Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNFT19FC7K.DTL

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNFT19FC7K.DTL

A quote, "President Obama, meanwhile, has said don't worry, the plan
"will be paid for."

Here's the problem. For too many questions, the answer is, "Obama said
so." Obama lies. Even you liberals know that, but you condone it by
saying, "Bush lied".

Obama should not be used for any statements. The appropriate sections
of the act should be quoted.
--
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

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNFT19FC7K.DTL

A quote, "President Obama, meanwhile, has said don't worry, the plan
"will be paid for."

Here's the problem. For too many questions, the answer is, "Obama said
so." Obama lies. Even you liberals know that, but you condone it by
saying, "Bush lied".

Obama should not be used for any statements. The appropriate sections
of the act should be quoted.

yeah, remember Obama said "we are by that now, we are looking forward"
in reference to the rebirth of the new investigation of the CIA.. Just
because they have to deflect for Pelosi who lied to congress about
them.... snerk

--
Wafa free since 2009

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNFT19FC7K.DTL

A quote, "President Obama, meanwhile, has said don't worry, the plan
"will be paid for."

Here's the problem. For too many questions, the answer is, "Obama said
so." Obama lies. Even you liberals know that, but you condone it by
saying, "Bush lied".

Obama should not be used for any statements. The appropriate sections
of the act should be quoted.
--
John H

Of course, just as I suspected from you! What about the rest of the article?

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNFT19FC7K.DTL
A quote, "President Obama, meanwhile, has said don't worry, the plan
"will be paid for."

Here's the problem. For too many questions, the answer is, "Obama said
so." Obama lies. Even you liberals know that, but you condone it by
saying, "Bush lied".

Obama should not be used for any statements. The appropriate sections
of the act should be quoted.

yeah, remember Obama said "we are by that now, we are looking forward"
in reference to the rebirth of the new investigation of the CIA.. Just
because they have to deflect for Pelosi who lied to congress about
them.... snerk


spin, spin spin.....

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

On Aug 31, 3:33*pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...8/31/MNFT19FC7....

A quote, "President Obama, meanwhile, has said don't worry, the plan
"will be paid for."

Here's the problem. For too many questions, the answer is, "Obama said
so." Obama lies. Even you liberals know that, but you condone it by
saying, "Bush lied".

Obama should not be used for any statements. The appropriate sections
of the act should be quoted.
--


how did bush say he was gonna pay for the iraq war?

how did the GOP say they were gonna pay for the tax cuts for the
wealthy?

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:20:48 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 31, 3:33*pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...8/31/MNFT19FC7...

A quote, "President Obama, meanwhile, has said don't worry, the plan
"will be paid for."

Here's the problem. For too many questions, the answer is, "Obama said
so." Obama lies. Even you liberals know that, but you condone it by
saying, "Bush lied".

Obama should not be used for any statements. The appropriate sections
of the act should be quoted.
--


how did bush say he was gonna pay for the iraq war?

how did the GOP say they were gonna pay for the tax cuts for the
wealthy?

More 'Bush Rationale' which has nothing to do with the Obamacare Act.
--
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

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Indeed - lets talk pesky facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082502734.html

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...te-house-deal/

The model for Obama care.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/ar..._in_cou ntry/

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...h_insuran ce/

Did we mention rationing?

http://www.californiahealthline.org/...e-Efforts.aspx

However, to be fair, here's your side of the issue.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...he_massac.html

Then there are the facts.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...ilblazing-its-

But let's not stop there - another "obamacare" type system.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/i...nce_rates.html

Did we talk about death panels yet?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

And of course, the best one of all - gambling for health care.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334813,00.html

Facts are pesky indeed.

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:37:15 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Indeed - lets talk pesky facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082502734.html

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...te-house-deal/

The model for Obama care.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/ar..._in_cou ntry/

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...h_insuran ce/

Did we mention rationing?

http://www.californiahealthline.org/...e-Efforts.aspx

However, to be fair, here's your side of the issue.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...he_massac.html

Then there are the facts.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...ilblazing-its-

But let's not stop there - another "obamacare" type system.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/i...nce_rates.html

Did we talk about death panels yet?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

And of course, the best one of all - gambling for health care.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334813,00.html

Facts are pesky indeed.

