And it's coming our way...
 

CalifBill wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 19:37:08 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
Obama could have stopped paying for Iraq in two weeks. Any future
costs are his baby.
--

You have to realize that those who like to claim a 2 trillion dollar cost
for the war in Iraq are using creative accounting techniques so suit their
agendas. So far it has cost about 640-650 billion. (not that that's
exactly chump change).

The 2 trillion is a "projected cost" of maintaining the military in combat
operations through 2019, a date that both Bush and Obama rejected.

What happens when you factor in the costs of medical care for
returning vets, and keeping their families afloat? Tack on another
Trillion, easily - not to mention the loss of a lot of thousands of
productive lives, who will now be using resources rather than creating
them. Maybe tack on 2 trillion.


A large part of the ending of FDR's depression was the millions of men
taken out of the 24% unemployment workforce and sent overseas to fight, At
about $60 a month.



FDR's depression?

Hehehe.

And it's coming our way...
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 08:04:42 -0400, John H
wrote:

Which is why it's such a shame to see one with your intellect and
understanding wasting his time with the likes of Krause. Krause isn't
interested in another's honest opinion. When presented with a decent
argument his response is name-calling or personal insults

Which is why the less said to, and about him, the better.

The answer is in the kill file. There is very little incentive to
respond to a post that you don't see.



*Funniest* post I've read in several weeks, one asshole advising another.

And it's coming our way...
 

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 19:37:08 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .

Obama could have stopped paying for Iraq in two weeks. Any future
costs are his baby.
--


You have to realize that those who like to claim a 2 trillion dollar cost
for the war in Iraq are using creative accounting techniques so suit their
agendas. So far it has cost about 640-650 billion. (not that that's
exactly chump change).

The 2 trillion is a "projected cost" of maintaining the military in combat
operations through 2019, a date that both Bush and Obama rejected.

If Obama exits Iraq in accordance with his new time table, it will be
generally in agreement with the timetable that Bush established during the
last four months of his administration.

Some things don't change.

Eisboch

Which is why it's such a shame to see one with your intellect and
understanding wasting his time with the likes of Krause. Krause isn't
interested in another's honest opinion. When presented with a decent
argument his response is name-calling or personal insults, both of
which you've recieved.

He will not engage in a head-to-head discussion, because his positions
(anti-Bush, anti-corp, anti-everything) are untenable. Just as the
liberals are deflecting the focus off the economy, by using Rush,
Harry deflects *any* argument getting close to home with his hate-Bush
or hate-corporation rhetoric.

Some things don't change.
--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

And it's coming our way...
 

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:55:54 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 19:37:08 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
...

Obama could have stopped paying for Iraq in two weeks. Any future
costs are his baby.
--


You have to realize that those who like to claim a 2 trillion dollar cost
for the war in Iraq are using creative accounting techniques so suit their
agendas. So far it has cost about 640-650 billion. (not that that's
exactly chump change).

The 2 trillion is a "projected cost" of maintaining the military in combat
operations through 2019, a date that both Bush and Obama rejected.


What happens when you factor in the costs of medical care for
returning vets, and keeping their families afloat? Tack on another
Trillion, easily - not to mention the loss of a lot of thousands of
productive lives, who will now be using resources rather than creating
them. Maybe tack on 2 trillion.


A large part of the ending of FDR's depression was the millions of men
taken out of the 24% unemployment workforce and sent overseas to fight, At
about $60 a month.


And by 1965 that had gone all the way up to $72 per month!
--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

And it's coming our way...
 

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:55:54 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:

sent overseas to fight, At
about $60 a month.

It was up to ninty in 1966.

Casady

And it's coming our way...
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:55:54 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 19:37:08 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
m...

Obama could have stopped paying for Iraq in two weeks. Any future
costs are his baby.
--


You have to realize that those who like to claim a 2 trillion dollar
cost
for the war in Iraq are using creative accounting techniques so suit
their
agendas. So far it has cost about 640-650 billion. (not that that's
exactly chump change).

The 2 trillion is a "projected cost" of maintaining the military in
combat
operations through 2019, a date that both Bush and Obama rejected.


