mark Sanford on the ticket. No one could argue with his conservative bona fides. Doesn't seem like it's going to happen, though. I guess there's some bad blood there.

>...hopeless naivete does not a Liberal make.

It doesn't?

"JMK, I wouldn't say I have any "affection" for Joe Lieberman. I don't, and I'm mystified as to why so many conservatives do, frankly. But whereas the Bush/Rove strategy was to turn out the base in near 100% numbers, McCain is trying a different strategy -- pulling votes from the center, including some registered Democrats." (BNJ)

That's a fair point Barry, and I didn't intend to put words in your mouth. Still, the question McCain's facing is "At what cost?"

The Democrats elected since 2006 have overwhelmingly been Conservatives. There are now 48 Conservative ("Blue Dog") Dems in Congress.

There are those who say that "They'll get in line with the Liberal leadership rather than face Congressional banishment," but the Liberal Dems don't have any leverage to do that.

The Blue Dogs will have to run on their records and how those records compare with the Conservative platforms they ran on. If the Liberals bannish them, they'll be martyrs and more importantly they'll still have a chance of winning again when they run for re-election back home.

What has gotten Conservatives (mostly Republicans) into trouble is NOT acting as Conservatives. There is little support for more government spending. I mean, when even BW's oppose over-spending, there's precious little support for more or bigger government!

Lieberman has been consistently right on ONE issue (the WoT), but he has a track record of selling out his principles. After all, pre-2000, he was one of the most outspoken Democrats opposing race/gender-based preferences, another policy (preferences) that has little support, but he sold that stance out quick to become Gore's VP!

Moreover, McCain's support of last year's "Shamnesty Bill" has alientated a lot of Conservatives, picking a northeast Liberal who's been, as Chuck Schumer's said of the Dems, "Far too Liberal, shamelessly Liberal and Liberal for far too long," would seem to only alienate Conservatives of all affiliations even more.

I think he needs a younger, more Conservative mate, just as an Obama will need an older, more experienced, not to mention far more Moderate (maybe an Evan bayh type guy, or a Jim Webb).

I feel similarly about Romney, he's vibrant, he's telegenic and he's won in a very Blue State, BUT, he's about as socially Liberal as McCain and he's saddled with his direct association with Romney-care (Massachussetts Universal healthcare) that is now imploding due to cost-overruns and budget shortfalls. Ironically enough, BOTH Clinton's and Obama's "universal plans" are carbon copies of Romney's MA plan. In fact, while Obama's would only mandate those with children to purchase their own insurance, HRC's would mandate EVERYONE outside of Medicare, Medicaid to purchase their own insurance!

Right now, I don't who'd be a "good choice," (there aren't many), but I can see the bad ones a little clearer.

"...hopeless naivete does not a Liberal make." (JMK)

"It doesn't?" (BNJ)

An even better point!

I can't believe I actually said that!!!

Wishful thinking on my part, I suppose. Come to think of it, I've NEVER met a Liberal who wasn't hopelessly naive...and the further Left, the more naive.

I stand corrected and I retract that statement.

"It doesn't?"

What I find amazing with "conservative" thinking is that when someone disagrees with them, they are "naive". You have to be naive to be idealistic. Great philosophy. One more reason that conservatism sucks :-)

It's not mere disagreement that we (at least I) find "naive" BW, it's denying reality (like a Gallup poll that shows Obama getting about 20% less of the Jewsih vote than Dems traditionally do), or naively (there's that word again) claiming that Red State Conservatives "vote against their own interests," and NOT being able to explain why...I clearly explained why they're NOT "voting against their own interests."

Slavish devotion to an ideology (ie. socialism, a government-managed economy) in the face of a mountain of evidence that it has never worked, doesn't work and apparently cannot work is, well, to be nice about it - hopelessly naive.

About 80-90% of republican voters absolutely vote against their own interests. I have to say that it takes a genius to misdirect such a huge group of voters and to make them believe that voting republican is good for them. But let's not forget that political illiteracy is the only reason that someone like George Bush was ever elected president.

"About 80-90% of republican voters absolutely vote against their own interests." (BW)

Again, you've failed to make a case for your viewpoint. An unsubstantiated statement is NOT a case. Ergo, you've done nothing to dispel the view of yourself as "hopelessly naive."