Shame on you. They're not 'death panels', they're 'end of life'
panels. Any astute individual could figure out that 'end of life' has
absolutely nothing to do with death.
--
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

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

On Aug 31, 5:02*pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:20:48 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:



On Aug 31, 3:33*pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...8/31/MNFT19FC7...

A quote, "President Obama, meanwhile, has said don't worry, the plan
"will be paid for."

Here's the problem. For too many questions, the answer is, "Obama said
so." Obama lies. Even you liberals know that, but you condone it by
saying, "Bush lied".

Obama should not be used for any statements. The appropriate sections
of the act should be quoted.
--

how did bush say he was gonna pay for the iraq war?

how did the GOP say they were gonna pay for the tax cuts for the
wealthy?

More 'Bush Rationale' which has nothing to do with the Obamacare Act.
--

uh...no. a comparison is being made between policies of the GOP which
benefit the top 1% and those of the democrats which benefit the middle
class

those who are sycophants of the rich hate the middle class and want
them to be held in poverty...think mexico.

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


Did we talk about death panels yet?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1


Not to worry; they'll only be set up to visit cantankerous old fart
conservatives.

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

wf3h wrote:
On Aug 31, 3:33 pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...8/31/MNFT19FC7...
A quote, "President Obama, meanwhile, has said don't worry, the plan
"will be paid for."

Here's the problem. For too many questions, the answer is, "Obama said
so." Obama lies. Even you liberals know that, but you condone it by
saying, "Bush lied".

Obama should not be used for any statements. The appropriate sections
of the act should be quoted.
--


how did bush say he was gonna pay for the iraq war?

how did the GOP say they were gonna pay for the tax cuts for the
wealthy?


On the tax cuts, Bush said "It's YOUR money!" A surplus seems to be
more than the so called "conservatives" can handle.

If they were actual conservatives they would pay off the debt and then
save money for a rainy day.

Conservatives in name only are selfish and don't plan ahead. Think only
of the immediate minute and want it all for themselves.

On the war, it's a mystery why those same "conservatives" were silent on
paying for a war on the credit card.

A true conservative should believe in paying the bills, not avoiding
them and letting someone else pay. Which is what they would accuse a
"liberal" of.

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNFT19FC7K.DTL

A quote, "President Obama, meanwhile, has said don't worry, the plan
"will be paid for."

Here's the problem. For too many questions, the answer is, "Obama said
so." Obama lies. Even you liberals know that, but you condone it by
saying, "Bush lied".

Obama should not be used for any statements. The appropriate sections
of the act should be quoted.
--
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

The guy I referred to in an earlier post, a former evangelical religious
leader, Frank Schaeffer, wrote an op-ed article which I assume appears
in many newspapers today, on exactly this subject.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,6001884.story

He really seems to be beside himself in grief for what he helped create,
the right wing religious argument.

He helped create it by realizing how to manipulate people with strong
beliefs, based in emotion.

It will be interesting to follow this guy and see how he tries to undo
the foolishness he helped create. The foolishness Palin and John H love
to spread.

Get out your old right wing literature and see who wrote it. He's now
sorry for what he helped start.

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:27:15 -0700, Jim wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On Aug 31, 3:33 pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...8/31/MNFT19FC7...
A quote, "President Obama, meanwhile, has said don't worry, the plan
"will be paid for."

Here's the problem. For too many questions, the answer is, "Obama said
so." Obama lies. Even you liberals know that, but you condone it by
saying, "Bush lied".

Obama should not be used for any statements. The appropriate sections
of the act should be quoted.
--


how did bush say he was gonna pay for the iraq war?

how did the GOP say they were gonna pay for the tax cuts for the
wealthy?


On the tax cuts, Bush said "It's YOUR money!" A surplus seems to be
more than the so called "conservatives" can handle.


There has never been a "surplus." What the country enjoyed at one
time was a projected budget surplus, and the country can thank
Gingrich's Contract with America for pushing the legislative bodies in
that direction. Tax cuts are an effort to revitalize the economy
through the economic exercise of supply-side economics. Supply-side
economics or Reaganomics in part are what led to the Long Boom.

"More revolutionary was the contract's related proposal: a
constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget."

CONTRACT WITH AMERICA
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437701121.html

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

On Aug 31, 9:11*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:27:15 -0700, Jim wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 31, 3:33 pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...8/31/MNFT19FC7...
A quote, "President Obama, meanwhile, has said don't worry, the plan
"will be paid for."