What happens when you factor in the costs of medical care for
returning vets, and keeping their families afloat? Tack on another
Trillion, easily - not to mention the loss of a lot of thousands of
productive lives, who will now be using resources rather than creating
them. Maybe tack on 2 trillion.


A large part of the ending of FDR's depression was the millions of men
taken out of the 24% unemployment workforce and sent overseas to fight,
At
about $60 a month.


And by 1965 that had gone all the way up to $72 per month!
--
John H


....and you were grossly overpaid then!

And it's coming our way...
 

"Jim" wrote in message
m...
Canuck57 wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
m...
John H wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/br3c3a
--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas
Jefferson

Don't remember you complaining about Bush giving Wall Street bags of
money with no accountability.

Which is probably worse than socialism. Or maybe is what socialism
actually is.

I call it corrupt-socialism. The rouse is socialism to make it look like
it benefits the people, but lines the pockets of the corporate welfare
greed lines. Sort of like taxation endentured slavery of the masses
getting milked for the elite and aristocracy.
But it's so much fun accusing Democrats of being Socialists. You have to
be smart enough to know what some of the above words and concepts mean.

Not as fun and easy as yelling "Socialist!"

Agreed, I used it liberally in a broad scope. But none the less socialism
such as wealth-bailout distribution is a socialist concept. Take from those
that have done things right to provide to those who did not is socialism.

And it's coming our way...
 

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 08:04:42 -0400, John H
wrote:

Which is why it's such a shame to see one with your intellect and
understanding wasting his time with the likes of Krause. Krause isn't
interested in another's honest opinion. When presented with a decent
argument his response is name-calling or personal insults

Which is why the less said to, and about him, the better.

The answer is in the kill file. There is very little incentive to
respond to a post that you don't see.

And it's coming our way...
 

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Jim wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
m...
John H wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/br3c3a
--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas
Jefferson

Don't remember you complaining about Bush giving Wall Street bags of
money with no accountability.

Which is probably worse than socialism. Or maybe is what socialism
actually is.

I call it corrupt-socialism. The rouse is socialism to make it look
like it benefits the people, but lines the pockets of the corporate
welfare greed lines. Sort of like taxation endentured slavery of the
masses getting milked for the elite and aristocracy.

But it's so much fun accusing Democrats of being Socialists. You have to
be smart enough to know what some of the above words and concepts mean.

Not as fun and easy as yelling "Socialist!"


Survey sez 97.4% of righties have no idea what socialism is.

Neither do socialists. There is not one single successful true socialist
society ever! Even meak attempts fail outright, usually for two important
reasons. Corruption, you still have a aristocracy enslaving others by the
guise of socialism and persuit of power over others. Second is economic, no
one has figured out how to pay for it in a sustainable way.

Even lefties are hypocrits here.

And it's coming our way...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...
HK wrote:
Jim wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
m...
John H wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/br3c3a
--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas
Jefferson

Don't remember you complaining about Bush giving Wall Street bags of
money with no accountability.

Which is probably worse than socialism. Or maybe is what socialism
actually is.

I call it corrupt-socialism. The rouse is socialism to make it look
like it benefits the people, but lines the pockets of the corporate
welfare greed lines. Sort of like taxation endentured slavery of the
masses getting milked for the elite and aristocracy.

But it's so much fun accusing Democrats of being Socialists. You have
to be smart enough to know what some of the above words and concepts
mean.

Not as fun and easy as yelling "Socialist!"


Survey sez 97.4% of righties have no idea what socialism is.

Educate us. What is your definition of socialism?

HK probably doesn't know. You can get the academic definition on Wiki but I
prefer the practical definition.

Socialism: Idealistic concept of equal opportunity and wealth distribution
that overlooks the practical nature of mankind's ethics, greed and
economics. It removes the will of people to do better and contribute to
their best levels possible, as they are no longer rewarded for doing the
extra. But has appeal to those on the bottom half of society that have less
than the top half as it promises more wealth to them, usually via taxation.
While true socialism is destined never to succeed, the promise of
socialistic policies and taxation is often used by politicians to get votes
from the naive and gullable seeking a free easy lunch. Such a panacea of
socialistic policies always end up abused, broken promises and ultimate
failure. Socialism is the redistribution of wealth, not based on merit, but
wealth itself, it's archilies heal.