"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"JLH" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:00:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

There's no excuse. Just because one person does something horrible, that
doesn't make it ok for others.



Well...I guess we won't be hearing any more of the 'Bush Rationale'.

Loogy, w3fh, jps, Harry,---- are you watching? Ole plum guy made a
great point.
--
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


Not sure what you mean by the Bush Rationale, since Bush's "rationale" was
based on a twisted notion of religion mixed with failed economics and
fear-stoking actions.

If you'd like to debate things that Obama has done or not done that are
good or not good for the country, and you're willing to actually cite
verifiable facts, there's room for discussion. There are plenty of facts
from Bush's 8 years worthy of debate, including some things that might be
construed as "good" for America (in my opinion of course). A quick example
is the African AIDS program (except for the insertion of "abstinance"
requirements). There are a plethora of facts/decisions he and his admin
made that were terrible (my opinion and the demonstrable results)... no
need to repeat them, as I'm sure we're all familar with them.

Bush was in power for almost a decade. Obama has been in power for 3/4 of
a year. It's kind of hard to equate the two in any rational way.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Would doing the math on the deficit and spending count?

Steve

"SteveB" wrote in message
news
Bush was in power for almost a decade. Obama has been in power for 3/4 of
a year. It's kind of hard to equate the two in any rational way.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Would doing the math on the deficit and spending count?

Steve

Sure. They count. It's worth having a discussion about how to pay for what
we need/want. It's actually pretty hard to do the math, since there are so
many different ways of adding things up. In the past, many of the costs were
hidden and/or pulled out of the budget, for example.

It's easy to say, we're running huge deficits and spending tons of money
without examining why and what we might get out of it. For example, if you
want to claim (falsely I believe) that FDR's social programs were not what
got us out of the Depression, then what did? Some say, with some
justification that massive military spending as a prelude to WWII did it.
Yet, it was gov't spending that did it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
news
Bush was in power for almost a decade. Obama has been in power for 3/4
of a year. It's kind of hard to equate the two in any rational way.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Would doing the math on the deficit and spending count?

Steve

Sure. They count. It's worth having a discussion about how to pay for what
we need/want. It's actually pretty hard to do the math, since there are so
many different ways of adding things up. In the past, many of the costs
were hidden and/or pulled out of the budget, for example.

It's easy to say, we're running huge deficits and spending tons of money
without examining why and what we might get out of it. For example, if you
want to claim (falsely I believe) that FDR's social programs were not what
got us out of the Depression, then what did? Some say, with some
justification that massive military spending as a prelude to WWII did it.
Yet, it was gov't spending that did it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Wow. With our debt quadrupling every year, I see a dark and stormy night on
the horizon. But I guess it's like Shopaholic Suzie .......... I got checks
and the bank has money. What's the problem. How do you suggest we get the
current crew up there to examine spending and see how we might get out of
it?

Steve

"SteveB" wrote in message
news
Sure. They count. It's worth having a discussion about how to pay for
what we need/want. It's actually pretty hard to do the math, since there
are so many different ways of adding things up. In the past, many of the
costs were hidden and/or pulled out of the budget, for example.

It's easy to say, we're running huge deficits and spending tons of money
without examining why and what we might get out of it. For example, if
you want to claim (falsely I believe) that FDR's social programs were not
what got us out of the Depression, then what did? Some say, with some
justification that massive military spending as a prelude to WWII did it.
Yet, it was gov't spending that did it.
Wow. With our debt quadrupling every year, I see a dark and stormy night
on the horizon. But I guess it's like Shopaholic Suzie .......... I got
checks and the bank has money. What's the problem. How do you suggest we
get the current crew up there to examine spending and see how we might get
out of it?


Our debt accumulating every year... A dark and stormy night... perhaps. I
guess we could go back to no gov't involvement, but I don't think anyone
with any intelligence is really suggesting that. The Dark Ages weren't all
that comfy, as I recall from the history books. I don't mind paying for
things I might not use directly. I am my brother's keeper. Who would Jesus
not cover with health insurance? Didn't He take the side of the poor, and
wasn't He against the money changers? Or, was He for big business, and
anything-goes capitalism?

I think that the "crew" is acutely aware of the issues you raise... growing
debt and potentional financial disaster. Heck, the boys in charge in the
last administration knew they had to do something.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
news
Sure. They count. It's worth having a discussion about how to pay for
what we need/want. It's actually pretty hard to do the math, since there
are so many different ways of adding things up. In the past, many of the
costs were hidden and/or pulled out of the budget, for example.