Here's why those folks are voting VERY MUCH in-line with their own best interests;

1) LOWER income tax rates actually benefit the lower income earners the most. Since the top 10% of income erners pay nearly 80% of the income taxes and the bottom fifty percent pay less than 1%, those with higher incomes simply defer more of their pre-tax income into various tax-deferred vehicles. Just as tax rates were cut ACROSS THE BOARD under Bush, they'll also rise ACROSS THE BOARD should they expire.

The government EXPECTS higher income earners to defer more of their income/compensation into tax-deferred vehicles (that's why revenues go down as tax rates rise), but lower income earners have less disposable income and thus disproportionately pay the higher marginal income tax rate as tax rates rise.

2) There are virtually NO/zero government social programs for workingclass Americans. Moreover, when polled, that group, more than any other, claims NOT to want "free stuff" from the government.

Now, that may sound like they're opposing their own intersts, BUT "free stuff" is NOT a legitimate self-interest, AND they are probably (I don't know for sure, since I didn't poll them myself) wise enough to realize that "free stuff" provided by the government ALWAYS costs us three to five times more than if provided by the market.

3) These people tend to oppose a more open border policy and ANY kind of "amnesty" for ILLEGALS.

THAT is absolutely in their best interests as that "cheap" ILLEGAL labor lowers the wage floor and stagnates ALL other wages within the U.S.

4) These folks favor a "TOUGH on crime" approach to criminal justice. Overwhelmingly Red Staters support the death penalty and even support for things OTHER THAN homocide. A half dozen Red States have passed laws allowing Capital Punishment for repeat child molestors.

This too, is VERY MUCH in their own best interests, as nothing is more corrosive to individual liberty and the workingman's most favorable environment than random violent crime.

5) These people overwhelmingly SUPPORT equality of opportunity, so they vehemently OPPOSE any kind of race/gender-based preferences....that too is in their best interests as "equal opportunity" (the right to compete against all others on the SAME set of standards, with "special privilege for none") is in EVERYONE'S best interest.

6) Most of those voters can readilly see that (A) Keynesianism imploded under Jimmy Carter (STAGFLATION: double digit interest, inflation and unemployment rates) and (B) that the Supply-Side policies that follwed (under Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr) have delivered over a quarter century of unprecedented prosperity.

So much so that not only have stalwart Keynesian nations like Germany and France abandoned Keynesian regimes with their most recent elections, but even here, the spoiled citizenry looks at the current 5% unemployment rate as "high," forgetting that Carter's failed economy caused double digit unemployment rates well into mid-1983 (for June, 1983 we had a 10.1% unemployment rate)...as it took a few years to completely turn around the failed Keynesian policies that had imploded the economy by the late 1970s.

I just gave you SIX undenaible reasons off the top of my head WHY those voters are VERY MUCH voting their own best interests.

You've given NONE.

Actually, you and Barely Hanging have a lot in common - you're both delusional enough to believe the problem is with those who disagree with you two, rather than with your own very flawed ideas.

6) Most of those voters can readilly see that (A) Keynesianism imploded under Jimmy Carter (STAGFLATION: double digit interest, inflation and unemployment rates) and (B) that the Supply-Side policies that follwed (under Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr) have delivered over a quarter century of unprecedented prosperity.

Yes, but didn't such supply side policies lead to a higher deficit. According to Annanberg fact check, Reagan's terms led to a deficit of 6% of the GDP, the highest yet. W & LBJ come second. And Reagan did not have a massive land war like the other two, and no hefty program increases to my knowledge.

That's absolutely correct Rachel, although, during Reagan's tenure the increased national debt was created by a Democratic Congress that spent $2 for every $1 of budget cuts. Congress controls the budget. It was increased government (Congressional) spending that led to those huge deficits.

While the recent GOP Congresses (the Frist/DeLay/Hastert Congresses) haven't been all that much better, the ONLY Congress in memory to actually CUT government spending and delivered an actual SURPLUS, was the Gingrich Congress!

Many people (including, I believe, BNJ) strongly favor "divided government." I do too, but I favor a specific kind of divided government. It seems that a Republican Congress (BOTH House & Senate) along with a moderate Democratic President works best, to deliver LESS wasteful spending, LESS taxpayer abuse and a LESS intrusive government.

It's for that very reason that I believe the "change" that the vast majority of Americans are calling for today is a change AWAY from the politics of "big government as usual" and a return to those Gingrichian policies that worked so well.

