Delicious...
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:49:43 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:37:46 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:28:30 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 10/26/09 6:22 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:55:30 -0400, wrote:


Besides, that article has some other gems, such as the there's no
evidence the private insurers do any better with fraud than does
Medicare.


Did you see 60 Minutes tonight? They are talking about billions in
medicare fraud.

No, missed that. But see above. Maybe you missed it.
Somehow the Medicare fraud doesn't bother me as much after seeing
that.
After all, we're paying almost 10 times more to Aetna than to
Medicare.
So for every buck of mine going to a crook cheating Medicare, there's
nearly a sawbuck of mine going to the crook cheating Aetna.
Great system. Pretty equitable for the crooks percentage wise.
Lucky I can afford it. Good luck to those who can't.
They'll need it.

--Vic


Note that the medicare fraud on display in 60 minutes last night was not
being committed by the government, but by private-sector, for-profit
individuals.

Yep. Health care providers all.
Somebody's got to pay for that Mercedes.

--Vic

You missed the point. It's a government run system riddled with fraud.
Now the government is trying to institute a *bigger* government run
system, which will still be administered by individuals. You don't
think the fraud will increase likewise?

Nope, you're missing it. Maybe you missed where private insurance
companies are doing the Medicare billing, and that private health
insurance providers are committing the fraud.
BTW, I never saw anybody in the Navy caught or convicted of fraud, and
I bet you didn't tolerate financially scamming the public in your Army
career. Outside of letting a skater slide now and then.
Interestingly enough, I witnessed a couple accountants "disappearing"
while in private industry. Caught defrauding. Not prosecuted though,
because it "wouldn't look good." Gets hushed up.
And I wasn't even in a position to know the depth of those kind of
problems. Just friendly with a couple of those who did know.
Of course we know fraud happens in government.
We hardly know squat about what goes on in "private enterprise."

--Vic

Delicious...
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:24:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news:eb65e51msrrr45mfaoea21i9f5u5qfbpsb@4ax. com...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:37:36 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article
,
says...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?
Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting
mantra of
the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more
efficient
than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we
eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a single
payer
public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're
turning
into
a
Liberal.
Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for
profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that works,
than
pay
double for something that doesn't.
Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.
Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the time.
When it
was
Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the
chattering
class.
Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a recovery...

You really need to review the facts about the VA, for example,
before
you make statements like this. Check out the person who's in
charge
of
the VA.

There is a technical recovery in process. Jobs are still a
problem
and
will continue to be for quite a while. What's your point?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is
financials. And
they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed
is
tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook
is bad,
as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing
sales
increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the
Fed just
accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at
$500
million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull
back
10-15%
shortly. Put stops on your stocks.

Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't
said
anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof.

The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs are
created
and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services,
which
of
course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way
your
party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed
of
yourself for supporting The king and his court in their
underhanded
activities.


You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly.

http://www.recovery.gov


--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The government
spent
tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to their
cronies
on
Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money spent
in to
SBA
loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the
other
"investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created jobs.
Other
than
a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done anyway.
When
that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker.
Govenment
does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending.

Hank Paulson and George Bush got that ball rolling.

Goldman Sachs strikes again...

Hell, Bush was just continuing rolling the Clinton ball. Clinton and
his
administration caused the dot.com bubble, set the stage for the
housing
bubble and Bush just continuing the screw ups.

Oh yeah, it was Clinton who caused the bubble.

I don't think you want to know the reason why Bill. It was for lack
of regulation and control of the greedy assholes who run Wall Street.

When you give control of the economy to folks who'd have you investing
in tulip bulbs, you've given them too much control.

Deregulation was a Republican mantra that the Democrats bought. We
also bought supply side economics.

Both ideas suck and they're still trying to repackage them every time
we turn around.

Get a clue. Even if you have to pay for it. Clinton pushed for the
easy loans, named the first black leader of Fannie Mae. Franklin
Raines. Was Clinton Justice Department that made a deal to settle for
10 million and they dropped the fraud charges. He lied about FM's
profits while buying all the subprime loans and pocket $100 million in
bonus money. He should have had to pay back all the bonus money plus
all the costs of the investigation at the minimum and at the maximum,
spent time in the stony lonesome. Clinton led the subprime lending,
deregulation of Delimitative. Bush did not correct the problems and
kept Greenspan on as the Fed Man.

Just curious, but what does the color of skin have to do with whether or
not he acted inappropriately?

I think I know the answer, but do tell.
--
Nom=de=Plume


His color was brought up when he got the job. And he was probably
protected by the Executive branch for both being appointed by the branch,
and because of his color.

By whom? Seems to me, you just brought it up for no reason, unless you're
claiming you copied and pasted your paragraph from somewhere.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Do some basic research on Mr. Raines.

Delicious...
 

On 10/26/09 4:53 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:49:43 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:37:46 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:28:30 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 10/26/09 6:22 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:55:30 -0400, wrote:


Besides, that article has some other gems, such as the there's no
evidence the private insurers do any better with fraud than does
Medicare.


Did you see 60 Minutes tonight? They are talking about billions in
medicare fraud.

No, missed that. But see above. Maybe you missed it.
Somehow the Medicare fraud doesn't bother me as much after seeing
that.
After all, we're paying almost 10 times more to Aetna than to
Medicare.
So for every buck of mine going to a crook cheating Medicare, there's
nearly a sawbuck of mine going to the crook cheating Aetna.
Great system. Pretty equitable for the crooks percentage wise.
Lucky I can afford it. Good luck to those who can't.
They'll need it.

--Vic


Note that the medicare fraud on display in 60 minutes last night was not
being committed by the government, but by private-sector, for-profit
individuals.

Yep. Health care providers all.
Somebody's got to pay for that Mercedes.

--Vic

You missed the point. It's a government run system riddled with fraud.
Now the government is trying to institute a *bigger* government run
system, which will still be administered by individuals. You don't
think the fraud will increase likewise?

Nope, you're missing it. Maybe you missed where private insurance
companies are doing the Medicare billing, and that private health
insurance providers are committing the fraud.
BTW, I never saw anybody in the Navy caught or convicted of fraud, and
I bet you didn't tolerate financially scamming the public in your Army
career. Outside of letting a skater slide now and then.
Interestingly enough, I witnessed a couple accountants "disappearing"
while in private industry. Caught defrauding. Not prosecuted though,
because it "wouldn't look good." Gets hushed up.
And I wasn't even in a position to know the depth of those kind of
problems. Just friendly with a couple of those who did know.
Of course we know fraud happens in government.
We hardly know squat about what goes on in "private enterprise."

--Vic

Herring "thinks" that when private, for-profit contractors screw the
government, it is the government's fault. Probably a leftover from his
army days, when he looked the other way.

Delicious...
 

H the K wrote:
On 10/26/09 4:53 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:49:43 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:37:46 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:28:30 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 10/26/09 6:22 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:55:30 -0400, wrote:


Besides, that article has some other gems, such as the there's no
evidence the private insurers do any better with fraud than does
Medicare.


Did you see 60 Minutes tonight? They are talking about billions in
medicare fraud.

No, missed that. But see above. Maybe you missed it.
Somehow the Medicare fraud doesn't bother me as much after seeing
that.
After all, we're paying almost 10 times more to Aetna than to
Medicare.
So for every buck of mine going to a crook cheating Medicare, there's
nearly a sawbuck of mine going to the crook cheating Aetna.
Great system. Pretty equitable for the crooks percentage wise.
Lucky I can afford it. Good luck to those who can't.
They'll need it.

--Vic


Note that the medicare fraud on display in 60 minutes last night
was not
being committed by the government, but by private-sector, for-profit
individuals.

Yep. Health care providers all.
Somebody's got to pay for that Mercedes.

--Vic

You missed the point. It's a government run system riddled with fraud.
Now the government is trying to institute a *bigger* government run
system, which will still be administered by individuals. You don't
think the fraud will increase likewise?