It's easy to say, we're running huge deficits and spending tons of money
without examining why and what we might get out of it. For example, if
you want to claim (falsely I believe) that FDR's social programs were
not what got us out of the Depression, then what did? Some say, with
some justification that massive military spending as a prelude to WWII
did it. Yet, it was gov't spending that did it.
Wow. With our debt quadrupling every year, I see a dark and stormy night
on the horizon. But I guess it's like Shopaholic Suzie .......... I got
checks and the bank has money. What's the problem. How do you suggest
we get the current crew up there to examine spending and see how we might
get out of it?


Our debt accumulating every year... A dark and stormy night... perhaps. I
guess we could go back to no gov't involvement, but I don't think anyone
with any intelligence is really suggesting that. The Dark Ages weren't all
that comfy, as I recall from the history books. I don't mind paying for
things I might not use directly. I am my brother's keeper. Who would Jesus
not cover with health insurance? Didn't He take the side of the poor, and
wasn't He against the money changers? Or, was He for big business, and
anything-goes capitalism?

I think that the "crew" is acutely aware of the issues you raise...
growing debt and potentional financial disaster. Heck, the boys in charge
in the last administration knew they had to do something.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I have been a registered libertarian all my voting life. I guess I'm one of
those who doesn't have any real intelligence because I think government's
role should be minimal as stated in the Constitution. Now they have taken
"regulate commerce" to mean any time a dollar changes hands in the us, they
want their juice. And to get into all things and businesses that they
should have never been allowed to incrementally infest.

The boys on the hill know what's up. Always have. They just want their
cut, and to bring some back to the pack, like wild dogs. It's just now that
there's a feeding frenzy as the trough dries up to plunder whatever is left,
and that is getting thin.


steve

"SteveB" wrote in message
...
Our debt accumulating every year... A dark and stormy night... perhaps. I
guess we could go back to no gov't involvement, but I don't think anyone
with any intelligence is really suggesting that. The Dark Ages weren't
all that comfy, as I recall from the history books. I don't mind paying
for things I might not use directly. I am my brother's keeper. Who would
Jesus not cover with health insurance? Didn't He take the side of the
poor, and wasn't He against the money changers? Or, was He for big
business, and anything-goes capitalism?

I think that the "crew" is acutely aware of the issues you raise...
growing debt and potentional financial disaster. Heck, the boys in charge
in the last administration knew they had to do something.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I have been a registered libertarian all my voting life. I guess I'm one
of those who doesn't have any real intelligence because I think
government's role should be minimal as stated in the Constitution. Now
they have taken "regulate commerce" to mean any time a dollar changes
hands in the us, they want their juice. And to get into all things and
businesses that they should have never been allowed to incrementally
infest.

There are almost always situations of over-regulation. Unfortunately, lack
of regulation can and has been a huge problem, because of the abuses that
have been inflicted upon people. You can go back to feudal times if
necessary to find examples, but one really doesn't have to go back in time
very far if given half a thought. Unions, for example, were a direct result
of management deliberately exploiting people in horrible conditions for no
other reason than greed (aka one one of the deadly sins). Polluting the
environment is another example. It's easy to "blame" gov't for
over-regulation, and there's some merit to it, but removing gov't (by the
people for the people, promote the common good) isn't even close to the
solution. Intelligent gov't is the answer.

The healthcare situation in this country is a great example. We profess to
have "the best healthcare in the world." I hear this all the time, yet we
don't live as long, have as good outcomes, and we have worse infant
mortality rates than the other "rich" countries. And, we spend far more. Is
this in the best interest, for the public good? I hear, "Don't insure
illegal immigrants!" Yet, we do insure them when they show up in our ERs,
the most expensive time. And, it's not just illegals that are showing up in
ERs. There are nearly 50M Americans with no insurance. They can't afford it,
so they wait until the problem is critical. Then, we all get to pay. This
isn't right for them or fair to us. Yet a little bit of prevention, of being
able to see a doc early, would solve a lot of this. We have a vast
population of under-insured. When a catastrophy strikes, they become
destitute, perhaps forced into bankruptcy or their life-savings is wiped
out. Both of these situations cause increased economic stress for everyone.
I could go on, but I'm running out of ink. lol

The boys on the hill know what's up. Always have. They just want their
cut, and to bring some back to the pack, like wild dogs. It's just now
that there's a feeding frenzy as the trough dries up to plunder whatever
is left, and that is getting thin.

