"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:25:41 -0500, "John Passaneau"
wrote:
it's wall street
that forces management to live for the next quarter and expects
un-reasonable results that is the problem.

Hi John,

Actually the driving force of that focus is called the economic
policy. In other words, for years the Republican party has been
intoning its mantra that taxing dividends (Capital Gains) is a bad
thing. What is left is to trade shares in the expectation of their
price rise (which is the strategy you describe above). So let's put
the blame where it belongs, on the Administration and the current
power in the House and Senate.
Talk about gutless losers.

good stuff sniped

What significant packages are being hefted onto the table? Cut
Medicare is being muttered. That will fix Hospital costs. What about
fixing the $Trillion loss of Social Security? Easy, spend $Trillion
for a new system, and -um- another $Trillion to keep the old system
going. The new system will bring the boon of half the benefits (a new
form of math that revealed in the numbers above used to be called cost
inflation). What pathetic, gutless, losers.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard

Your right of course, but I'm not sure who is leading who in this case. I
can't tell Wall Street or the administration apart. It gets me is so many
that are being or will be hurt by the current administration, are so sure it
will not happen to them that they still vote for the current administration.
I like the headline in an European paper when Bush was reelected, "How could
250000 people be so stupid" or something close to that, I ask myself the
same thing.


--
John Passaneau, W3JXP
Penn State University

"John Passaneau" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:25:41 -0500, "John Passaneau"
wrote:
I like the headline in an European paper when Bush was reelected, "How
could
250000 people be so stupid" or something close to that, I ask myself the
same thing.


Probably they meant 250,000,000 (our approximate national population) rather
than 250,000. They were wrong again, as usual.
Total votes cast were approx 114,000,000 Since we were split so evenly,
politically, there were only half the total that were stupid and that gets
it down to approx. 57,000,000. Unfortunately, we probably won't be able to
agree on which half was the stupid half.

HWB

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:55:38 -0600, "Harold Burton"
wrote:


"John Passaneau" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:25:41 -0500, "John Passaneau"
wrote:
I like the headline in an European paper when Bush was reelected, "How
could
250000 people be so stupid" or something close to that, I ask myself the
same thing.


Probably they meant 250,000,000 (our approximate national population) rather
than 250,000. They were wrong again, as usual.
Total votes cast were approx 114,000,000 Since we were split so evenly,
politically, there were only half the total that were stupid and that gets
it down to approx. 57,000,000. Unfortunately, we probably won't be able to
agree on which half was the stupid half.

HWB


I believe it was a British paper, "How can 59-million people be so
dumb?"

Well, just check the folks who show up at Bush's so-called Town Hall
Meetings. Amazing...

bob
k5qwg

Bob Miller wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:55:38 -0600, "Harold Burton"
wrote:


"John Passaneau" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:25:41 -0500, "John Passaneau"
wrote:

I like the headline in an European paper when Bush was reelected, "How
could
250000 people be so stupid" or something close to that, I ask myself the
same thing.



Probably they meant 250,000,000 (our approximate national population) rather
than 250,000. They were wrong again, as usual.
Total votes cast were approx 114,000,000 Since we were split so evenly,
politically, there were only half the total that were stupid and that gets
it down to approx. 57,000,000. Unfortunately, we probably won't be able to
agree on which half was the stupid half.

HWB



I believe it was a British paper, "How can 59-million people be so
dumb?"

Well, just check the folks who show up at Bush's so-called Town Hall
Meetings. Amazing...

bob
k5qwg



Actually, the problem is that people think the "other side" that
disagrees with them is stupid. No, they disagree, often for very good
reasons.

The people who are stupid, or at least ignorant, are the ones who think
that there is no room for disagreement.

tom
K0TAR