Nope, you're missing it. Maybe you missed where private insurance
companies are doing the Medicare billing, and that private health
insurance providers are committing the fraud.
BTW, I never saw anybody in the Navy caught or convicted of fraud, and
I bet you didn't tolerate financially scamming the public in your Army
career. Outside of letting a skater slide now and then.
Interestingly enough, I witnessed a couple accountants "disappearing"
while in private industry. Caught defrauding. Not prosecuted though,
because it "wouldn't look good." Gets hushed up.
And I wasn't even in a position to know the depth of those kind of
problems. Just friendly with a couple of those who did know.
Of course we know fraud happens in government.
We hardly know squat about what goes on in "private enterprise."

--Vic

Herring "thinks" that when private, for-profit contractors screw the
government, it is the government's fault. Probably a leftover from his
army days, when he looked the other way.

The Govt. had the money. Then they didn't. Are you saying they got fleeced?

Delicious...
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:24:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news:eb65e51msrrr45mfaoea21i9f5u5qfbpsb@4ax .com...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:37:36 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article
,
says...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a
public
funded not for profit?
Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting
mantra of
the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more
efficient
than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we
eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a single
payer
public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're
turning
into
a
Liberal.
Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for
profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that
works, than
pay
double for something that doesn't.
Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.
Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the time.
When it
was
Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the
chattering
class.
Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a recovery...

You really need to review the facts about the VA, for
example,
before
you make statements like this. Check out the person who's in
charge
of
the VA.

There is a technical recovery in process. Jobs are still a
problem
and
will continue to be for quite a while. What's your point?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is
financials. And
they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed
is
tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook
is bad,
as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing
sales
increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the
Fed just
accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at
$500
million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull
back
10-15%
shortly. Put stops on your stocks.

Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't
said
anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof.

The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs
are
created
and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services,
which
of
course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way
your
party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed
of
yourself for supporting The king and his court in their
underhanded
activities.


You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly.

http://www.recovery.gov


--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The
government spent
tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to their
cronies
on
Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money spent
in to
SBA
loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the
other
"investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created jobs.
Other
than
a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done anyway.
When
that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker.
Govenment
does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending.

Hank Paulson and George Bush got that ball rolling.

Goldman Sachs strikes again...

Hell, Bush was just continuing rolling the Clinton ball. Clinton and
his
administration caused the dot.com bubble, set the stage for the
housing
bubble and Bush just continuing the screw ups.

Oh yeah, it was Clinton who caused the bubble.

I don't think you want to know the reason why Bill. It was for lack
of regulation and control of the greedy assholes who run Wall Street.

When you give control of the economy to folks who'd have you
investing
in tulip bulbs, you've given them too much control.

Deregulation was a Republican mantra that the Democrats bought. We
also bought supply side economics.

Both ideas suck and they're still trying to repackage them every time
we turn around.

Get a clue. Even if you have to pay for it. Clinton pushed for the
easy loans, named the first black leader of Fannie Mae. Franklin
Raines. Was Clinton Justice Department that made a deal to settle for
10 million and they dropped the fraud charges. He lied about FM's
profits while buying all the subprime loans and pocket $100 million in
bonus money. He should have had to pay back all the bonus money plus
all the costs of the investigation at the minimum and at the maximum,
spent time in the stony lonesome. Clinton led the subprime lending,
deregulation of Delimitative. Bush did not correct the problems and
kept Greenspan on as the Fed Man.

Just curious, but what does the color of skin have to do with whether
or not he acted inappropriately?

I think I know the answer, but do tell.
--
Nom=de=Plume


His color was brought up when he got the job. And he was probably
protected by the Executive branch for both being appointed by the
branch, and because of his color.

By whom? Seems to me, you just brought it up for no reason, unless you're
claiming you copied and pasted your paragraph from somewhere.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Do some basic research on Mr. Raines.

Let's just assume that he's a terrible, corrupt person. Ok, so what does the
color of his skin have to do with it? You mentioned it in your paragraph, so
I think you should answer the question.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Delicious...
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:49:43 -0400, John H.
wrote:

You missed the point. It's a government run system riddled with fraud.
Now the government is trying to institute a *bigger* government run
system, which will still be administered by individuals. You don't
think the fraud will increase likewise?

Perhaps we should come up with some 18th century punishment for
stealing from the government or 20th century communist punishment.

After all the Soviets knew what you had to do to maintain order in a
socialist society. 20 years of genuine hard labor might slow down
these medicare scammers.


No need. The Chinese figured it out.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Delicious...
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:40:40 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

And you're both most likely wrong. As I said, the article I posted
was what seemed like a pretty good examination of Medicare and the
private insurance industry. They said they could find no evidence
that there was less fraud in private insurance than there is in
Medicare.
What is the funding of Aetna anti-fraud?
Don't know, do you?
Well, why should you? After all, 60 minutes isn't doing features
about Aetna. Taxpayers aren't squawking about Aetna.
Furthermore, where is the competitive pressure that would force them
to address it? There's a sweet little oligopoly of health carriers
here, as in most states.
Fraud costs go up? Who cares, raise the premiums.
It's easy to live with mythical assumptions, but it's a lot more fun
to examine them.

Who wrote the article you read and what was the source? I am just
basing my opinion on the amount of denials you get from insurance
companies and the hoops you have to go through to get paid. That is
not the rubber stamp you have with Medicare.
I did just go through this with Aetna and I know they wanted to see
the referrals for everything I claimed . It sure wasn't anything like
that thing 60 minutes was talking about where a storefront with no
bona fides can simply send medicare a bill for something and get paid
in a few days.


Hmmm... the funding of Aetna anti-fraud is the profit motive? Makes sense.
Of course, they do everything for the profit motive, which is the problem.
That's why it takes multiple tries to get reimbursed. I don't have Aetna,
but it's the same story... send it in, wait, nothing, send it in, repeat.
It's obvious to me that neither completely for-profit nor completely
non-profit, gov't run is the answer to stamping out fraud. I believe in
competition, but I also believe in taking the fear and worry out of medical
expense issues.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Delicious...
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:24:19 -0400, wrote:


Who wrote the article you read and what was the source?

Not going there. One reason I bailed from any discussion of this is
depth is I'm just not going to repeat the same thing over and over.
Or argue when my links are disputed without being read.
It's in the thread. No hard feelings. Like I said, I can pay for my
insurance, and outside of mythbusting I'm not real interested right
now.

I am just
basing my opinion on the amount of denials you get from insurance
companies and the hoops you have to go through to get paid. That is
not the rubber stamp you have with Medicare.

I haven't ever been denied by my major carriers, except coding error
bull****. The provider bills, the insurer pays.
And I don't even normally see what is billed. Don't know if it's
double-billed, misbilled, or anything else. It just gets paid.
BTW, though the doc who did my recent colonoscopy said he removed 11
polyps, and will bill Aetna for that, he only took 4 pics and I can
only make out 3 polyps. But I'm not a doc, and was deep asleep when
it was done. Not suggesting anything here, of course.
The doc had just flown in from a European vacation and lack of clear
photographic evidence might be due to jet lag.

I did just go through this with Aetna and I know they wanted to see
the referrals for everything I claimed .

Aetna again, eh? You in Florida, me in Illinois. They do get around.
Bet they're bigger than Medicare. I know they are for me.
Getting almost 30% of every dollar of my wife's gross wages.

It sure wasn't anything like
that thing 60 minutes was talking about where a storefront with no
bona fides can simply send medicare a bill for something and get paid
in a few days.

Probably not. The crooks use different methods for Aetna, and are
probably different crooks. But a crook is a crook by any other name.

--Vic

Delicious...
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:44:43 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:49:43 -0400, John H.
wrote:

You missed the point. It's a government run system riddled with fraud.
Now the government is trying to institute a *bigger* government run
system, which will still be administered by individuals. You don't
think the fraud will increase likewise?

