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.
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > [log in to unmask]
> > Come visit my new store!
> > http://www.cafepress.com/TamarMag
> > visit my Blog at;
> > http://tamarmag-newsletters.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
> > > [Original Message]
> > > From: Anthony Arnold <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Date: 3/24/2006 5:19:03 PM
> > > Subject: Re: FW: was dental question   now iraq
> > war.
> > >
> > > I don't know what we're currently trying Hussein
> > and his brother for, but
> > > they had no involvement in September 11th, so why
> > are we over there
> > besides
> > > to take our frustration out on somebody.  But on
> > the other hand, if I
> > would
> > > become the president tomorrow, I wouldn't pull out
> > immediately as some
> > would
> > > like to see, I would personally like to fix what
> > my country has done.
> > It's
> > > like if I accidentally dropped a cigarette on
> > somebody's carpet and it
> > burns
> > > a hole, I would feel oppogated to replace their
> > carpet, no matter what.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Anthony
> > > Visit my website at www.anthonyarnold.net
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Cerebral Palsy List
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> > > Kendall David Corbett
> > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:49 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: FW: was dental question now iraq war.
> > >
> > > Ken,
> > >
> > > Whether the Iraqis are better off is a tough call;
> > they may (or may not,
> > > some would argue) have greater civil liberties,
> > but their lives may be
> > > in greater immediate danger than they were under
> > Hussein. =20
> > >
> > > On the opposite side of that coin, many would
> > argue that we in the US
> > > are safer, but have had our civil liberties
> > eroded.  It was said in the
> > > immediate post 9/11 period that the terrorists
> > wanted to destroy the
> > > American (read US) way of life, and they have made
> > a start toward that,
> > > IMHO.
> > >
> > > As I read UN Resolution 1441, it doesn't
> > explicitly give member states
> > > of the UN permission to undertake unilateral
> > military action against
> > > Iraq.  That does seem to be permissible under UN
> > resolutions 678 and
> > > 687, which were signed in 1990 and 1991,
> > respectively. =20
> > >
> > > My point is that the armed forces presently
> > engaged as coalition
> > > partners do not wear UN uniforms, and as such are
> > not formally
> > > recognized as UN forces.
> > >
> > > Kendall=20
> > >
> > > An unreasonable man (but my wife says that's
> > redundant!)
> > >
> > > The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
> > the unreasonable one
> > > persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
> > Therefore, all
> > > progress depends on the unreasonable man.
> > >
> > > -George Bernard Shaw 1856-1950
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ken barber [mailto:[log in to unmask]]=20
> > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: FW: was dental question now iraq war.
> > >
> > >   actually resolution 1441 passed without desent,
> > but,
> > > then when it got time to actually follow through,
> > then
> > > the germans, french, and russians backpeddled and
> > > would not follow through. 1441 gave any member
> > nation
> > > the right to enforce it. the u.s. and the brits
> > with a
> > > few more did exactly that.=20
> > >   it appears that the intelligence worldwide was
> > wrong
> > > on lagre amounts of weapons of mass destruction
> > unless
> > > you believe that ranking iragi general that says
> > they
> > > flew them to syria. the media is ignoring him. i'd
> > > guess some of you have heard nothing about him up
> > to
> > > just this email. but, either way i'll ask the
> > > question. do you think iragis are better off now
> > than
> > > before the invasion? your honest answer should
> > pretty
> > > well tell you if the war is right or wrong. don't
> > > wealsel out, they are either better off without
> > saddam
> > > or they were better off with him.=20
> > >
> > > --- Kendall David Corbett <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Let me send this again, so the link stays
> > intact!
> > > >=20
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Kendall David Corbett
> > > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]=20
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:59 PM
> > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > Subject: Re: dental question
> > > >=20
> > > > Anthony,
> > > >=20
> > > > President Bush tried to get UN approval for the
> > war
> > > > in Iraq, and was
> > > > turned down.  He then formed a coalition of
> > partner
> > > > nations for the war,
> > > > which included the US, England, Australia,
> > Canada,
> > > > and a few others that
> > > > I can't recall right now.
> > > >=20
> > > > This is a link to an article in the Washington
> > Post
> > > > from August of 2002
> > > > that talks about members of the present
> > President
> > > > Bush's administration
> > > > saying that the President didn't even need
> > > > Congressional approval for
> > > > the present Iraq war, since Congress had
> > approved
> > > > the use of military
> > > > force in 1991 when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and the
> > > > Kuwaiti government made
> > > > a formal request for help.
> > > >=20
> > > >
> > >
> >
>www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61040-2002Aug25?language=3Dprinter
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > Kendall=20
> > > >=20
> > > > An unreasonable man (but my wife says that's
> > > > redundant!)
> > > >=20
> > > > The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
> > the
> > > > unreasonable one
> > > > persists in trying to adapt the world to
> > himself.
> >
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com