Homestead mailing list

[Clansgian AT wmconnect.com]

>>  The state ended up sucking it up and being the 
> one footing most of the bill.  

Right there!  That's the big problem that tanked Caleefoahniah and it is 
exactly the paradigm the federal government is following.  Like California, 
Obama 
is managing to turn hard times into a full blown disaster.


> 
> >I figure if we owe nothing, no matter what he does we'll be o.k.

This is the beginning of all wisdom.  Owe nothing, and especially (underline, 
asterisks, highlighted) owe nothing to the government.  Whatever you owe now, 
"agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way ...."


James





> 
> I do wish the voters had actually gone out and done their homework!  Now 
> all 
> I can do is light some candles, burn a smudge and hope to whom or whatever 
> that the Chinese don't call the loans due!
> 
> I never thougth I'd say it but I think we have actually gone from the 
> frying 
> pan into the fire!  Dumbya had our grandchildren and great-grands in debt. 
> This circus is going to have 7 generations in debt OR MORE!
> 
> Lynda
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "EarthNSky" <erthnsky AT bellsouth.net>
> 
> 
> > Lynda, you are probably the best person to judge this..
> > Why do you think California is in such bad economic shape?
> > I heard a commentary tonight that suggested that the reason California
> > is way over budget is because of their social programs and education
> > spending.  Would you agree with this?
> > The point that was made is that President Obama wants us to follow a
> > model that is basically the same as the California plan-a recipe for
> > economic disaster.  What say ye on this?
> >
> > I keep seeing the same Barack Obama as I saw during the campaign.  He is
> > still trying to be a great salesman, and America bought it...but what
> > have we bought into....I still don't know what his plans are for
> > healthcare, education, or energy independence.  I also don't have a clue
> > as to how he intends to deal with the banking/housing crisis.  I keep
> > hearing how he is going to 'lay it out' or that he has 'laid it out' but
> > I really don't see anything there.  I heard he is going to have meetings
> > on how to reform healthcare.  ?????  What the ????  Meetings?
> >
> > I recall in 1992, Bill and Hillary put healthcare reform at the top of
> > their agenda.  I'm glad that I did not hold my breath then.  I'm not
> > holding my breath now.  Obama is supposed to be a great intellectual
> > President, but what can he do in "meetings" now that wasn't done in
> > "meetings" for the last 17 years?  Am I supposed to believe that he will
> > magically have the answer?  Was the answer buried in the latest
> > 'stimulus' bill-the one no one read, the one with made up numbers?
> > I've heard all the promises.  I'm listening respectfully.  I'm ready to
> > sacrifice and do my part in the recovery of the country.  I know it
> > won't be pretty.  I'm hopeful that positive change will happen.  BUT,
> > Obama needs to have a plan with substance, and I haven't seen that yet.
> >
> > What I did see today was surprising.  Sen. Byrd, a Democrat, publicly
> > questioned President Obama on all of his new appointments, saying that
> > the White House/Executive branch was gaining too much power without
> > appropriate checks and balances.
> > Good point there.
> > I also saw a chink in the armor of the love affair the media has had
> > with our President.  More outlets were reporting less than positive
> > reviews of last nights speech.  Questions are being raised.  Satire is
> > rampant.
> > It just seems to me that President Obama is a good poker player.  He's
> > confident and shows no fear when he has a bad hand.  He's great at the
> > bluff, but when push comes to shove, he quietly folds and starts talking
> > up the next deal.  He risks very little and plays a conservative hand,
> > people like his style and personality, so he remains in the game.
> >
> >> Well, tomorrow Teflon takes on the rich . . . at the expense of the
> >> poor.
> >>
> >> Can someone please tell me how putting a cap on tax deductions to
> >> charitible organizations is going to hurt the rich OR make them pay
> >> their "fair share of taxes"?  WHO is going to be hurt by this?  The
> >> rich?  HELL NO!
> >
> > On the news tonight, I heard a commentator state that if we took the
> > entire incomes of all the people who make over 250K a year, it still
> > would not be enough to pay for all the spending that has been discussed
> > and approved so far.  I don't know if that is true, but it does raise
> > the questions of how much more can we take and where WILL the money come
> > from?
>