Perhaps we should come up with some 18th century punishment for
stealing from the government or 20th century communist punishment.

After all the Soviets knew what you had to do to maintain order in a
socialist society. 20 years of genuine hard labor might slow down
these medicare scammers.

That idea wouldn't scare them. Most don't know what 'hard labor' (or
any other, for that matter) means.

Delicious...
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:53:09 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:49:43 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:37:46 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:28:30 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 10/26/09 6:22 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:55:30 -0400, wrote:


Besides, that article has some other gems, such as the there's no
evidence the private insurers do any better with fraud than does
Medicare.


Did you see 60 Minutes tonight? They are talking about billions in
medicare fraud.

No, missed that. But see above. Maybe you missed it.
Somehow the Medicare fraud doesn't bother me as much after seeing
that.
After all, we're paying almost 10 times more to Aetna than to
Medicare.
So for every buck of mine going to a crook cheating Medicare, there's
nearly a sawbuck of mine going to the crook cheating Aetna.
Great system. Pretty equitable for the crooks percentage wise.
Lucky I can afford it. Good luck to those who can't.
They'll need it.

--Vic


Note that the medicare fraud on display in 60 minutes last night was not
being committed by the government, but by private-sector, for-profit
individuals.

Yep. Health care providers all.
Somebody's got to pay for that Mercedes.

--Vic

You missed the point. It's a government run system riddled with fraud.
Now the government is trying to institute a *bigger* government run
system, which will still be administered by individuals. You don't
think the fraud will increase likewise?

Nope, you're missing it. Maybe you missed where private insurance
companies are doing the Medicare billing, and that private health
insurance providers are committing the fraud.
BTW, I never saw anybody in the Navy caught or convicted of fraud, and
I bet you didn't tolerate financially scamming the public in your Army
career. Outside of letting a skater slide now and then.
Interestingly enough, I witnessed a couple accountants "disappearing"
while in private industry. Caught defrauding. Not prosecuted though,
because it "wouldn't look good." Gets hushed up.
And I wasn't even in a position to know the depth of those kind of
problems. Just friendly with a couple of those who did know.
Of course we know fraud happens in government.
We hardly know squat about what goes on in "private enterprise."

--Vic

My brother, a retired cop, now works as an investigator of insurance
fraud for a health insurer. So I know that the civilian firms actually
do 'something' to prevent fraud. I don't think we have any idea of the
scope of the fraud going on with Medicare. As a Medicare recipient,
I'll say that it seems like it would be very easy to do.

Delicious...
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:10:11 -0400, Jim wrote:

H the K wrote:
On 10/26/09 4:53 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:49:43 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:37:46 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:28:30 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 10/26/09 6:22 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:55:30 -0400, wrote:


Besides, that article has some other gems, such as the there's no
evidence the private insurers do any better with fraud than does
Medicare.


Did you see 60 Minutes tonight? They are talking about billions in
medicare fraud.

No, missed that. But see above. Maybe you missed it.
Somehow the Medicare fraud doesn't bother me as much after seeing
that.
After all, we're paying almost 10 times more to Aetna than to
Medicare.
So for every buck of mine going to a crook cheating Medicare, there's
nearly a sawbuck of mine going to the crook cheating Aetna.
Great system. Pretty equitable for the crooks percentage wise.
Lucky I can afford it. Good luck to those who can't.
They'll need it.

--Vic


Note that the medicare fraud on display in 60 minutes last night
was not
being committed by the government, but by private-sector, for-profit
individuals.

Yep. Health care providers all.
Somebody's got to pay for that Mercedes.

--Vic

You missed the point. It's a government run system riddled with fraud.
Now the government is trying to institute a *bigger* government run
system, which will still be administered by individuals. You don't
think the fraud will increase likewise?

Nope, you're missing it. Maybe you missed where private insurance
companies are doing the Medicare billing, and that private health
insurance providers are committing the fraud.
BTW, I never saw anybody in the Navy caught or convicted of fraud, and
I bet you didn't tolerate financially scamming the public in your Army
career. Outside of letting a skater slide now and then.
Interestingly enough, I witnessed a couple accountants "disappearing"
while in private industry. Caught defrauding. Not prosecuted though,
because it "wouldn't look good." Gets hushed up.
And I wasn't even in a position to know the depth of those kind of
problems. Just friendly with a couple of those who did know.
Of course we know fraud happens in government.
We hardly know squat about what goes on in "private enterprise."

--Vic

Herring "thinks" that when private, for-profit contractors screw the
government, it is the government's fault. Probably a leftover from his
army days, when he looked the other way.

The Govt. had the money. Then they didn't. Are you saying they got fleeced?

Delicious...
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:24:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news:eb65e51msrrr45mfaoea21i9f5u5qfbpsb@4a x.com...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:37:36 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article
,
says...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a
public
funded not for profit?
Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting
mantra of
the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more
efficient
than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if
we
eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a single
payer
public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're
turning
into
a
Liberal.
Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for
profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that
works, than
pay
double for something that doesn't.
Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.
Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the time.
When it
was
Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the
chattering
class.
Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a recovery...

You really need to review the facts about the VA, for
example,
before
you make statements like this. Check out the person who's in
charge
of
the VA.

There is a technical recovery in process. Jobs are still a
problem
and
will continue to be for quite a while. What's your point?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is
financials. And
they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the
Fed is
tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook
is bad,
as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing
sales
increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the
Fed just
accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at
$500
million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull
back
10-15%
shortly. Put stops on your stocks.

Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't
said
anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof.

The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs
are
created
and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and
services, which
of
course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way
your
party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be
ashamed of
yourself for supporting The king and his court in their
underhanded
activities.


You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly.

http://www.recovery.gov


--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The
government spent
tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to their
cronies
on
Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money spent
in to
SBA
loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the
other
"investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created jobs.
Other
than
a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done anyway.
When
that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker.
Govenment
does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending.

Hank Paulson and George Bush got that ball rolling.

Goldman Sachs strikes again...

Hell, Bush was just continuing rolling the Clinton ball. Clinton
and his
administration caused the dot.com bubble, set the stage for the
housing
bubble and Bush just continuing the screw ups.

Oh yeah, it was Clinton who caused the bubble.

I don't think you want to know the reason why Bill. It was for lack
of regulation and control of the greedy assholes who run Wall
Street.

When you give control of the economy to folks who'd have you
investing
in tulip bulbs, you've given them too much control.

Deregulation was a Republican mantra that the Democrats bought. We
also bought supply side economics.

Both ideas suck and they're still trying to repackage them every
time
we turn around.

Get a clue. Even if you have to pay for it. Clinton pushed for the
easy loans, named the first black leader of Fannie Mae. Franklin
Raines. Was Clinton Justice Department that made a deal to settle for
10 million and they dropped the fraud charges. He lied about FM's
profits while buying all the subprime loans and pocket $100 million
in bonus money. He should have had to pay back all the bonus money
plus all the costs of the investigation at the minimum and at the
maximum, spent time in the stony lonesome. Clinton led the subprime
lending, deregulation of Delimitative. Bush did not correct the
problems and kept Greenspan on as the Fed Man.

Just curious, but what does the color of skin have to do with whether
or not he acted inappropriately?

I think I know the answer, but do tell.
--
Nom=de=Plume


His color was brought up when he got the job. And he was probably
protected by the Executive branch for both being appointed by the
branch, and because of his color.

By whom? Seems to me, you just brought it up for no reason, unless
you're claiming you copied and pasted your paragraph from somewhere.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Do some basic research on Mr. Raines.

Let's just assume that he's a terrible, corrupt person. Ok, so what does
the color of his skin have to do with it? You mentioned it in your
paragraph, so I think you should answer the question.

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're going to get Kalif all worked up in a minute. Then he'll start
trashing your family members.