Here's the problem. For too many questions, the answer is, "Obama said
so." Obama lies. Even you liberals know that, but you condone it by
saying, "Bush lied".

Obama should not be used for any statements. The appropriate sections
of the act should be quoted.
--

how did bush say he was gonna pay for the iraq war?

how did the GOP say they were gonna pay for the tax cuts for the
wealthy?

On the tax cuts, Bush said "It's YOUR money!" *A surplus seems to be
more than the so called "conservatives" can handle.

There has never been a "surplus." *What the country enjoyed at one
time was a projected budget surplus, and the country can thank
Gingrich's Contract with America for pushing the legislative bodies in
that direction. *Tax cuts are an effort to revitalize the economy
through the economic exercise of supply-side economics. *Supply-side
economics or Reaganomics in part are what led to the Long Boom.

uh...no. the 2 biggest deficit spenders in history were reagan and gw
bush. neither could say no to the rich

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:31:50 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 31, 9:11*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:27:15 -0700, Jim wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 31, 3:33 pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...8/31/MNFT19FC7...
A quote, "President Obama, meanwhile, has said don't worry, the plan
"will be paid for."

Here's the problem. For too many questions, the answer is, "Obama said
so." Obama lies. Even you liberals know that, but you condone it by
saying, "Bush lied".

Obama should not be used for any statements. The appropriate sections
of the act should be quoted.
--

how did bush say he was gonna pay for the iraq war?

how did the GOP say they were gonna pay for the tax cuts for the
wealthy?

On the tax cuts, Bush said "It's YOUR money!" *A surplus seems to be
more than the so called "conservatives" can handle.

There has never been a "surplus." *What the country enjoyed at one
time was a projected budget surplus, and the country can thank
Gingrich's Contract with America for pushing the legislative bodies in
that direction. *Tax cuts are an effort to revitalize the economy
through the economic exercise of supply-side economics. *Supply-side
economics or Reaganomics in part are what led to the Long Boom.

uh...no. the 2 biggest deficit spenders in history were reagan and gw
bush. neither could say no to the rich

I have enjoyed your reply to my comment on the Contract with America
with its emphasis on a balanced budget amendment, and I found your
response to the distinction on federal budget surplus' compelling.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:27:15 -0700, Jim wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On Aug 31, 3:33 pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...8/31/MNFT19FC7...
A quote, "President Obama, meanwhile, has said don't worry, the plan
"will be paid for."

Here's the problem. For too many questions, the answer is, "Obama said
so." Obama lies. Even you liberals know that, but you condone it by
saying, "Bush lied".

Obama should not be used for any statements. The appropriate sections
of the act should be quoted.
--

how did bush say he was gonna pay for the iraq war?

how did the GOP say they were gonna pay for the tax cuts for the
wealthy?

On the tax cuts, Bush said "It's YOUR money!" A surplus seems to be
more than the so called "conservatives" can handle.


There has never been a "surplus." What the country enjoyed at one
time was a projected budget surplus, and the country can thank
Gingrich's Contract with America for pushing the legislative bodies in
that direction. Tax cuts are an effort to revitalize the economy
through the economic exercise of supply-side economics. Supply-side
economics or Reaganomics in part are what led to the Long Boom.

"More revolutionary was the contract's related proposal: a
constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget."

CONTRACT WITH AMERICA
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437701121.html

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Good explanation of the surplus:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aGqLx61MRY6w

And then, there's this, which fits right into your explanation:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1091621AAQVd1h

So, what happened to the "Contract with America?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America

What allowed Bush to treat the federal budget like his personal
playground, to invite all his supporters to a share of the treasury?


Please explain.

While I'm waiting, I'll offer this explanation:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051024/borosage

In fairness, the budget surplus was due to both parties cooperating. It
only took one party a few months to undue the surplus. Which one was that?

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

In article ,
says...

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNFT19FC7K.DTL
A quote, "President Obama, meanwhile, has said don't worry, the plan
"will be paid for."

Here's the problem. For too many questions, the answer is, "Obama said
so." Obama lies. Even you liberals know that, but you condone it by
saying, "Bush lied".

