Comments on: Fed: Bold Moves Won't Stop Economic Woes
Central Bank Fears Longterm Rut Despite Slashing Interest Rates And Vowing Other Radical Measures
Add a Comment See all 99 Comments
- And so WHY are we not allowed to comment on this article?
Posted by erasmus606 at 10:42 PM : Jan 06, 2009
Oh, that one isn''''t SUPPOSED to have comments.
I''''ve noticed more and more of those. Including the Michael Connell article. VERY strange.
Posted by txgrouch2008 at 10:50 PM : Jan 06, 2009
I''m thinking when they do that, it''s because they don''t want people commenting for some reason. Probably because people start saying BAD things. I have seen it where they will start by letting people comment and then all of a sudden the comments are gone and you can no longer comment on the story. - Reply to this comment
- Posted by erasmus606 at 10:53 PM : Jan 06, 2009
You still here? - Reply to this comment
- No, I''''m talking about over ONE HUNDRED YEARS of history, from the Constitution up to 1913. We had NO INCOME TAX. We had TARIFFS.
Posted by txgrouch2008 at 09:46 PM : Jan 06, 2009
I''m with ya, but don''t deny what you said. - Reply to this comment
- WHY is it so important for you to comment?
What were you going to say?
Posted by txgrouch2008 at 10:45 PM : Jan 06, 2009
Now would I laugh at something like that?
NO. This is very serious.
"The husband jumped out of bed and knocked over the bottle of alcohol, causing the fire to spread and resulting in 1 million Australian dollars ($711,000) of damage to their town house..."
I just want to know what the heck he was thinking. All he had to do was take the blankets and suffocate the fire. - Reply to this comment
- The economy? It''s like dragging a car out of a lake after Bush and Cheney have dumped it there after a drunken joy ride for the last 8 years. It''s wrecked!
- Reply to this comment
- In 1913, we switched from tariffs to INCOME TAX.
In 1929, the economy COLLAPSED.
Posted by txgrouch2008 at 10:39 PM : Jan 06, 2009
And that is 16 years. If it was because of the income tax, wouldn''t it have collapsed before then? - Reply to this comment
- I don''''''''t think I would say that there was no income tax until 1913
Posted by FLSunJnky at 10:38 PM : Jan 06, 2009
GRIN! Check CAREFULLY. I NEVER say that.
Posted by txgrouch2008 at 10:40 PM : Jan 06, 2009
I told you you were manipulative. - Reply to this comment
- "Man Dies After Having ***** Set On Fire"
And so WHY are we not allowed to comment on this article? - Reply to this comment
- That''s true txgrouch2008, but I don''t think I would say that there was no income tax until 1913, because even if it was short lived, it just makes it look like you haven''t done your research, which apparently you have.
- Reply to this comment
- I just checked. The one-man crowd is STILL trying to have a conversation with himself.
Posted by txgrouch2008 at 10:23 PM : Jan 06, 2009
Someone else has just added their 2 cents worth.:) - Reply to this comment
- It should be brought to taxpayers attention that our elected representatives have produced and directed a situation where they have not the slightest idea as to how to "fix it".They have created a side show (circus) by throwing billions of dollars out the window with no measurable results.Plan 2:try trillions to see if that works.Plan 3:keep promising everyone everything. Exit plan,in two years allow the Republicans to win both houses,now blame them.
- Reply to this comment
- And it was under a Republican president too.
- Reply to this comment
- "from the Constitution up to 1913. We had NO INCOME TAX."
Posted by txgrouch200
Congress enacted the nation''s first income tax law in 1862. - Reply to this comment
- hi william
- Reply to this comment
- txgrouch said "I''''''''''''''''m not a woman."
You are not a man either!~ A hermaprodite maybe?
Posted by remrafbn at 10:00 PM : Jan 06, 2009
HAHAHAHAHA!
:( Sorry, grouchie.:)
Posted by erasmus606 at 10:03 PM : Jan 06, 2009
Hahahaha - Reply to this comment
- I wonder whether Barack''s being so insistent about getting 80 votes in the Senate because he thinks the stimulus is basically going to be a dud . . . because it''s not like the bank bailout where there was a big divide between popular sentiment and the powers that be - popularity isn''t an issue here, right?
Like Barack basically dangled a carrot of business tax cuts in front of the Repubs and because they''re greedy they took the bait, but in return didn''t they basically trade off the ability to criticize if say we get in a situation of stagflation?
Barack doesn''t like confrontation and drama, so he''d never think waging battle with Repubs would be the way to revise trade relationships, right? Like wouldn''t he have to show that all the old-fashioned ideas sucked before all the powerful people were primed for considering new ideas?
I hope that''s his plan . . . I think it is - something like that anyways (?) - Reply to this comment
- Who? Who doesn''''t think you''''re the most fascinating and enchanting person in the whole wide world?
Posted by txgrouch2008 at 09:49 PM : Jan 06, 2009
Hahaha. Now you are being sarcastic. - Reply to this comment
- Someone probably did, but I have a sneaking hunch you don''''''''t listen very well.:)
Posted by erasmus606 at 09:42 PM : Jan 06, 2009
How did you know that?
Posted by txgrouch2008 at 09:44 PM : Jan 06, 2009
Just a really, really, WILD guess. - Reply to this comment
- I jumped to this one because the other one disappeared. Not only that, there isn''''''''t anyone there!
Posted by erasmus606 at 09:39 PM : Jan 06, 2009
I can still see it. Maybe now they''''re shutting YOU out.
Posted by txgrouch2008 at 09:42 PM : Jan 06, 2009
I meant it disappeared off the front and when I went to it, the only one there was....?... I forget his name. - Reply to this comment
- *(except for you, erasmus, you''''re nice) :0)
Posted by stinginrich at 09:39 PM : Jan 06, 2009
Ahhh, that''s nice.:) BUT, there are SOME that don''t think so. - Reply to this comment