Delicious...
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:24:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news:eb65e51msrrr45mfaoea21i9f5u5qfbpsb@4 ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:37:36 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article
,
says...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a
public
funded not for profit?
Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting
mantra of
the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more
efficient
than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if
we
eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a
single payer
public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're
turning
into
a
Liberal.
Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for
profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that
works, than
pay
double for something that doesn't.
Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.
Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the time.
When it
was
Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the
chattering
class.
Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a recovery...

You really need to review the facts about the VA, for
example,
before
you make statements like this. Check out the person who's
in charge
of
the VA.

There is a technical recovery in process. Jobs are still a
problem
and
will continue to be for quite a while. What's your point?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is
financials. And
they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the
Fed is
tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail
outlook is bad,
as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing
sales
increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the
Fed just
accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking
at $500
million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull
back
10-15%
shortly. Put stops on your stocks.

Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't
said
anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof.

The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs
are
created
and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and
services, which
of
course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The
way your
party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be
ashamed of
yourself for supporting The king and his court in their
underhanded
activities.


You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly.

http://www.recovery.gov


--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The
government spent
tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to their
cronies
on
Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money
spent in to
SBA
loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the
other
"investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created jobs.
Other
than
a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done
anyway. When
that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker.
Govenment
does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending.

Hank Paulson and George Bush got that ball rolling.

Goldman Sachs strikes again...

Hell, Bush was just continuing rolling the Clinton ball. Clinton
and his
administration caused the dot.com bubble, set the stage for the
housing
bubble and Bush just continuing the screw ups.

Oh yeah, it was Clinton who caused the bubble.

I don't think you want to know the reason why Bill. It was for
lack
of regulation and control of the greedy assholes who run Wall
Street.

When you give control of the economy to folks who'd have you
investing
in tulip bulbs, you've given them too much control.

Deregulation was a Republican mantra that the Democrats bought. We
also bought supply side economics.

Both ideas suck and they're still trying to repackage them every
time
we turn around.

Get a clue. Even if you have to pay for it. Clinton pushed for the
easy loans, named the first black leader of Fannie Mae. Franklin
Raines. Was Clinton Justice Department that made a deal to settle
for 10 million and they dropped the fraud charges. He lied about
FM's profits while buying all the subprime loans and pocket $100
million in bonus money. He should have had to pay back all the bonus
money plus all the costs of the investigation at the minimum and at
the maximum, spent time in the stony lonesome. Clinton led the
subprime lending, deregulation of Delimitative. Bush did not correct
the problems and kept Greenspan on as the Fed Man.

Just curious, but what does the color of skin have to do with whether
or not he acted inappropriately?

I think I know the answer, but do tell.
--
Nom=de=Plume


His color was brought up when he got the job. And he was probably
protected by the Executive branch for both being appointed by the
branch, and because of his color.

By whom? Seems to me, you just brought it up for no reason, unless
you're claiming you copied and pasted your paragraph from somewhere.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Do some basic research on Mr. Raines.

Let's just assume that he's a terrible, corrupt person. Ok, so what does
the color of his skin have to do with it? You mentioned it in your
paragraph, so I think you should answer the question.

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're going to get Kalif all worked up in a minute. Then he'll start
trashing your family members.

I remain a hopeful person.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Delicious...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:44:43 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:49:43 -0400, John H.
wrote:

You missed the point. It's a government run system riddled with fraud.
Now the government is trying to institute a *bigger* government run
system, which will still be administered by individuals. You don't
think the fraud will increase likewise?

Perhaps we should come up with some 18th century punishment for
stealing from the government or 20th century communist punishment.

After all the Soviets knew what you had to do to maintain order in a
socialist society. 20 years of genuine hard labor might slow down
these medicare scammers.

That idea wouldn't scare them. Most don't know what 'hard labor' (or
any other, for that matter) means.


You're right. I've never been in prison.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Delicious...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:53:09 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:49:43 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:37:46 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:28:30 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 10/26/09 6:22 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:55:30 -0400, wrote:


Besides, that article has some other gems, such as the there's no
evidence the private insurers do any better with fraud than does
Medicare.


Did you see 60 Minutes tonight? They are talking about billions in
medicare fraud.

No, missed that. But see above. Maybe you missed it.
Somehow the Medicare fraud doesn't bother me as much after seeing
that.
After all, we're paying almost 10 times more to Aetna than to
Medicare.
So for every buck of mine going to a crook cheating Medicare, there's
nearly a sawbuck of mine going to the crook cheating Aetna.
Great system. Pretty equitable for the crooks percentage wise.
Lucky I can afford it. Good luck to those who can't.
They'll need it.

--Vic


Note that the medicare fraud on display in 60 minutes last night was
not
being committed by the government, but by private-sector, for-profit
individuals.

Yep. Health care providers all.
Somebody's got to pay for that Mercedes.

--Vic

You missed the point. It's a government run system riddled with fraud.
Now the government is trying to institute a *bigger* government run
system, which will still be administered by individuals. You don't
think the fraud will increase likewise?

Nope, you're missing it. Maybe you missed where private insurance
companies are doing the Medicare billing, and that private health
insurance providers are committing the fraud.
BTW, I never saw anybody in the Navy caught or convicted of fraud, and
I bet you didn't tolerate financially scamming the public in your Army
career. Outside of letting a skater slide now and then.
Interestingly enough, I witnessed a couple accountants "disappearing"
while in private industry. Caught defrauding. Not prosecuted though,
because it "wouldn't look good." Gets hushed up.
And I wasn't even in a position to know the depth of those kind of
problems. Just friendly with a couple of those who did know.
Of course we know fraud happens in government.
We hardly know squat about what goes on in "private enterprise."

--Vic

My brother, a retired cop, now works as an investigator of insurance
fraud for a health insurer. So I know that the civilian firms actually
do 'something' to prevent fraud. I don't think we have any idea of the
scope of the fraud going on with Medicare. As a Medicare recipient,
I'll say that it seems like it would be very easy to do.


It's about $60B a year according to CBS. It wouldn't be easy to fix it, but
it would require investigators, which means more money for them. The Obama
admin. has added $200M to the effort. Not enough in my opinion.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Delicious...
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:17:34 -0400, John H.
wrote:



My brother, a retired cop, now works as an investigator of insurance
fraud for a health insurer. So I know that the civilian firms actually
do 'something' to prevent fraud. I don't think we have any idea of the
scope of the fraud going on with Medicare. As a Medicare recipient,
I'll say that it seems like it would be very easy to do.

Having worked for a major casualty insurer for years, I've been
beating the anti-fraud drum for years.
Even there I didn't feel enough was being done with anti-fraud
efforts.
Easier to deny the claims and raise the premiums of dumb honest
customers than to go after the smart crooks.
Hard to get a handle on what's really going on, except not enough
resources are devoted to fighting fraud.
Found this
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5109783.shtml
And note this from it
"The fact that the suspects had to move to other states and other
avenues of Medicare - in this case, Medicare Advantage - signals an
understanding on the streets that officials are on to their old
tricks. And that the task forces are working, Sloman said.
Medicare Advantage allows the elderly and disabled to get benefits
through private health insurers. The plans receive a government
subsidy and generally offer more benefits than traditional Medicare."

Didn't see the 60 minutes piece so I don't know if they mentioned the
private insurance company role in it all.
But we need those kinds of exposes to get the folks ****ed off enough
to make the pols react.
But you watch all the squealing if the gov adds staff to fight fraud.
"Big government! Big Government!"

--Vic

Delicious...
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:06:57 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:17:34 -0400, John H.
wrote:



My brother, a retired cop, now works as an investigator of insurance
fraud for a health insurer. So I know that the civilian firms actually
do 'something' to prevent fraud. I don't think we have any idea of the
scope of the fraud going on with Medicare. As a Medicare recipient,
I'll say that it seems like it would be very easy to do.

