"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
m...
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.

"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
om...
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

"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.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
news

"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

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

"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.

"Don White" wrote in message
...

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

"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

"Don White" wrote in message
...

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

"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.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Don White" wrote in message
...

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

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.