Obama should not be used for any statements. The appropriate sections
of the act should be quoted.

yeah, remember Obama said "we are by that now, we are looking forward"
in reference to the rebirth of the new investigation of the CIA.. Just
because they have to deflect for Pelosi who lied to congress about
them.... snerk


spin, spin spin.....

Spin ****ing nothing.. He said he was by it, now he is back to it, what
there is spin??

--
Wafa free since 2009

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:56:50 -0700, Jim wrote:

deleted for the good of a sound polemic

In fairness, the budget surplus was due to both parties cooperating. It
only took one party a few months to undue the surplus. Which one was that?

Any reasonable debate will not be enhanced by citing cynical, biased
pieces written by partisans.

There has never been a "surplus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

"Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the
Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly reported value of
$75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791. Over the following 45 years, the
debt grew, briefly contracted to zero on January 8, 1835 under
President Andrew Jackson but then quickly grew into the millions
again."

Another question; What body politic in the American republic approves
and appropriates all spending?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:22:39 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:56:50 -0700, Jim wrote:

In fairness, the budget surplus was due to both parties cooperating. It
only took one party a few months to undue the surplus. Which one was
that?

Any reasonable debate will not be enhanced by citing cynical, biased
pieces written by partisans.

There has never been a "surplus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Not true. You can have a *budget* surplus and still have debt. Bush did
inherit a $128 billion surplus.

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:22:39 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:56:50 -0700, Jim wrote:

In fairness, the budget surplus was due to both parties cooperating. It
only took one party a few months to undue the surplus. Which one was
that?
Any reasonable debate will not be enhanced by citing cynical, biased
pieces written by partisans.

There has never been a "surplus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Not true. You can have a *budget* surplus and still have debt. Bush did
inherit a $128 billion surplus.


According to the Repubs here, it just isn't *fair* to keep bringing up
Bush as if he were responsible for the messes Obama inherited.

I mean, just because Bush was the worst president in the history of this
country, and screwed up just about everything he touched, and did so
over eight years, he's been out of office for months now.

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:00:22 -0400, H K
wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:22:39 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:56:50 -0700, Jim wrote:

In fairness, the budget surplus was due to both parties cooperating. It
only took one party a few months to undue the surplus. Which one was
that?
Any reasonable debate will not be enhanced by citing cynical, biased
pieces written by partisans.

There has never been a "surplus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Not true. You can have a *budget* surplus and still have debt. Bush did
inherit a $128 billion surplus.


According to the Repubs here, it just isn't *fair* to keep bringing up
Bush as if he were responsible for the messes Obama inherited.

I mean, just because Bush was the worst president in the history of this
country, and screwed up just about everything he touched, and did so
over eight years, he's been out of office for months now.

A bit over 7 months now.
And thus far no terrorist attacks on the Homeland.
If Obama keeps us safe for 11 more days he'll prove he's a better man
at protecting the citizens of the United States of America from
massive terrorist attack during the first year in office than was GWB.
Then we go from there to other record settings, for good or bad.
I'm keeping score.

--Vic

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

wf3h wrote:
On Aug 31, 9:11 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:27:15 -0700, Jim wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 31, 3:33 pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...8/31/MNFT19FC7...
A quote, "President Obama, meanwhile, has said don't worry, the plan
"will be paid for."
Here's the problem. For too many questions, the answer is, "Obama said
so." Obama lies. Even you liberals know that, but you condone it by
saying, "Bush lied".
Obama should not be used for any statements. The appropriate sections
of the act should be quoted.
--
how did bush say he was gonna pay for the iraq war?
how did the GOP say they were gonna pay for the tax cuts for the
wealthy?
On the tax cuts, Bush said "It's YOUR money!" A surplus seems to be
more than the so called "conservatives" can handle.
There has never been a "surplus." What the country enjoyed at one
time was a projected budget surplus, and the country can thank
Gingrich's Contract with America for pushing the legislative bodies in
that direction. Tax cuts are an effort to revitalize the economy
through the economic exercise of supply-side economics. Supply-side
economics or Reaganomics in part are what led to the Long Boom.

uh...no. the 2 biggest deficit spenders in history were reagan and gw
bush. neither could say no to the rich

President Bush's deficit was about 250 to 300 Billion dollars. In the
first 8 months of the obama administration, the democrats have spent
750 billion in the first two months and now obama has a deficit of
nearly 1 trillion, projected to go to 2 trillion by the end of the year.
This is projected to go to 10 trillion dollars in the next 10 years,
unless the nationalized health insurance passes and the tax and cap tax.
Cost of health insurance is unknown, but based on history of social
welfare programs will be many times any projections.