Mostly correct. Of course, this is on both sides of the isle. I don't know
what the solution is beside voting them out when it gets out of control.
This is easier said than done.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
Our debt accumulating every year... A dark and stormy night... perhaps.
I guess we could go back to no gov't involvement, but I don't think
anyone with any intelligence is really suggesting that. The Dark Ages
weren't all that comfy, as I recall from the history books. I don't mind
paying for things I might not use directly. I am my brother's keeper.
Who would Jesus not cover with health insurance? Didn't He take the side
of the poor, and wasn't He against the money changers? Or, was He for
big business, and anything-goes capitalism?

I think that the "crew" is acutely aware of the issues you raise...
growing debt and potentional financial disaster. Heck, the boys in
charge in the last administration knew they had to do something.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I have been a registered libertarian all my voting life. I guess I'm one
of those who doesn't have any real intelligence because I think
government's role should be minimal as stated in the Constitution. Now
they have taken "regulate commerce" to mean any time a dollar changes
hands in the us, they want their juice. And to get into all things and
businesses that they should have never been allowed to incrementally
infest.

There are almost always situations of over-regulation. Unfortunately, lack
of regulation can and has been a huge problem, because of the abuses that
have been inflicted upon people. You can go back to feudal times if
necessary to find examples, but one really doesn't have to go back in time
very far if given half a thought. Unions, for example, were a direct
result of management deliberately exploiting people in horrible conditions
for no other reason than greed (aka one one of the deadly sins). Polluting
the environment is another example. It's easy to "blame" gov't for
over-regulation, and there's some merit to it, but removing gov't (by the
people for the people, promote the common good) isn't even close to the
solution. Intelligent gov't is the answer.

The healthcare situation in this country is a great example. We profess to
have "the best healthcare in the world." I hear this all the time, yet we
don't live as long, have as good outcomes, and we have worse infant
mortality rates than the other "rich" countries. And, we spend far more.
Is this in the best interest, for the public good? I hear, "Don't insure
illegal immigrants!" Yet, we do insure them when they show up in our ERs,
the most expensive time. And, it's not just illegals that are showing up
in ERs. There are nearly 50M Americans with no insurance. They can't
afford it, so they wait until the problem is critical. Then, we all get to
pay. This isn't right for them or fair to us. Yet a little bit of
prevention, of being able to see a doc early, would solve a lot of this.
We have a vast population of under-insured. When a catastrophy strikes,
they become destitute, perhaps forced into bankruptcy or their
life-savings is wiped out. Both of these situations cause increased
economic stress for everyone. I could go on, but I'm running out of ink.
lol

The boys on the hill know what's up. Always have. They just want their
cut, and to bring some back to the pack, like wild dogs. It's just now
that there's a feeding frenzy as the trough dries up to plunder whatever
is left, and that is getting thin.

Mostly correct. Of course, this is on both sides of the isle. I don't know
what the solution is beside voting them out when it gets out of control.
This is easier said than done.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Why do we look like two EMTs arguing over the best color for latex gloves
when our patient is laying in front of us bleeding out?

Steve

In article ,
says...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"JLH" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:00:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

There's no excuse. Just because one person does something horrible, that
doesn't make it ok for others.



Well...I guess we won't be hearing any more of the 'Bush Rationale'.

Loogy, w3fh, jps, Harry,---- are you watching? Ole plum guy made a
great point.
--
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


Not sure what you mean by the Bush Rationale, since Bush's "rationale" was
based on a twisted notion of religion mixed with failed economics and
fear-stoking actions.

If you'd like to debate things that Obama has done or not done that are
good or not good for the country, and you're willing to actually cite
verifiable facts, there's room for discussion. There are plenty of facts
from Bush's 8 years worthy of debate, including some things that might be
construed as "good" for America (in my opinion of course). A quick example
is the African AIDS program (except for the insertion of "abstinance"
requirements). There are a plethora of facts/decisions he and his admin
made that were terrible (my opinion and the demonstrable results)... no
need to repeat them, as I'm sure we're all familar with them.

Bush was in power for almost a decade. Obama has been in power for 3/4 of
a year. It's kind of hard to equate the two in any rational way.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Would doing the math on the deficit and spending count?

Steve

Math will be ignored. Numbers are too hard to ignore...

--
Wafa free since 2009