Having worked for a major casualty insurer for years, I've been
beating the anti-fraud drum for years.
Even there I didn't feel enough was being done with anti-fraud
efforts.
Easier to deny the claims and raise the premiums of dumb honest
customers than to go after the smart crooks.
Hard to get a handle on what's really going on, except not enough
resources are devoted to fighting fraud.
Found this
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5109783.shtml
And note this from it
"The fact that the suspects had to move to other states and other
avenues of Medicare - in this case, Medicare Advantage - signals an
understanding on the streets that officials are on to their old
tricks. And that the task forces are working, Sloman said.
Medicare Advantage allows the elderly and disabled to get benefits
through private health insurers. The plans receive a government
subsidy and generally offer more benefits than traditional Medicare."

Didn't see the 60 minutes piece so I don't know if they mentioned the
private insurance company role in it all.
But we need those kinds of exposes to get the folks ****ed off enough
to make the pols react.
But you watch all the squealing if the gov adds staff to fight fraud.
"Big government! Big Government!"

--Vic

You've got much more of a background in it then I do, so I'll bow to
your insights in this matter.

But not golf.

Delicious...
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:47:35 -0400, John H.
wrote:


You've got much more of a background in it then I do, so I'll bow to
your insights in this matter.

Big mistake. I'm mostly talking out of my ass.

But not golf.

You got that right!

--Vic

Delicious...
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:50:07 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:11:59 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:44:43 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:49:43 -0400, John H.
wrote:

You missed the point. It's a government run system riddled with fraud.
Now the government is trying to institute a *bigger* government run
system, which will still be administered by individuals. You don't
think the fraud will increase likewise?

Perhaps we should come up with some 18th century punishment for
stealing from the government or 20th century communist punishment.

After all the Soviets knew what you had to do to maintain order in a
socialist society. 20 years of genuine hard labor might slow down
these medicare scammers.

That idea wouldn't scare them. Most don't know what 'hard labor' (or
any other, for that matter) means.

We would have a lot of cheap labor then wouldn't we. Maybe they could
work in all those battery factories we will need for all the electric
cars we need ... handling the toxic waste.

Speaking of which, happy belated 350 day. I can't believe we didn't
pass each other the wish yesterday.

http://www.350.org/about/science

"350 parts per million is what many scientists, climate experts, and
progressive national governments are now saying is the safe upper
limit for CO2 in our atmosphere."

Hell, if a 'progressive national government' says so, it must be so.

Delicious...
 

On 10/26/09 7:51 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:47:35 -0400, John H.
wrote:


You've got much more of a background in it then I do, so I'll bow to
your insights in this matter.

Big mistake. I'm mostly talking out of my ass.

But not golf.

You got that right!

--Vic


Talking out of his ass is herring's rice bowl.

Delicious...
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:43:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Don White" wrote in message
.. .

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:24:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news:eb65e51msrrr45mfaoea21i9f5u5qfbpsb @4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:37:36 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in
message
...
In article
,
says...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a
public
funded not for profit?
Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting
mantra of
the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was
more
efficient
than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that
if
we
eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a
single payer
public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're
turning
into
a
Liberal.
Not really, look at the success record of govt "not
for
profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that
works, than
pay
double for something that doesn't.
Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.
Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the
time.
When it
was
Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the
chattering
class.
Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a
recovery...

You really need to review the facts about the VA, for
example,
before
you make statements like this. Check out the person who's
in charge
of
the VA.

There is a technical recovery in process. Jobs are still
a
problem
and
will continue to be for quite a while. What's your point?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is
financials. And
they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the
Fed is
tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail
outlook is bad,
as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing
sales
increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from
the
Fed just
accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking
at $500
million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to
pull
back
10-15%
shortly. Put stops on your stocks.

Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you
haven't
said
anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof.

The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL
jobs
are
created
and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and
services, which
of
course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The
way your
party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be
ashamed of
yourself for supporting The king and his court in their
underhanded
activities.


You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly.

http://www.recovery.gov


--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The
government spent
tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to
their
cronies
on
Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money
spent in to
SBA
loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the
other
"investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created
jobs.
Other
than
a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done
anyway. When
that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker.
Govenment
does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending.

Hank Paulson and George Bush got that ball rolling.

Goldman Sachs strikes again...

Hell, Bush was just continuing rolling the Clinton ball. Clinton
and his
administration caused the dot.com bubble, set the stage for the
housing
bubble and Bush just continuing the screw ups.

Oh yeah, it was Clinton who caused the bubble.

I don't think you want to know the reason why Bill. It was for
lack
of regulation and control of the greedy assholes who run Wall
Street.

When you give control of the economy to folks who'd have you
investing
in tulip bulbs, you've given them too much control.

Deregulation was a Republican mantra that the Democrats bought.
We
also bought supply side economics.

Both ideas suck and they're still trying to repackage them every
time
we turn around.

Get a clue. Even if you have to pay for it. Clinton pushed for
the
easy loans, named the first black leader of Fannie Mae. Franklin
Raines. Was Clinton Justice Department that made a deal to settle
for 10 million and they dropped the fraud charges. He lied about
FM's profits while buying all the subprime loans and pocket $100
million in bonus money. He should have had to pay back all the
bonus
money plus all the costs of the investigation at the minimum and
at
the maximum, spent time in the stony lonesome. Clinton led the
subprime lending, deregulation of Delimitative. Bush did not
correct
the problems and kept Greenspan on as the Fed Man.

Just curious, but what does the color of skin have to do with
whether
or not he acted inappropriately?

I think I know the answer, but do tell.
--
Nom=de=Plume


His color was brought up when he got the job. And he was probably
protected by the Executive branch for both being appointed by the
branch, and because of his color.

By whom? Seems to me, you just brought it up for no reason, unless
you're claiming you copied and pasted your paragraph from somewhere.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Do some basic research on Mr. Raines.

Let's just assume that he's a terrible, corrupt person. Ok, so what
does
the color of his skin have to do with it? You mentioned it in your
paragraph, so I think you should answer the question.

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're going to get Kalif all worked up in a minute. Then he'll start
trashing your family members.

I remain a hopeful person.

Oh boy. I'm not sure this is where you want to spend your hope cache.

Pills, nudges, nebbishers, putzes, etc., etc.

This is like trying to rehab Detroit. It's a dirty job.


Well, I'm a cheapskate, so it won't be much. :)

--
Nom=de=Plume

Delicious...
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:46:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

It's about $60B a year according to CBS. It wouldn't be easy to fix it,
but
it would require investigators, which means more money for them. The Obama
admin. has added $200M to the effort. Not enough in my opinion.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I watched that segment a couple times and I think they were saying the
$60B was just in South Florida.
They did kind of gloss over the numbers.


It was total per year, but that's a big number!

--
Nom=de=Plume

Delicious...
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:24:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news:eb65e51msrrr45mfaoea21i9f5u5qfbpsb@4 ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:37:36 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article
,
says...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a
public
funded not for profit?
Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting
mantra of
the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more
efficient
than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if
we
eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a
single payer
public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're
turning
into
a
Liberal.
Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for
profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that
works, than
pay
double for something that doesn't.
Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.
Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the time.
When it
was
Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the
chattering
class.
Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a recovery...

You really need to review the facts about the VA, for
example,
before
you make statements like this. Check out the person who's
in charge
of
the VA.

There is a technical recovery in process. Jobs are still a
problem
and
will continue to be for quite a while. What's your point?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is
financials. And
they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the
Fed is
tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail
outlook is bad,
as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing
sales
increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the
Fed just
accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking
at $500
million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull
back
10-15%
shortly. Put stops on your stocks.

Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't
said
anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof.

The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs
are
created
and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and
services, which
of
course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The
way your
party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be
ashamed of
yourself for supporting The king and his court in their
underhanded
activities.


You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly.

http://www.recovery.gov


--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The
government spent
tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to their
cronies
on
Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money
spent in to
SBA
loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the
other
"investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created jobs.
Other
than
a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done
anyway. When
that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker.
Govenment
does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending.