I don't have the figures for President Reagan, but based on inflation in
the past 20 years they were no where near the numbers that are being run
up by obama.

I believe that the problems the Social Security Insurance System is
having today, are the results of the democrats taking the SSI money for
the general fund in the 50's or 60's.

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:00:22 -0400, H K wrote:


Not true. You can have a *budget* surplus and still have debt. Bush
did inherit a $128 billion surplus.


According to the Repubs here, it just isn't *fair* to keep bringing up
Bush as if he were responsible for the messes Obama inherited.

Being pretty much a fiscal conservative, I definitely don't like the
level of debt we have. 60% GDP seems pretty scary to me, but we are not
alone. Canada, Germany, France, all have a slightly higher percentage,
but what I find astounding is Japan, 170% GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:00:22 -0400, H K
wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:22:39 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:56:50 -0700, Jim wrote:
In fairness, the budget surplus was due to both parties cooperating. It
only took one party a few months to undue the surplus. Which one was
that?
Any reasonable debate will not be enhanced by citing cynical, biased
pieces written by partisans.

There has never been a "surplus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Not true. You can have a *budget* surplus and still have debt. Bush did
inherit a $128 billion surplus.

According to the Repubs here, it just isn't *fair* to keep bringing up
Bush as if he were responsible for the messes Obama inherited.

I mean, just because Bush was the worst president in the history of this
country, and screwed up just about everything he touched, and did so
over eight years, he's been out of office for months now.

A bit over 7 months now.
And thus far no terrorist attacks on the Homeland.
If Obama keeps us safe for 11 more days he'll prove he's a better man
at protecting the citizens of the United States of America from
massive terrorist attack during the first year in office than was GWB.
Then we go from there to other record settings, for good or bad.
I'm keeping score.

Do you have a category on the most money spend in 1 month, 2 months, 3
months, ....

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:00:22 -0400, H K wrote:


Not true. You can have a *budget* surplus and still have debt. Bush
did inherit a $128 billion surplus.

According to the Repubs here, it just isn't *fair* to keep bringing up
Bush as if he were responsible for the messes Obama inherited.

Being pretty much a fiscal conservative, I definitely don't like the
level of debt we have. 60% GDP seems pretty scary to me, but we are not
alone. Canada, Germany, France, all have a slightly higher percentage,
but what I find astounding is Japan, 170% GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt


Much of the new debt is for cleaning up the messes Bush left behind via
nonfeasance, malfeasance, or misfeasance.

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:28:32 -0400, BAR wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:00:22 -0400, H K
wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:22:39 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:56:50 -0700, Jim wrote:
In fairness, the budget surplus was due to both parties cooperating. It
only took one party a few months to undue the surplus. Which one was
that?
Any reasonable debate will not be enhanced by citing cynical, biased
pieces written by partisans.

There has never been a "surplus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Not true. You can have a *budget* surplus and still have debt. Bush did
inherit a $128 billion surplus.

According to the Repubs here, it just isn't *fair* to keep bringing up
Bush as if he were responsible for the messes Obama inherited.

I mean, just because Bush was the worst president in the history of this
country, and screwed up just about everything he touched, and did so
over eight years, he's been out of office for months now.

A bit over 7 months now.
And thus far no terrorist attacks on the Homeland.
If Obama keeps us safe for 11 more days he'll prove he's a better man
at protecting the citizens of the United States of America from
massive terrorist attack during the first year in office than was GWB.
Then we go from there to other record settings, for good or bad.
I'm keeping score.

Do you have a category on the most money spend in 1 month, 2 months, 3
months, ....

You can handle the book keeping.
I'm more worried that Dick Cheney said we're less safe than when he
was in office. Since he was in office on 9/11/2001, it's a bit
concerning.
So I'm keeping my eye on how Obama protects us from terrorists.
Can't spend money or even pay taxes if you're dead.