It certainly seems that a lot more people seem to want a lot less government....I sure hope that's what the apparent Democratic standard-bearer, Barack Obama means by "change we can believe in."

Yeah, Rachel, good point. I mean, I approved of the Bush tax cuts. God bless him for passing it, I guess. But at the same time, runaway spending has virtually *guaranteed* that the cuts won't survive. Moreover, congressional profligacy has helped fuel the notion that "tax cuts cause deficits." Damn shame.

JMK, I too believe in divided government. You may be right about the ideal formula for division, but it seems that this year the only realistic choice we have is a Republican president with a Democratic congress.

yeah, Jmk. People forget that the concept of change can go both ways. What they want is improvement. And even then, what does that mean?

"Yeah, Rachel, good point. I mean, I approved of the Bush tax cuts. God bless him for passing it, I guess. But at the same time, runaway spending has virtually *guaranteed* that the cuts won't survive. Moreover, congressional profligacy has helped fuel the notion that "tax cuts cause deficits." Damn shame." (BNJ)

While I agree that there has been a lot of reckless spending over the past eight years (the NCLB Act and the prescription drug boondoggle, among the most egregious), the huge part of that spending orgy was due to the WoT both the military operations overseas AND the domestic anti-terror spending here at home.

I STRONGLY support the latter, though I'll concede that I feel that much of that security spending should've been offset with social spending and ENTITLEMENT cuts, and that didn't happen.

I know there are still some people who naively think that it's "intuitive" that "Tax hikes INCREASE tax revenues." Perhaps because I never entertained such naive notions, I don't understand the so-called "intuitive" nature of that statement.

I DO understand a very simple and absolute rule of human nature, that, "People respond to incentives."

When income tax rates rise, those with more "disposable income" (higher income earners) simply defer more of their income/compensation and since the top 10% of income earners pay almost 80% of the income taxes, tax revenues generally go DOWN.

Same with Cap Gains tax hikes - they slow investment, as fewer people are willing to take more risk at a lower return. The risk/reward ratio becomes skewed.

Now, the statement, "SOME tax hikes increase revenues" is (at least SOMETIMES) true.

For instance hiking gas taxes and cigarette and junk food taxes DOES hike revenues, but largely on the backs of the poorest Americans. Again, higher skilled workers, who are also generally higher incomed, can and often do telecommute or work from home, at least a few days per week, the poor laborer who has to go to a job site five or six days a week CAN'T. He pays a burdensome penalty. Moreover, even if gas consumption doesn't go down, the way cigarette consumption does when taxes are raised on that commodity - higher income people can far more easily deal with higher gas prices than poorer/low-income ones can.

So, while I can see (even around here) that some folks naively see tax hikes = higher tax revenues, it's important that people realize that smart people (and smart people are generally higher income people) tend to respond very well to incentives and it's BEHAVIOR and NOT merely tax rates that determine tax revenues.

"JMK, I too believe in divided government. You may be right about the ideal formula for division, but it seems that this year the only realistic choice we have is a Republican president with a Democratic congress." (BNJ)

I agree that's the reality we face Barry, though when Dems control the purse strings (the budget) lots of bad things tend to happen.

I can understand the view that supporters of less government and divided government have that You take what you can get, at the time."

It's a sensible strategy.

"yeah, Jmk. People forget that the concept of change can go both ways. What they want is improvement. And even then, what does that mean?" (Rachel)

That's the rub, Rachel.

Virtually NO ONE wants "economic equality." Even those in Congress who claim to, vote themselves pay raises upon salaries that are far above the mean income of appx $45,000/year.

Now, as much as I revile politicians, I don't begrudge Congressmen their appx. $160,000/year incomes, I merely have a problem with those who take issue with what OTHERS make.

After all, IF a Senator is worth $160,000/year, then a plastic surgeon has to be worth....well, whatever a plastic surgeon makes, depending upon clientelle (and their ability to pay) I suppose. I say "the higher, the better!"

How about investors?

Investors don't make "salaries." They profit off risk/investments. Those folks profitting off investments in stocks and commodities (like corn, cattle, orange juice and oil) futures are what keeps those commodities flowing at market prices.

Sure, F. William Engdahl, has blamed two major institutional investors (J P Morgan and Goldman Sachs) for much of oil's recent steep price rise...