Hank Paulson and George Bush got that ball rolling.

Goldman Sachs strikes again...

Hell, Bush was just continuing rolling the Clinton ball. Clinton
and his
administration caused the dot.com bubble, set the stage for the
housing
bubble and Bush just continuing the screw ups.

Oh yeah, it was Clinton who caused the bubble.

I don't think you want to know the reason why Bill. It was for
lack
of regulation and control of the greedy assholes who run Wall
Street.

When you give control of the economy to folks who'd have you
investing
in tulip bulbs, you've given them too much control.

Deregulation was a Republican mantra that the Democrats bought. We
also bought supply side economics.

Both ideas suck and they're still trying to repackage them every
time
we turn around.

Get a clue. Even if you have to pay for it. Clinton pushed for the
easy loans, named the first black leader of Fannie Mae. Franklin
Raines. Was Clinton Justice Department that made a deal to settle
for 10 million and they dropped the fraud charges. He lied about
FM's profits while buying all the subprime loans and pocket $100
million in bonus money. He should have had to pay back all the bonus
money plus all the costs of the investigation at the minimum and at
the maximum, spent time in the stony lonesome. Clinton led the
subprime lending, deregulation of Delimitative. Bush did not correct
the problems and kept Greenspan on as the Fed Man.

Just curious, but what does the color of skin have to do with whether
or not he acted inappropriately?

I think I know the answer, but do tell.
--
Nom=de=Plume


His color was brought up when he got the job. And he was probably
protected by the Executive branch for both being appointed by the
branch, and because of his color.

By whom? Seems to me, you just brought it up for no reason, unless
you're claiming you copied and pasted your paragraph from somewhere.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Do some basic research on Mr. Raines.

Let's just assume that he's a terrible, corrupt person. Ok, so what does
the color of his skin have to do with it? You mentioned it in your
paragraph, so I think you should answer the question.

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're going to get Kalif all worked up in a minute. Then he'll start
trashing your family members.


Maybe your family member learned drinking excessively from you. He seems to
have inherited his stupidity. You like that truthful trashing? You do not
want to be trashed, keep you stupid comments that have no bearing on the
discussion to yourself.

Delicious...
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:08:01 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:43:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Don White" wrote in message
. ..

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:24:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news:eb65e51msrrr45mfaoea21i9f5u5qfbps ...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:37:36 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in
message
...
In article
,
says...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a
public
funded not for profit?
Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting
mantra of
the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was
more
efficient
than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that
if
we
eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a
single payer
public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're
turning
into
a
Liberal.
Not really, look at the success record of govt "not
for
profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that
works, than
pay
double for something that doesn't.
Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.
Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the
time.
When it
was
Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the
chattering
class.
Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a
recovery...

You really need to review the facts about the VA, for
example,
before
you make statements like this. Check out the person who's
in charge
of
the VA.

There is a technical recovery in process. Jobs are still
a
problem
and
will continue to be for quite a while. What's your point?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is
financials. And
they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the
Fed is
tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail
outlook is bad,
as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing
sales
increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from
the
Fed just
accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking
at $500
million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to
pull
back
10-15%
shortly. Put stops on your stocks.

Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you
haven't
said
anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof.

The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL
jobs
are
created
and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and
services, which
of
course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The
way your
party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be
ashamed of
yourself for supporting The king and his court in their
underhanded
activities.


You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly.

http://www.recovery.gov


--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The
government spent
tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to
their
cronies
on
Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money
spent in to
SBA
loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the
other
"investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created
jobs.
Other
than
a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done
anyway. When
that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker.
Govenment
does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending.

Hank Paulson and George Bush got that ball rolling.

Goldman Sachs strikes again...

Hell, Bush was just continuing rolling the Clinton ball. Clinton
and his
administration caused the dot.com bubble, set the stage for the
housing
bubble and Bush just continuing the screw ups.

Oh yeah, it was Clinton who caused the bubble.

I don't think you want to know the reason why Bill. It was for
lack
of regulation and control of the greedy assholes who run Wall
Street.

When you give control of the economy to folks who'd have you
investing
in tulip bulbs, you've given them too much control.

Deregulation was a Republican mantra that the Democrats bought.
We
also bought supply side economics.

Both ideas suck and they're still trying to repackage them every
time
we turn around.

Get a clue. Even if you have to pay for it. Clinton pushed for
the
easy loans, named the first black leader of Fannie Mae. Franklin
Raines. Was Clinton Justice Department that made a deal to settle
for 10 million and they dropped the fraud charges. He lied about
FM's profits while buying all the subprime loans and pocket $100
million in bonus money. He should have had to pay back all the
bonus
money plus all the costs of the investigation at the minimum and
at
the maximum, spent time in the stony lonesome. Clinton led the
subprime lending, deregulation of Delimitative. Bush did not
correct
the problems and kept Greenspan on as the Fed Man.

Just curious, but what does the color of skin have to do with
whether
or not he acted inappropriately?

I think I know the answer, but do tell.
--
Nom=de=Plume


His color was brought up when he got the job. And he was probably
protected by the Executive branch for both being appointed by the
branch, and because of his color.

By whom? Seems to me, you just brought it up for no reason, unless
you're claiming you copied and pasted your paragraph from somewhere.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Do some basic research on Mr. Raines.

Let's just assume that he's a terrible, corrupt person. Ok, so what
does
the color of his skin have to do with it? You mentioned it in your
paragraph, so I think you should answer the question.

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're going to get Kalif all worked up in a minute. Then he'll start
trashing your family members.

I remain a hopeful person.

Oh boy. I'm not sure this is where you want to spend your hope cache.

Pills, nudges, nebbishers, putzes, etc., etc.

This is like trying to rehab Detroit. It's a dirty job.


Well, I'm a cheapskate, so it won't be much. :)

Sounds like you already know how to set a budget.

Delicious...
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:24:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news:eb65e51msrrr45mfaoea21i9f5u5qfbpsb@ 4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:37:36 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in
message
...
In article
,
says...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a
public
funded not for profit?
Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting
mantra of
the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more
efficient
than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if
we
eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a
single payer
public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're
turning
into
a
Liberal.
Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for
profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that
works, than
pay
double for something that doesn't.
Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.
Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the time.
When it
was
Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the
chattering
class.
Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a recovery...

You really need to review the facts about the VA, for
example,
before
you make statements like this. Check out the person who's
in charge
of
the VA.

There is a technical recovery in process. Jobs are still a
problem
and
will continue to be for quite a while. What's your point?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is
financials. And
they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the
Fed is
tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail
outlook is bad,
as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing
sales
increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from
the Fed just
accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking
at $500
million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull
back
10-15%
shortly. Put stops on your stocks.

Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't
said
anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof.

The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs
are
created
and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and
services, which
of
course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The
way your
party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be
ashamed of
yourself for supporting The king and his court in their
underhanded
activities.


You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly.

http://www.recovery.gov


--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The
government spent
tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to
their cronies
on
Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money
spent in to
SBA
loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the
other
"investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created jobs.
Other
than
a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done
anyway. When
that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker.
Govenment
does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending.

Hank Paulson and George Bush got that ball rolling.

Goldman Sachs strikes again...

Hell, Bush was just continuing rolling the Clinton ball. Clinton
and his
administration caused the dot.com bubble, set the stage for the
housing
bubble and Bush just continuing the screw ups.

Oh yeah, it was Clinton who caused the bubble.

I don't think you want to know the reason why Bill. It was for
lack
of regulation and control of the greedy assholes who run Wall
Street.

When you give control of the economy to folks who'd have you
investing
in tulip bulbs, you've given them too much control.

Deregulation was a Republican mantra that the Democrats bought.
We
also bought supply side economics.

Both ideas suck and they're still trying to repackage them every
time
we turn around.