--Vic

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:32:06 -0400, H the K wrote:


Being pretty much a fiscal conservative, I definitely don't like the
level of debt we have. 60% GDP seems pretty scary to me, but we are
not alone. Canada, Germany, France, all have a slightly higher
percentage, but what I find astounding is Japan, 170% GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt


Much of the new debt is for cleaning up the messes Bush left behind via
nonfeasance, malfeasance, or misfeasance.

Frankly, I don't blame Bush for the state of the economy. I think
Presidents get too much credit, and too much blame for economies. It is,
after all, a free market. However, I'm old school. There are two
reasons for deficit spending, to fight a war, and to fight a recession.
I give Obama credit for being bold in his dealing with the economic
collapse. Now that the economy is coming around, hopefully, Obama will
show himself to be a fiscal conservative.

Why Reagan, and the two Bushes were deficit spending, I can't say, but
bankrupting the government does tend to put social spending on hold.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:32:06 -0400, H the K wrote:


Being pretty much a fiscal conservative, I definitely don't like the
level of debt we have. 60% GDP seems pretty scary to me, but we are
not alone. Canada, Germany, France, all have a slightly higher
percentage, but what I find astounding is Japan, 170% GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt

Much of the new debt is for cleaning up the messes Bush left behind via
nonfeasance, malfeasance, or misfeasance.

Frankly, I don't blame Bush for the state of the economy. I think
Presidents get too much credit, and too much blame for economies. It is,
after all, a free market. However, I'm old school. There are two
reasons for deficit spending, to fight a war, and to fight a recession.
I give Obama credit for being bold in his dealing with the economic
collapse. Now that the economy is coming around, hopefully, Obama will
show himself to be a fiscal conservative.

Why Reagan, and the two Bushes were deficit spending, I can't say, but
bankrupting the government does tend to put social spending on hold.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


One of the goals of the Reagan admin was to put the kabash on "social"
spending. It succeeded.

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:28:32 -0400, BAR wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:00:22 -0400, H K
wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:22:39 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:56:50 -0700, Jim wrote:
In fairness, the budget surplus was due to both parties cooperating. It
only took one party a few months to undue the surplus. Which one was
that?
Any reasonable debate will not be enhanced by citing cynical, biased
pieces written by partisans.

There has never been a "surplus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Not true. You can have a *budget* surplus and still have debt. Bush did
inherit a $128 billion surplus.
According to the Repubs here, it just isn't *fair* to keep bringing up
Bush as if he were responsible for the messes Obama inherited.

I mean, just because Bush was the worst president in the history of this
country, and screwed up just about everything he touched, and did so
over eight years, he's been out of office for months now.
A bit over 7 months now.
And thus far no terrorist attacks on the Homeland.
If Obama keeps us safe for 11 more days he'll prove he's a better man
at protecting the citizens of the United States of America from
massive terrorist attack during the first year in office than was GWB.
Then we go from there to other record settings, for good or bad.
I'm keeping score.
Do you have a category on the most money spend in 1 month, 2 months, 3
months, ....

You can handle the book keeping.
I'm more worried that Dick Cheney said we're less safe than when he
was in office. Since he was in office on 9/11/2001, it's a bit
concerning.
So I'm keeping my eye on how Obama protects us from terrorists.
Can't spend money or even pay taxes if you're dead.

Contrary to popular belief you can pay taxes when you are dead. It is
called an estate tax or death tax.

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

H the K wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:00:22 -0400, H K wrote:


Not true. You can have a *budget* surplus and still have debt. Bush
did inherit a $128 billion surplus.

According to the Repubs here, it just isn't *fair* to keep bringing up
Bush as if he were responsible for the messes Obama inherited.

Being pretty much a fiscal conservative, I definitely don't like the
level of debt we have. 60% GDP seems pretty scary to me, but we are
not alone. Canada, Germany, France, all have a slightly higher
percentage, but what I find astounding is Japan, 170% GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt


Much of the new debt is for cleaning up the messes Bush left behind via
nonfeasance, malfeasance, or misfeasance.

Would somebody please give the record player a slight tap it is stuck in
the same groove again.

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:00:22 -0400, H K wrote:


Not true. You can have a *budget* surplus and still have debt. Bush
did inherit a $128 billion surplus.

According to the Repubs here, it just isn't *fair* to keep bringing up
Bush as if he were responsible for the messes Obama inherited.

