wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 08:48:15 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Thunder, they're really embarassed by Palin... the normal, sane ones. The
ones who think she's actually presidential material are not normal. It
really ****es them off (the latter), who can't understand why normal folks
aren't willing to follow them down the path to destruction.

If the jobs situation turns around before the next Congressional election,
the Dems will likely increase their lead in the House and perhaps even the
Senate. If the economy continues to rebound, Obama will be reelected in
another landslide. So far, I haven't seen a viable presidential-level
Rep.,
but of course it's way early.

I think the GOP is well placed to take the Senate back in 2010 and
make a dent in the house majority. People will be going to the polls
just about the time the 2011 health care options period closes and
people will still be stinging from the sticker shock of the inevitable
increases that will be here from "free health care".
I am sure the deficit will be going up more and employment will still
be grim. We are not going to replace all those UAW jobs and
construction will still be dead. The "commercial construction" shoe is
just starting to drop. All those new strip malls they built to serve
the houses they didn't sell are sitting empty.
It will be a target rich environment.
The real question is whether they can soften this whacko position they
seem to be taking with Palin, Beck and Limbaugh. The winners will
probably be the ones who can stay fiscally conservative but distance
themselves from the cliff some have been leaping off.
The problem I see is they have not really found a voice that isn't
simply a huckster, making money off of the vacuum in the party
leadership.


How so? Which states/seats do you think are borderline? The Dems would have
to lose quite a few, and the Senate is typically pretty stable.

There's no "free health care" in the current or expected bill, so that's
just your musing or right-wing fear-induced.

The deficit isn't a bread and butter issue with most people. You're talking
about the budget deficit and not the trade deficit right? Just checking.

There's no way in my view that they can "soften" the wacko view. Wacko is
wacko. Most people don't listen to their lies, although a big number do,
unfortunately. Not sure what cliff you're referring to..

Jobs will be an issue. If they continue to turn around, then the Dems don't
have much to worry about.

Totally agree with the huckster comment. I don't see anyone out there who
truly represents a thinking Republican party voter.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:44:49 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:39:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I think the GOP is well placed to take the Senate back in 2010 and
make a dent in the house majority.


How so? Which states/seats do you think are borderline? The Dems would have
to lose quite a few, and the Senate is typically pretty stable.

I just think there will be some buyer's remorse, as there usually is
the first mid term after a presidential election.


There's no "free health care" in the current or expected bill, so that's
just your musing or right-wing fear-induced.

This is what most fans think it is supposed to be and the models they
have been spinning (Canada, Japan, Scandinavia) reinforce that.
Actually the expansion of Medicaid from 133% to 150% of the poverty
level (house and senate versions) will make it free for a lot of
people.
The people who pay will be paying a lot more and a lot of people who
choose not to buy insurance will have to buy it. That will be a
sticker shock for them

Seems that most of Obama's loss in the polls is because there's way
too much "same old." He hasn't led the Congress to a health care
"public option" which polling consistently says is favored.
Losing his base and independents that wanted "change."
Surrounded himself with Wall Street cronies.
Hard to see how this health care bill even gets passed as it is.
Forcing Americans to fork over their wages to benefit health insurance
and health care share-holders and execs.
Doesn't make sense. Socialism for the special interests.
Same old.
BTW, I saw a 9% premium increase in my yearly Aetna enrollment.
But when it was done - as the health care debate was at it hottest -
it ended up as a 5% reduction!
Go figure.
Nobody knows how this thing will pan out.

--Vic

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:15:18 -0600, Vic Smith wrote:


Seems that most of Obama's loss in the polls is because there's way too
much "same old."

Maybe, or, "It's the economy, stupid." When the economy is south, the
President generally takes the heat.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:39:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I think the GOP is well placed to take the Senate back in 2010 and
make a dent in the house majority.


How so? Which states/seats do you think are borderline? The Dems would
have
to lose quite a few, and the Senate is typically pretty stable.

I just think there will be some buyer's remorse, as there usually is
the first mid term after a presidential election.

That's true, but these are unusual times. We'll see I suppose.



There's no "free health care" in the current or expected bill, so that's
just your musing or right-wing fear-induced.

This is what most fans think it is supposed to be and the models they
have been spinning (Canada, Japan, Scandinavia) reinforce that.
Actually the expansion of Medicaid from 133% to 150% of the poverty
level (house and senate versions) will make it free for a lot of
people.