...BUT, commodities investors base their speculation on factors they believe will either raise or lower the price of a given commodity - commodities traders DIDN'T raise the price of corn in a vacuum....America's inept corn-based ethanol program created an inflated demand for corn, creating the parameters upon which many commodities traders made profits!

Same with oil, our own inept energy policies (NOT drilling in ANWR and offshore) has limited our own energy independence and limited global SUPPLY amidst rapidly increasing global demand (God bless India and China....it's about time that that one third of the world's population move beyond the agrarian economy).

The people revile investors don't seem to understand what investment is and what investors do.

None of such worry so much about what the other guy has....and I really don't believe that all that many people do!

Yikes! I mangled those last two lines...

"The people WHO revile investors don't seem to understand what investment is and what investors REALLY do.

"NO ONE SHOULD worry so much about what the other guy makes....and I really don't believe that all that many people do!

Tsk, tsk ... talk about hopelessly naive!

JMK, you had your "conservative" Repug president and your "conservative" congress in full control for six years.

Those six years were pure disaster. A free and prosperous nation went into the toilet, the Bush/Cheney "conservative" vision of America was brought forth: a warmongering, imperialistic plutocracy.

The "conservatives" went wild spending the surplus and then didn't bat an eye as they charged the nation's credit cards to the hilt.

You can't ask for more than six years of absolute power, unfettered by Democrats and "liberals".

The tree is known by its fruit, sorry.

Your brand of false "conservatism" is a disaster far beyond Jimmy Carter's well-intentioned but too soft liberalism.

You can squawk out your meaningless talking points day and night, pointing the finger of blame as wildly is the Clintons trying to distract people from seeing the truth, but it won't matter.

No one will ever trust "conservatives" again in our lifetime.

The current economy's bad???

What's the current inflation rate?

Under 3%?

What's the current unemployment rate?

Just under 5%?

What about economic growth?

Yiles! That's not very good (0.6% last quarter...could be revised "all the way up to 0.9%)....STILL, where are the 2 consecutive quarters of NEGATIVE economic growth (the accepted definition of a recession)???

Hmmmm, we haven't had even one, since those Bush ACROSS-the-BOARD tax cuts halved dug us out of an inherited "Tech Bubble Bust) recession and halved the deficit in less than three years!

What was the inflation rate under Carter again?

YIKES!!! A whopping 11.22% in 1979 and 13.58 in 1980!


Uhhhh, even the CURRENT, according to you "bad economy's" inflation rate (of near 3%) is far LESS and thus far BETTER than the Carter years.

What was the unemployment rate under Carter?

Oh yeah, it hovered around 6% until it went over 7.5% in 1980.

Again under 5% is LOWER and thus BETTER than 7.5% Barely.

How about interest rate?

Still very low (the federal rate is around 2%) and mortgages can be had for under 6%.

Under Carter?

Double digit interest rates!

Double digit interest rates are BAD Barely.

With about 85% of the jobs being private sector jobs, we NEED a government that caters to "the founder of the feast" - business and industry.

I had an Uncle (actually, I believe third cousin might be the most accurate term....my Dad's first cousin) who, like my own sainted father rose up the ranks fo the FDNY, only "Uncle J T" (John T) went on to become Fire Commissioner under Abe Beame and became famous (notorious to Union officials) for saying, "I could do this job (the FDNY) with 5,000 men."

And THIS at a time when there were some 12,000 firefighters responding to over 500,000 alarms per year, with 10 to 12 firefighter fatalities per year.

We NEED more guys like the late John T O'Hagan in public service. The "carrot" to enact those reforms (less manpower) would be higher pay for those in those professions (policing, teaching, firefighting, etc)...LESS cost, LOWER taxes and that would create more good private sector jobs!

As far as taxes go, it's not only that rates are STILL too high, but that not enough people pay!

It's an outrage that the bottom 50% of income earners pay less than 1% of the income taxes (I know the EITC) skews that number a bit, but EVERYONE should pay into this great system and support the judges, police, corrections officers and Military personnel we all depend upon for so much.

That's why, once again, the "Fair Tax" (a consumption based tax) that was supported by, of all people, Mike Gravel (D-AL) is the best possible tax system yet devised.

Wow JMK, you're right! I guess that is why everyone is breaking down the doors at polling places across America to vote Republican!

