> Now that Generalissimo George Bush has pushed through his "stimulus
> package" -- basically, shuffling around 1%% of our annual GDP from the
> government's coffers to the hot hands of tax-paying individuals -- we
> must ask ourselves what effect, exactly, this is likely to have. As I
> speak, the stock market is up 200 ooints on the cheering news that
> Warren Buffet -- the richest professional investor in the world -- is,
> not surprisingingly, willing to put up his substantial forturne to try
> to prevent the bond market from collapsing completely.
> Simultaneously, major auto makers and Swiss banks are announcing
> massive corporate losses.
>
> Now, the problem with the world economy is, of course, that there are
> no markets left, there are no consumers left, because the wealth has
> become too concentrated in the hands of too few individuals, largely
> through the efforts of neoconservative loons like Generalissimo Bush.
> So, how likely is it that shuffling around 1%% of our GDP is likely to
> significantly change this state of affairs? Not very, I would
> submit. Nor can Warren Buffet, on his own, stem the tide for long. ...

> "Jerry Kraus" yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fffc99e7-b54f-4acc-945e-bcebd768ad6d@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>

>> Now that Generalissimo George Bush has pushed through his "stimulus
>> package" -- basically, shuffling around 1%% of our annual GDP from the
>> government's coffers to the hot hands of tax-paying individuals -- we
>> must ask ourselves what effect, exactly, this is likely to have.  As I
>> speak, the stock market is up 200 ooints on the cheering news that
>> Warren Buffet -- the richest professional investor in the world -- is,
>> not surprisingingly, willing to put up his substantial forturne to try
>> to prevent the bond market from collapsing completely.
>> Simultaneously, major auto makers and Swiss banks are announcing
>> massive corporate losses.

> ...

> Now that Generalissimo George Bush has pushed through his "stimulus
> package" -- basically, shuffling around 1%% of our annual GDP from the
> government's coffers to the hot hands of tax-paying individuals -- we
> must ask ourselves what effect, exactly, this is likely to have.  As I
> speak, the stock market is up 200 ooints on the cheering news that
> Warren Buffet -- the richest professional investor in the world -- is,
> not surprisingingly, willing to put up his substantial forturne to try
> to prevent the bond market from collapsing completely.
> Simultaneously, major auto makers and Swiss banks are announcing
> massive corporate losses.
>
> Now, the problem with the world economy is, of course, that there are
> no markets left, there are no consumers left, because the wealth has
> become too concentrated in the hands of too few individuals, largely
> through the efforts of neoconservative loons like Generalissimo Bush.
> So, how likely is it that shuffling around 1%% of our GDP is likely to
> significantly change this state of affairs?  Not very, I would
> submit.  Nor can Warren Buffet, on his own, stem the tide for long.
> Although, he may be Wall Street's greatest hero, and his efforts may ...

> On Feb 12, 10:28 am, Jerry Kraus yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> Now that Generalissimo George Bush has pushed through his "stimulus
>> package" -- basically, shuffling around 1%% of our annual GDP from the
>> government's coffers to the hot hands of tax-paying individuals -- we
>> must ask ourselves what effect, exactly, this is likely to have.  As I
>> speak, the stock market is up 200 ooints on the cheering news that
>> Warren Buffet -- the richest professional investor in the world -- is,
>> not surprisingingly, willing to put up his substantial forturne to try
>> to prevent the bond market from collapsing completely.
>> Simultaneously, major auto makers and Swiss banks are announcing
>> massive corporate losses.

>

>> Now, the problem with the world economy is, of course, that there are
>> no markets left, there are no consumers left, because the wealth has ...

> I would suggest, however, another approach. There are 8 million
> millionaires in the United States, currently. Eight million
> millionaires, and 290 million poor people.

> Wouldn't it make some sense to redistribute some, or all,

> of the ill gotten gains of these worthless parasites

> Think of the wealth...

> The possibilities are endless.

> "Jerry Kraus" yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fffc99e7-b54f-4acc-945e-bcebd768ad6d@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com...
>

>> I would suggest, however, another approach.  There are 8 million
>> millionaires in the United States, currently.  Eight million
>> millionaires, and 290 million poor people.

>
> Hahahahahahah!!!
>

>> Wouldn't it make some sense to redistribute some, or all,

>
> Nope.
>

>> of the ill gotten gains of these worthless parasites

>
> If people who work hard make money are "worthless parasites" what are people
> who don't work hard and make less?
> ...

> Your suggestion was tried by the Soviet Union, and we know how well that
> turned out.

> Taylor wrote:

>> Your suggestion was tried by the Soviet Union, and we know how well that
>> turned out.

>
> Actually his proposal is quite the opposite. What Soviet Union did was to
> steal all the wealth from rich, middle and poor and concentrate it into the
> hand on one man: the dictator.
>
> Many naives believe in pathetic communist propaganda that the wealth
> was "common good" in communism. Nothing more wrong.
>
> The ownership relation require the ability to control your property. When
> you own something in common with another person, you negotiate how to
> handle the common good. If more persons are involved in common ownership,
> then the common practise is to vote delegates to negotiate and control it
> for you. Therefore, the whole notion of common ownership REQUIRE an 100%%
> functional democracy.
> ...

> On Feb 12, 2:44 pm, Osiris88 gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Feb 12, 8:28 am, Jerry Kraus yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>> Now that Generalissimo George Bush has pushed through his "stimulus
>>> package" -- basically, shuffling around 1%% of our annual GDP from the
>>> government's coffers to the hot hands of tax-paying individuals -- we
>>> must ask ourselves what effect, exactly, this is likely to have.  As I
>>> speak, the stock market is up 200 ooints on the cheering news that
>>> Warren Buffet -- the richest professional investor in the world -- is,
>>> not surprisingingly, willing to put up his substantial forturne to try
>>> to prevent the bond market from collapsing completely.
>>> Simultaneously, major auto makers and Swiss banks are announcing
>>> massive corporate losses.

> ...