"The administration wants to keep some of the unspent funds available
for emergencies, but is considering setting aside a chunk for debt
reduction, according to people familiar with the matter. It is also
expected to lower the projected long-term cost of the program -- the
amount it expects to lose -- to as little as $200 billion from $341
billion estimated in August."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125799009185344567.html

So let me see if I got this right. The Administration wants to use
borrowed money which created increased debt to pay down the overall
debt incurred by increased spending.

Son-of-a-gun. That must mean that your average citizen should be able
to decrease his/her overall debt by borrowing more money to pay down
that debt.

Huh - how about that.

3 trillion dollars in war debt?

Repaying a trillion dollars in Chinese financing for tax breaks?

45,000 people a year dying for lack of proper health coverage?

On Nov 13, 2:56*am, jps wrote:
3 trillion dollars in war debt?

Repaying a trillion dollars in Chinese financing for tax breaks?

45,000 people a year dying for lack of proper health coverage?

When do you start bawling, JPS?

jps wrote:
3 trillion dollars in war debt?

Repaying a trillion dollars in Chinese financing for tax breaks?

45,000 people a year dying for lack of proper health coverage?


What's most amazing, and the saddest, is that you believe O's "math".
Paying debt with borrowed money!

Pure stupidity, all for an ideal, and not a clue what a fool you are.

Johnson

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:54:27 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

jps wrote:
3 trillion dollars in war debt?

Repaying a trillion dollars in Chinese financing for tax breaks?

45,000 people a year dying for lack of proper health coverage?


What's most amazing, and the saddest, is that you believe O's "math".
Paying debt with borrowed money!

Pure stupidity, all for an ideal, and not a clue what a fool you are.

Johnson

An ideal to provide health care at a reasonable cost? No, it's called
civilized.

You think it's an ideal to not give those who need it least tax cuts?
That's called common sense.

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:54:27 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

jps wrote:
3 trillion dollars in war debt?

Repaying a trillion dollars in Chinese financing for tax breaks?

45,000 people a year dying for lack of proper health coverage?


What's most amazing, and the saddest, is that you believe O's "math".
Paying debt with borrowed money!

Pure stupidity, all for an ideal, and not a clue what a fool you are.

Johnson

An ideal to provide health care at a reasonable cost? No, it's called
civilized.

You think it's an ideal to not give those who need it least tax cuts?
That's called common sense.

Where is the House bill going to provide health care at a resonable cost?
Where does it reduce cost?

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:18:51 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:54:27 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

jps wrote:
3 trillion dollars in war debt?

Repaying a trillion dollars in Chinese financing for tax breaks?

45,000 people a year dying for lack of proper health coverage?


What's most amazing, and the saddest, is that you believe O's "math".
Paying debt with borrowed money!

Pure stupidity, all for an ideal, and not a clue what a fool you are.

Johnson

An ideal to provide health care at a reasonable cost? No, it's called
civilized.

You think it's an ideal to not give those who need it least tax cuts?
That's called common sense.

Where is the House bill going to provide health care at a resonable cost?
Where does it reduce cost?

What's reasonable, Bill? Today's rate, tomorrow's rate, the rates 10
years from now or the rates 10 years ago?

The whole point is to make it affordable. It's not and it's not
working. I don't make sausage and don't pretend to know how it's made
but I have to trust that the guy I put in charge is going to make sure
that what's important is preserved.

How is it that you put so much faith in Bush and you cannot in Obama?
Bush was responsible for two questionable wars, tax cuts we couldn't
afford, the fastest growth of the federal government in history and an
overall ballooning debt that crescendo'd as he left office.

Now you're jumping up and down about debt.

Pardon me if I scratch my head in wonder like I'm watching a strangely
behaving animal at the local zoo. A gorilla eating his own poop.

In article ,
says...

"The administration wants to keep some of the unspent funds available
for emergencies, but is considering setting aside a chunk for debt
reduction, according to people familiar with the matter. It is also
expected to lower the projected long-term cost of the program -- the
amount it expects to lose -- to as little as $200 billion from $341
billion estimated in August."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125799009185344567.html

So let me see if I got this right. The Administration wants to use
borrowed money which created increased debt to pay down the overall
debt incurred by increased spending.

Son-of-a-gun. That must mean that your average citizen should be able
to decrease his/her overall debt by borrowing more money to pay down
that debt.

Huh - how about that.

Uh, speculators have been doing such forever. It can actually be quite
cost affective to borrow money at a much lower rate to pay off debt with
a higher rate of interest.

--
WAFA the newsgroup liar free!

"NowNow" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"The administration wants to keep some of the unspent funds available
for emergencies, but is considering setting aside a chunk for debt
reduction, according to people familiar with the matter. It is also
expected to lower the projected long-term cost of the program -- the
amount it expects to lose -- to as little as $200 billion from $341
billion estimated in August."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125799009185344567.html

So let me see if I got this right. The Administration wants to use
borrowed money which created increased debt to pay down the overall
debt incurred by increased spending.

Son-of-a-gun. That must mean that your average citizen should be able
to decrease his/her overall debt by borrowing more money to pay down
that debt.

Huh - how about that.

Uh, speculators have been doing such forever. It can actually be quite
cost affective to borrow money at a much lower rate to pay off debt with
a higher rate of interest.

--
WAFA the newsgroup liar free!

And this lowered your debt?

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?

You can see how desperate our resident liberal know-nothings are.
Laying claim to "speculation" as a debt reduction technique. The
borrowed money comes from the same pool - US Treasuries. And the debt
cost is high. Speculators make their money manipulating 10/ths and
100/ths on much smaller scale debt bets than an entire national
economy.

The current administration is clueless, hapless, arrogant and
terminally wedded to an ideology that just does not work.

And liberals realise it, can't do anything about it, but persist in
adhering to it.

The ultimate Kool-Aid swallowers.