Get a clue. Even if you have to pay for it. Clinton pushed for
the easy loans, named the first black leader of Fannie Mae.
Franklin Raines. Was Clinton Justice Department that made a deal to
settle for 10 million and they dropped the fraud charges. He lied
about FM's profits while buying all the subprime loans and pocket
$100 million in bonus money. He should have had to pay back all the
bonus money plus all the costs of the investigation at the minimum
and at the maximum, spent time in the stony lonesome. Clinton led
the subprime lending, deregulation of Delimitative. Bush did not
correct the problems and kept Greenspan on as the Fed Man.

Just curious, but what does the color of skin have to do with
whether or not he acted inappropriately?

I think I know the answer, but do tell.
--
Nom=de=Plume


His color was brought up when he got the job. And he was probably
protected by the Executive branch for both being appointed by the
branch, and because of his color.

By whom? Seems to me, you just brought it up for no reason, unless
you're claiming you copied and pasted your paragraph from somewhere.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Do some basic research on Mr. Raines.

Let's just assume that he's a terrible, corrupt person. Ok, so what does
the color of his skin have to do with it? You mentioned it in your
paragraph, so I think you should answer the question.

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're going to get Kalif all worked up in a minute. Then he'll start
trashing your family members.


Maybe your family member learned drinking excessively from you. *He seems
to have inherited his stupidity*. You like that truthful trashing? You
do not want to be trashed, keep you stupid comments that have no bearing
on the discussion to yourself.

Are you still working away at that 'English as a Second language' course??
"He seems to have inherited his stupidity" ~~ Snerk ~~
You are a piece of work Swill!

Delicious...
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:24:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news:eb65e51msrrr45mfaoea21i9f5u5qfbpsb @4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:37:36 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in
message
...
In article
,
says...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a
public
funded not for profit?
Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting
mantra of
the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was
more efficient
than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that
if we
eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a
single payer
public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're
turning
into
a
Liberal.
Not really, look at the success record of govt "not
for profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that
works, than
pay
double for something that doesn't.
Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.
Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the
time. When it
was
Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the
chattering
class.
Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a
recovery...

You really need to review the facts about the VA, for
example,
before
you make statements like this. Check out the person who's
in charge
of
the VA.

There is a technical recovery in process. Jobs are still
a problem
and
will continue to be for quite a while. What's your point?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is
financials. And
they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the
Fed is
tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail
outlook is bad,
as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing
sales
increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from
the Fed just
accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking
at $500
million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to
pull back
10-15%
shortly. Put stops on your stocks.

Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you
haven't said
anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof.

The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL
jobs are
created
and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and
services, which
of
course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The
way your
party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be
ashamed of
yourself for supporting The king and his court in their
underhanded
activities.


You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly.

http://www.recovery.gov


--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The
government spent
tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to
their cronies
on
Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money
spent in to
SBA
loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the
other
"investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created
jobs. Other
than
a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done
anyway. When
that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker.
Govenment
does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending.

Hank Paulson and George Bush got that ball rolling.

Goldman Sachs strikes again...

Hell, Bush was just continuing rolling the Clinton ball. Clinton
and his
administration caused the dot.com bubble, set the stage for the
housing
bubble and Bush just continuing the screw ups.

Oh yeah, it was Clinton who caused the bubble.

I don't think you want to know the reason why Bill. It was for
lack
of regulation and control of the greedy assholes who run Wall
Street.

When you give control of the economy to folks who'd have you
investing
in tulip bulbs, you've given them too much control.

Deregulation was a Republican mantra that the Democrats bought.
We
also bought supply side economics.

Both ideas suck and they're still trying to repackage them every
time
we turn around.

Get a clue. Even if you have to pay for it. Clinton pushed for
the easy loans, named the first black leader of Fannie Mae.
Franklin Raines. Was Clinton Justice Department that made a deal
to settle for 10 million and they dropped the fraud charges. He
lied about FM's profits while buying all the subprime loans and
pocket $100 million in bonus money. He should have had to pay back
all the bonus money plus all the costs of the investigation at the
minimum and at the maximum, spent time in the stony lonesome.
Clinton led the subprime lending, deregulation of Delimitative.
Bush did not correct the problems and kept Greenspan on as the Fed
Man.

Just curious, but what does the color of skin have to do with
whether or not he acted inappropriately?

I think I know the answer, but do tell.
--
Nom=de=Plume


His color was brought up when he got the job. And he was probably
protected by the Executive branch for both being appointed by the
branch, and because of his color.

By whom? Seems to me, you just brought it up for no reason, unless
you're claiming you copied and pasted your paragraph from somewhere.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Do some basic research on Mr. Raines.

Let's just assume that he's a terrible, corrupt person. Ok, so what
does the color of his skin have to do with it? You mentioned it in your
paragraph, so I think you should answer the question.

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're going to get Kalif all worked up in a minute. Then he'll start
trashing your family members.


Maybe your family member learned drinking excessively from you. *He
seems to have inherited his stupidity*. You like that truthful trashing?
You do not want to be trashed, keep you stupid comments that have no
bearing on the discussion to yourself.

Are you still working away at that 'English as a Second language' course??
"He seems to have inherited his stupidity" ~~ Snerk ~~
You are a piece of work Swill!


He did not inherit his laziness and stupidity from you?

Delicious...
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:45:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Don White" wrote in message
. ..

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're going to get Kalif all worked up in a minute. Then he'll start
trashing your family members.


Maybe your family member learned drinking excessively from you. He seems to
have inherited his stupidity. You like that truthful trashing? You do not
want to be trashed, keep you stupid comments that have no bearing on the
discussion to yourself.


Well said.

Delicious...
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:45:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Don White" wrote in message
. ..

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're going to get Kalif all worked up in a minute. Then he'll start
trashing your family members.


Maybe your family member learned drinking excessively from you. He seems to
have inherited his stupidity. You like that truthful trashing? You do not
want to be trashed, keep you stupid comments that have no bearing on the
discussion to yourself.


Well said.

Wonder if the kid is a fat little rat bitch like his dad...

Delicious...
 

On 10/27/09 6:14 PM, Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:45:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Don wrote in message
...

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're going to get Kalif all worked up in a minute. Then he'll start
trashing your family members.


Maybe your family member learned drinking excessively from you. He seems to
have inherited his stupidity. You like that truthful trashing? You do not
want to be trashed, keep you stupid comments that have no bearing on the
discussion to yourself.


Well said.

Wonder if the kid is a fat little rat bitch like his dad...

Ol' Scott Ingersoll is just full of love.

Delicious...
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:24:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news:eb65e51msrrr45mfaoea21i9f5u5qfbps ...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:37:36 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in
message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Tosk" wrote in
message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in
message
...
In article
,
says...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a
public
funded not for profit?
Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting
mantra of
the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was
more efficient
than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that
if we
eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a
single payer
public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're
turning
into
a
Liberal.
Not really, look at the success record of govt "not
for profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that
works, than
pay
double for something that doesn't.
Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.
Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the
time. When it
was
Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the
chattering
class.
Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a
recovery...

You really need to review the facts about the VA, for
example,
before
you make statements like this. Check out the person
who's in charge
of
the VA.

There is a technical recovery in process. Jobs are still
a problem
and
will continue to be for quite a while. What's your
point?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is
financials. And
they are going up because of the huge amounts of money
the Fed is
tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail
outlook is bad,
as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The
housing sales
increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from
the Fed just
accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are
looking at $500
million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to
pull back
10-15%
shortly. Put stops on your stocks.

Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you
haven't said
anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof.

The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL
jobs are
created
and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and
services, which
of
course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The
way your
party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be
ashamed of
yourself for supporting The king and his court in their
underhanded
activities.


You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly.

http://www.recovery.gov


--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The
government spent
tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to
their cronies
on
Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money
spent in to
SBA
loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and
the other
"investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created
jobs. Other
than
a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done
anyway. When
that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the
worker. Govenment
does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending.

