not hard to see why its unofficial. 

--- Linda Walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> http://prorev.com/thingstodo.htm
> 
> Progressive Review
> SINCE 1964, WASHINGTON'S MOST UNOFFICIAL SOURCE
> 
> 
> THINGS TO DO
> IN THE BAD TIMES
> by Sam Smith
> 
> GETTING THROUGH THE BAD TIMES
> 
> this is part of this lengthy article
> 
> DON'T LET THE RIGHT REWRITE HISTORY
> 
> Since well over half of the country haven't ever
> seen
> a liberal president in office, and since the media
> has
> generally bought the GOP line on progressive
> politics
> it is important to remember what life would be like
> if
> it hadn't been for liberals in the White House.
> 
> People who complain about liberals are like the man
> from Virginia who went to college on the GI Bill and
> bought his first house with a VA loan. When a
> hurricane struck he got federal disaster aid. When
> he
> got sick he was treated at a veteran's hospital.
> When
> he was laid off he received unemployment insurance
> and
> then got a SBA loan to start his own business. His
> bank funds were protected under federal deposit
> insurance laws. Now he's retired and on social
> security and Medicare. The other day he got into his
> car, drove the federal interstate to the railroad
> station, took Amtrak to Washington and went to
> Capitol
> Hill to ask his congressman to get the government
> off
> his back.
> 
> Here are a just a few of the things America would be
> without were it not for liberals in the White House:
> 
> - Regulation of banks and stock brokerage firms
> cheating their customers
> - Protection of your bank account
> - Social Security
> - A minimum wage
> - Legal alcohol
> - Regulation of the stock exchanges
> - Right of labor to bargain with employers
> - Soil Conservation Service and other early
> environmental programs
> - National parks and monuments such as Death Valley,
> Blue Ridge, Everglades, Boulder Dam, Bull Run,
> Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, Mount Rushmore, Jackson
> Hole, Grand Teton, Cape Cod, Fire Island, and San
> Juan
> Islands just to name a few.
> - Tennessee Valley Authority
> - Rural electrification
> - College educations for innumerable veterans
> - Housing loans for innumerable veterans
> - FHA housing loans
> - The bulk of hospital beds in the country
> - Unemployment insurance
> - Small Business Administration
> - National Endowment for the Arts
> - Medicare
> - Peace Corps
> 
> ROBERT S. MCELVAINE, HISTORY NEWS NETWORK - There
> are
> certain things that everyone knows. The rich get
> richer faster during Republican administrations.
> Such
> self-evident "facts" are accepted without reference
> to
> evidence. Yet there is evidence available against
> which to test the belief, which most rich people
> seem
> to accept as an article of faith, that Republican
> administrations are better for the rich.
> 
> United States Census Bureau data on mean household
> income from the beginning of the Nixon
> Administration
> through 2002 (the last year for which these data are
> currently available) show that this almost
> universally
> held belief is simply, almost spectacularly, wrong.
> During that period, Republicans held the White House
> for 22 years and Democrats for 12 years. In constant
> 2002 dollars, the average annual gain in income by
> the
> richest five percent of American households under
> Republicans (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the two
> Bushes)
> was $1706. Under Democrats (Carter and Clinton), the
> richest five percent saw their income rise by an
> annual average of $6,921.
> 
> The startling bottom line is that over the last
> three-plus decades the income of the richest
> Americans
> has risen at a rate four times faster under
> Democrats
> than under Republicans.
> 
> Above that bottom line are other findings that
> should
> be sobering to wealthy Americans intoxicated by the
> ideology and tax cuts preached and practiced by
> Republicans. A few examples:
> 
> - All of the comparatively small cumulative gain in
> income by the rich under Republicans came during the
> Reagan years. Under the other four Republican
> administrations since 1969, the richest five percent
> of households lost an average of $444 per year.
> 
> In nine of the last 34 years, the income of the
> richest five percent declined. Eight of those nine
> years of loss for the rich came when a Republican
> was
> in the White House. The only year under a Democrat
> in
> which the richest Americans did not gain was the
> last
> year of Jimmy Carter's presidency, 1980.
> 
> - In the eight years under Clinton, the richest five
> percent gained an annual average of $10,241; in the
> six years so far calculated under the Bushes, the
> rich
> lost an annual average of $1999. It is true that the
> rich fared well during the Reagan years: an average
> annual gain of 3.6 percent with his huge tax cuts
> and
> massive deficits. Yet under Clinton, with his tax
> increase on upper income people (which Republicans
> insisted would cause economic ruin and against which
> every Republican in Congress voted) and ultimate
> balancing of the budget, the mean income of the rich
> increased at the significantly faster annual rate of
> 4.9 percent.
> 
> - A similar story emerges from a look at the stock
> market, usually seen as another benchmark of how the
> rich are faring. During the same administrations,
> from
> Nixon to the second Bush, the Dow has gained an
> annual
> average of 7.1 percent under Republican
> administrations and 11.1 percent under Democrats.
> 
> At 07:49 AM 3/25/2006, you wrote:
> >now mag, the definition of a lie is to tell
> something
> >that you know is not true at the time you tell it.
> >look it up.
> >   you guys who can't come up with anything but
> "bush
> >lied" just do not know how foolish you sound. i
> love
> >you, but, please, get past that tripe. bush as well
> as
> >all your derm senators and intelligence around the
> >world all said saddam had wmd. you do not say every
> >body lied, only "bush lied."
> >   the truth is that nobody lied about wmd, becouse
> not
> >a one of them knew that he did not have them and
> went
> >ahead and said he did.
> >    get past the foolishness and get something
> >substantial to say.
> >
> >--- Magenta Raine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > Saddam is being tried for the atrocities he
> > > perpetrated against the Kurds,
> > > and Iranians, as well as murdering some of his
> own
> > > people.
> > >
> > > Bush lying about weapons of mass destruction or
> > > Clinton lying about his
> > > affair; which  is worse?  I say bush's lies
> about
> > > wmd is worse because
> > > after they found no wmd, he made up several
> other
> > > stories about why we are
> > > there.
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com