Being pretty much a fiscal conservative, I definitely don't like the
level of debt we have. 60% GDP seems pretty scary to me, but we are
not alone. Canada, Germany, France, all have a slightly higher
percentage, but what I find astounding is Japan, 170% GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt


Much of the new debt is for cleaning up the messes Bush left behind
via nonfeasance, malfeasance, or misfeasance.

Would somebody please give the record player a slight tap it is stuck in
the same groove again.



Awwww. What's the matter, Bertie? You thought everyone would forget that
your boy Bush was the worst president ever, and that he royally screwed
this country?

Not a chance.

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:49:10 -0400, BAR wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:28:32 -0400, BAR wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:00:22 -0400, H K
wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:22:39 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:56:50 -0700, Jim wrote:
In fairness, the budget surplus was due to both parties cooperating. It
only took one party a few months to undue the surplus. Which one was
that?
Any reasonable debate will not be enhanced by citing cynical, biased
pieces written by partisans.

There has never been a "surplus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Not true. You can have a *budget* surplus and still have debt. Bush did
inherit a $128 billion surplus.
According to the Repubs here, it just isn't *fair* to keep bringing up
Bush as if he were responsible for the messes Obama inherited.

I mean, just because Bush was the worst president in the history of this
country, and screwed up just about everything he touched, and did so
over eight years, he's been out of office for months now.
A bit over 7 months now.
And thus far no terrorist attacks on the Homeland.
If Obama keeps us safe for 11 more days he'll prove he's a better man
at protecting the citizens of the United States of America from
massive terrorist attack during the first year in office than was GWB.
Then we go from there to other record settings, for good or bad.
I'm keeping score.
Do you have a category on the most money spend in 1 month, 2 months, 3
months, ....

You can handle the book keeping.
I'm more worried that Dick Cheney said we're less safe than when he
was in office. Since he was in office on 9/11/2001, it's a bit
concerning.
So I'm keeping my eye on how Obama protects us from terrorists.
Can't spend money or even pay taxes if you're dead.

Contrary to popular belief you can pay taxes when you are dead. It is
called an estate tax or death tax.

Yeah, I know about death taxes. And death panels. How could I not.
But it's a fact that dead folks don't pay taxes.
Unless they're exceptionally good zombies.
Never saw that happen personally, or heard any proof of it.

--Vic

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

H the K wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:32:06 -0400, H the K wrote:


Being pretty much a fiscal conservative, I definitely don't like the
level of debt we have. 60% GDP seems pretty scary to me, but we are
not alone. Canada, Germany, France, all have a slightly higher
percentage, but what I find astounding is Japan, 170% GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt

Much of the new debt is for cleaning up the messes Bush left behind via
nonfeasance, malfeasance, or misfeasance.

Frankly, I don't blame Bush for the state of the economy. I think
Presidents get too much credit, and too much blame for economies. It
is, after all, a free market. However, I'm old school. There are two
reasons for deficit spending, to fight a war, and to fight a
recession. I give Obama credit for being bold in his dealing with the
economic collapse. Now that the economy is coming around, hopefully,
Obama will show himself to be a fiscal conservative.

Why Reagan, and the two Bushes were deficit spending, I can't say, but
bankrupting the government does tend to put social spending on hold.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


One of the goals of the Reagan admin was to put the kabash on "social"
spending. It succeeded.

Something about difference between the words promoting and providing.

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:00:22 -0400, H K wrote:


Not true. You can have a *budget* surplus and still have debt. Bush
did inherit a $128 billion surplus.

According to the Repubs here, it just isn't *fair* to keep bringing up
Bush as if he were responsible for the messes Obama inherited.

Being pretty much a fiscal conservative, I definitely don't like the
level of debt we have. 60% GDP seems pretty scary to me, but we are
not alone. Canada, Germany, France, all have a slightly higher
percentage, but what I find astounding is Japan, 170% GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt


Much of the new debt is for cleaning up the messes Bush left behind
via nonfeasance, malfeasance, or misfeasance.

Would somebody please give the record player a slight tap it is stuck
in the same groove again.



Awwww. What's the matter, Bertie? You thought everyone would forget that
your boy Bush was the worst president ever, and that he royally screwed
this country?

Not a chance.

Everyone has long way to go before they can unseat Carter as the worst
president ever.

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 05:54:08 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:22:39 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:56:50 -0700, Jim wrote:

In fairness, the budget surplus was due to both parties cooperating. It
only took one party a few months to undue the surplus. Which one was
that?