Hank Paulson and George Bush got that ball rolling.

Goldman Sachs strikes again...

Hell, Bush was just continuing rolling the Clinton ball.
Clinton and his
administration caused the dot.com bubble, set the stage for the
housing
bubble and Bush just continuing the screw ups.

Oh yeah, it was Clinton who caused the bubble.

I don't think you want to know the reason why Bill. It was for
lack
of regulation and control of the greedy assholes who run Wall
Street.

When you give control of the economy to folks who'd have you
investing
in tulip bulbs, you've given them too much control.

Deregulation was a Republican mantra that the Democrats bought.
We
also bought supply side economics.

Both ideas suck and they're still trying to repackage them every
time
we turn around.

Get a clue. Even if you have to pay for it. Clinton pushed for
the easy loans, named the first black leader of Fannie Mae.
Franklin Raines. Was Clinton Justice Department that made a deal
to settle for 10 million and they dropped the fraud charges. He
lied about FM's profits while buying all the subprime loans and
pocket $100 million in bonus money. He should have had to pay
back all the bonus money plus all the costs of the investigation
at the minimum and at the maximum, spent time in the stony
lonesome. Clinton led the subprime lending, deregulation of
Delimitative. Bush did not correct the problems and kept
Greenspan on as the Fed Man.

Just curious, but what does the color of skin have to do with
whether or not he acted inappropriately?

I think I know the answer, but do tell.
--
Nom=de=Plume


His color was brought up when he got the job. And he was probably
protected by the Executive branch for both being appointed by the
branch, and because of his color.

By whom? Seems to me, you just brought it up for no reason, unless
you're claiming you copied and pasted your paragraph from somewhere.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Do some basic research on Mr. Raines.

Let's just assume that he's a terrible, corrupt person. Ok, so what
does the color of his skin have to do with it? You mentioned it in
your paragraph, so I think you should answer the question.

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're going to get Kalif all worked up in a minute. Then he'll start
trashing your family members.


Maybe your family member learned drinking excessively from you. *He
seems to have inherited his stupidity*. You like that truthful
trashing? You do not want to be trashed, keep you stupid comments that
have no bearing on the discussion to yourself.

Are you still working away at that 'English as a Second language'
course??
"He seems to have inherited his stupidity" ~~ Snerk ~~
You are a piece of work Swill!


He did not inherit his laziness and stupidity from you?

Swill, Swill...you were talking directly to me...not through a 3rd party.
So...why would you say."He seems to have inherited his stupidity"?
Do you get it? Ask JohnnyH...the schoolmarm.

Delicious...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:45:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Don White" wrote in message
.. .

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're going to get Kalif all worked up in a minute. Then he'll start
trashing your family members.


Maybe your family member learned drinking excessively from you. *He seems
to
have inherited his stupidity*. You like that truthful trashing? You do
not
want to be trashed, keep you stupid comments that have no bearing on the
discussion to yourself.


Well said.

On 2nd thought...Swill should find someone who knows a bit of english
grammar.

Delicious...
 

"H the K" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/09 6:14 PM, Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:45:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Don wrote in message
...

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're going to get Kalif all worked up in a minute. Then he'll start
trashing your family members.


Maybe your family member learned drinking excessively from you. He
seems to
have inherited his stupidity. You like that truthful trashing? You do
not
want to be trashed, keep you stupid comments that have no bearing on
the
discussion to yourself.


Well said.

Wonder if the kid is a fat little rat bitch like his dad...

Ol' Scott Ingersoll is just full of love.


That little munchkin can come on up here and I'll introduce him to my son.
I'd bet my next pension cheque The Freak would be singing a different tune!

Delicious...
 

On 10/27/09 7:01 PM, Don White wrote:
"H the wrote in message
...
On 10/27/09 6:14 PM, Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:45:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Don wrote in message
...

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're going to get Kalif all worked up in a minute. Then he'll start
trashing your family members.


Maybe your family member learned drinking excessively from you. He
seems to
have inherited his stupidity. You like that truthful trashing? You do
not
want to be trashed, keep you stupid comments that have no bearing on
the
discussion to yourself.


Well said.

Wonder if the kid is a fat little rat bitch like his dad...

Ol' Scott Ingersoll is just full of love.


That little munchkin can come on up here and I'll introduce him to my son.
I'd bet my next pension cheque The Freak would be singing a different tune!




High notes...ala a castrato.

Amazing how "brave" a short little **** like Scott Ingersoll
is...considering even a medium tall girl by today's standards would
knock him on his ass.

And then we have "loogy," Mr. Anonymous Tough Guy, who thinks he is
going to come up here, commit a violent criminal act, and then walk
away. Now that's an easy boast for someone hiding behind internet anonymity.

Delicious...
 

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:14:44 -0400, Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:45:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Don White" wrote in message
. ..

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're going to get Kalif all worked up in a minute. Then he'll start
trashing your family members.


Maybe your family member learned drinking excessively from you. He seems to
have inherited his stupidity. You like that truthful trashing? You do not
want to be trashed, keep you stupid comments that have no bearing on the
discussion to yourself.


Well said.

Wonder if the kid is a fat little rat bitch like his dad...

I don't think calling someone's kid 'fat' is very nice.

Delicious...
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:45:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Don White" wrote in message
. ..

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're going to get Kalif all worked up in a minute. Then he'll start
trashing your family members.


Maybe your family member learned drinking excessively from you. *He
seems to
have inherited his stupidity*. You like that truthful trashing? You do
not
want to be trashed, keep you stupid comments that have no bearing on the
discussion to yourself.


Well said.

On 2nd thought...Swill should find someone who knows a bit of english
grammar.


Well, it will not be you.

Delicious...
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...

He did not inherit his laziness and stupidity from you?

Swill, Swill...you were talking directly to me...not through a 3rd party.
So...why would you say."He seems to have inherited his stupidity"?
Do you get it? Ask JohnnyH...the schoolmarm.



Go take a language class.

Delicious...
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:14:44 -0400, Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:45:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Don White" wrote in message
. ..

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're going to get Kalif all worked up in a minute. Then he'll start
trashing your family members.


Maybe your family member learned drinking excessively from you. He seems to
have inherited his stupidity. You like that truthful trashing? You do not
want to be trashed, keep you stupid comments that have no bearing on the
discussion to yourself.


Well said.

Wonder if the kid is a fat little rat bitch like his dad...

I don't think calling someone's kid 'fat' is very nice.

Well, maybe I meant "phat". And I think that is good...

Delicious...
 

In article ,
says...

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:45:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Don White" wrote in message
. ..

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're going to get Kalif all worked up in a minute. Then he'll start
trashing your family members.


Maybe your family member learned drinking excessively from you. *He
seems to
have inherited his stupidity*. You like that truthful trashing? You do
not
want to be trashed, keep you stupid comments that have no bearing on the
discussion to yourself.


Well said.

On 2nd thought...Swill should find someone who knows a bit of english
grammar.


Well, it will not be you.

OMG, did Bonnie get on someone for spelling and grammar?
Hilfrekinlarious...

Delicious...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:14:44 -0400, Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:45:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Don White" wrote in message
. ..

--
Nom=de=Plume

You're going to get Kalif all worked up in a minute. Then he'll
start
trashing your family members.


Maybe your family member learned drinking excessively from you. He
seems to
have inherited his stupidity. You like that truthful trashing? You do
not
want to be trashed, keep you stupid comments that have no bearing on
the
discussion to yourself.


Well said.

Wonder if the kid is a fat little rat bitch like his dad...

I don't think calling someone's kid 'fat' is very nice.


Maybe it's just an opinion.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Delicious...
 

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:12:47 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Amazing how "brave" a short little **** like Scott Ingersoll
is...considering even a medium tall girl by today's standards would
knock him on his ass.

My daughter is six two. Must be something in the school lunches.

Casady