This is just so great! More Republican please!

I don't know many Republicans, although they're certainly out there.

I DON'T know many non-Conservatives either. Although I DON'T consider anti-immigrant, anti-globalization folks with racial animus "Conservatives."

Those views are NOT Conservative in any way.

I'd gladly accept doubling legal immigration in exchange for securing our borders.

I even like the Kennedy immigration plan. It has a very real underlying pro-Western foundation, afterall, the Kennedy's never hired a single non-white to work within their homes....you can look that up. They're Boston Irish through and through.

I got no bones with that.

I just don't consider that view Conservative, is all.

There are people claiming the 48 strong and growing Conservative (Blue Dog) Democrat contingent will "go along with the Patry's Liberal hierarchy."

Those folks would make poor investors.

I look at that contingent and see two things; (1) the Democratic Senate Committee (Schumer) and the Democratic Congressional Committee (Emmanuel) have deliberately sought out Conservative candidates to change the Democratic Party.....As Schumer said in his own book (Positively American), "The Democratic Party has been far too liberal, shamelessly liberal and liberal for far too long."....AND (2) because the Democratic hierarchy has no leverage with these Blue Dems.

They can freeze these guys out and martyr them (which would be good back home), or the Blue Dogs could vote with their liberal Dem counterparts and assure themselves of being voted out of ofice in their Conservative districts.

I'm a registered Democrat.

I LOVE business and industry and I revile big government....I believe that makes me a "Jeffersonian (that's to say, Conservative) Democrat."

You're simply a Corporatist liberal. Steal from the middle and give to the rich.

I'm for stopping all theft from the middle. All redistribution of wealth is Liberalism leading to socialism, decay, and cultural death.

You believe that my money should be given to Halliburton, which is nothing but a corporate shell for tranferring taxpayer dollars into the hands of the wealthy, with bribes distributed all around by their army of lobbyists.

If Jefferson had met you, he would have run you through with a bayonette.

As a Conservative Democrat I agree that the Middle Class SHOULD pay the MOST, because they've benefiited the most from government's mandated provisions - its courts, its criminal justice system and emergency response personnel, its military, etc.

Even IF other governments CAN build their own tanks and planes, our private enterpise based one CAN'T.

Ergo our government rightfully BUYS its planes from Boeing and its other weaponry from other major defense contractors (Northrop Grumman, etc).

While on occassion, I'm sure there are some overages and over-charges, I'm also certain that it's nothing that can't be accounted for.

And by the way, ONCE AGAIN, it's Congress that sets up those contracts, as it's Congress that controls the budget/the "purse strings."

Oh, and for the record, IF I had met Tommy Jefferson, I'd have kicked his ass...real bad.

Ben Franklin, now he'd have been a taller order and Andy Jackson, worse still, but then again, I've never gotten into a "fair fight" in my entire life....I kinda pride myself on that. I always have guys willing to "jump into the fray."

I can certainly imagine that you would fight in the same cowardly way that you converse: only here you are forced to use your demented split personalities and multiple mega-posts to try and shout down common sense and logic, since nobody else seems to support what you say.

As a former Golden Gloves boxer, I am able to fight my own fights without resorting to cowardly gang behavior.

Obvioiusly it is the MEGA RICH who benefit the most from our current form of government, not the middle class. Most people in the middle class don't actually own anything, not even their home. The mega wealthy own almost everything, and it didn't happen through honest hard work.

You know, the more you write the more I realize what a scumbag you really are.

Now, now, there's nothing cowardly about using a crew OR making sure your group has superior fire-power.

I do indeed do that here as well, as I virtually always document and cite sources for the facts I present.

And it figures that you'd mistake a sporting event (boxing) with an actual fight.

The one (boxing) has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other (an actual fight). Boxing matches are "sporting contests," with referees and padding and mouthpieces, a fight is...well, it's a completely different animal, and let's leave it at that.

And stop yer yammering about the "mega rich" you putty butt.

The rich ALWAYS control the bulk of the wealth...it's the golden rule - "He who has the gold MAKES the rules. And yet the bulk of the MONEY is always in the hands of the vast middle, via shear numbers....that's why government taxes the middle so hard...cause THAT'S where the money is.

And please, stop your snivelling, whining rants, they embarass you...even more than admitting you participated in that youthful "sporting event," the Golden Gloves!

Post a comment