Any reasonable debate will not be enhanced by citing cynical, biased
pieces written by partisans.

There has never been a "surplus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Not true. You can have a *budget* surplus and still have debt. Bush did
inherit a $128 billion surplus.

Not true? I will accept that if you can show me where I have stated
anything that is factually incorrect. Since I'm waging a war on
disingenuous semantics, you should also be able to show me where I
used the term "budget surplus." If you can do that, I may even be
willing to concede your "not true" indictment.

Still, just for a little bit of morning amusement, I'll proffer this;

"The only debt that matters is the total national debt. You can have a
surplus and a debt at the same time, but you can't have a surplus if
the amount of debt is going up each year. And the national debt went
up every single year under Clinton. Had Clinton really had a surplus
the national debt would have gone down. It didn't go down precisely
because Clinton had a deficit every single year. The U.S. Treasury's
historical record of the national debt verifies this.

A balanced budget or a budget surplus is a great thing, but it's only
relevant if the budget surplus turns into a real surplus at the end of
the fiscal year. In Clinton's case, it never did."

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:00:22 -0400, H K
wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:22:39 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:56:50 -0700, Jim wrote:

In fairness, the budget surplus was due to both parties cooperating. It
only took one party a few months to undue the surplus. Which one was
that?
Any reasonable debate will not be enhanced by citing cynical, biased
pieces written by partisans.

There has never been a "surplus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Not true. You can have a *budget* surplus and still have debt. Bush did
inherit a $128 billion surplus.


According to the Repubs here, it just isn't *fair* to keep bringing up
Bush as if he were responsible for the messes Obama inherited.

I mean, just because Bush was the worst president in the history of this
country, and screwed up just about everything he touched, and did so
over eight years, he's been out of office for months now.

A bit over 7 months now.
And thus far no terrorist attacks on the Homeland.
If Obama keeps us safe for 11 more days he'll prove he's a better man
at protecting the citizens of the United States of America from
massive terrorist attack during the first year in office than was GWB.
Then we go from there to other record settings, for good or bad.
I'm keeping score.

--Vic


Holy ****! That is the 88888888 thing you have ever said.. Fact is,
BinLaden didn't start planning 911 on Jan 20, 01 and you know it...
Please don't step into W3fhs' mold of bumper sticker mentality.

--
Wafa free since 2009

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Indeed - lets talk pesky facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082502734.html

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...te-house-deal/

The model for Obama care.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/ar..._in_cou ntry/

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...h_insuran ce/

Did we mention rationing?

http://www.californiahealthline.org/...e-Efforts.aspx

However, to be fair, here's your side of the issue.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...he_massac.html

Then there are the facts.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...ilblazing-its-

But let's not stop there - another "obamacare" type system.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/i...nce_rates.html

Did we talk about death panels yet?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

And of course, the best one of all - gambling for health care.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334813,00.html

Facts are pesky indeed.

You've done a VERY good job at what John would probably describe as
Obama derangement syndrome and have also done well at avoiding
mentioning anything about the lies that the conservatives are dishing
out about health care reform.

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:37:15 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Indeed - lets talk pesky facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082502734.html

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...te-house-deal/

The model for Obama care.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/ar..._in_cou ntry/

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...h_insuran ce/

Did we mention rationing?

http://www.californiahealthline.org/...e-Efforts.aspx

However, to be fair, here's your side of the issue.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...he_massac.html

Then there are the facts.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...ilblazing-its-

But let's not stop there - another "obamacare" type system.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/i...nce_rates.html

Did we talk about death panels yet?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

And of course, the best one of all - gambling for health care.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334813,00.html

Facts are pesky indeed.

Shame on you. They're not 'death panels', they're 'end of life'
panels. Any astute individual could figure out that 'end of life' has
absolutely nothing to do with death.
--
John H


Just remember, we also want to eat your babies. Right after we kill the
elderly.

Those pesky facts again about healthcare
 

Gene wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNFT19FC7K.DTL

If we are going to have socialized medicine, why reinvent the wheel?
Let's just put everybody under the VA administration for health care
and, from what most of you folks say, everybody should be happy....

Why wouldn't that work?

I'm guessing it would be acceptable to many here if it weren't for the
fact that there's a liberal in office.