Fans? No one I've heard of is spinning those systems. If you're talking
France (rated #1) or Germany or perhaps the UK, even then, no one is
spinning those, and they are much closer to ours, including what the bill
appears to do.

The people who pay will be paying a lot more and a lot of people who
choose not to buy insurance will have to buy it. That will be a
sticker shock for them

Which people? Those who don't have it, mostly want it. Sure, there are
always a few who choose or can afford not to have it.


The deficit isn't a bread and butter issue with most people. You're
talking
about the budget deficit and not the trade deficit right? Just checking.

It will become a bread and butter issue when bread and butter become
more expensive (the carbon tax). Actually in the late 80s and early
90s, the deficit was an election issue (Ross Perot). It brought us
about 3 years of sound fiscal policy with the help of the 104th
congress.

I don't think you can credit Perot with "sound fiscal policy." He was
another wacko, smart business man that he was.


There's no way in my view that they can "soften" the wacko view. Wacko is
wacko. Most people don't listen to their lies, although a big number do,
unfortunately. Not sure what cliff you're referring to..

Unfortunately the Arbitron of talk radio and the Neilsons of news TV
dispute that "most people" claim
, at least for people who watch news and listen to talk.The cliff is
the GOP believing 20% is enough.

20% doesn't win elections. They're being shunted to the side of the
mainstream, as they should be for their racism and fear-based propaganda.


Jobs will be an issue. If they continue to turn around, then the Dems
don't
have much to worry about.

I am just not sure what these people are going to do. We have exported
most manufacturing and we have several years worth of built and unsold
houses, condos and commercial buildings.

Yes, but the jobs situation is starting to turn around. If that continues...

Totally agree with the huckster comment. I don't see anyone out there who
truly represents a thinking Republican party voter.

The GOP lost me around 1989-90 but the Democrats never appealed that
much to me either.

I self-identify as a Democrat, but that's mainly because there's no other
rational alternative.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:46:08 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:39:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



There's no "free health care" in the current or expected bill, so that's
just your musing or right-wing fear-induced.

This is what most fans think it is supposed to be and the models they
have been spinning (Canada, Japan, Scandinavia) reinforce that.
Actually the expansion of Medicaid from 133% to 150% of the poverty
level (house and senate versions) will make it free for a lot of
people.

Fans? No one I've heard of is spinning those systems. If you're talking
France (rated #1) or Germany or perhaps the UK, even then, no one is
spinning those, and they are much closer to ours, including what the bill
appears to do.


Canada gets mentioned every time this comes up and if you say France,
you are talking about "Free" medical care ... unless you pay taxes.
The problem is that level of taxation is politically impossible here
so it would just be rampaging debt.

Canada gets mentioned as a unlikely and not viable example for the US. The
French med system isn't free. Umm... most people pay taxes, except maybe the
very, very rich, and the very, very poor.


The people who pay will be paying a lot more and a lot of people who
choose not to buy insurance will have to buy it. That will be a
sticker shock for them

Which people? Those who don't have it, mostly want it. Sure, there are
always a few who choose or can afford not to have it.

It is mostly young people in mediocre jobs who don't buy insurance.
Those are the ones we need in the system if this is actually going to
be insurance.

Yes, but they could afford it if it's set up properly, which is where we
need to be.

Otherwise it is just a medical brokerage. Nobody wants to buy
insurance until they think their medical bills will be more than their
premium.

Nobody wants to buy car ins., but we're generally required by law to do
that.


The deficit isn't a bread and butter issue with most people. You're
talking
about the budget deficit and not the trade deficit right? Just checking.

It will become a bread and butter issue when bread and butter become
more expensive (the carbon tax). Actually in the late 80s and early
90s, the deficit was an election issue (Ross Perot). It brought us
about 3 years of sound fiscal policy with the help of the 104th
congress.

I don't think you can credit Perot with "sound fiscal policy." He was
another wacko, smart business man that he was.

He was a whacko who drove the fiscal policy of Gingrich/Clinton that
got us close to even for a year or two. You could criticize Perot for
being an egotistical jerk but his charts were right on.

Gingrich?? His "Contract on America" was just a rehash of the same bs.
Clinton mostly got things under control.

Perot was unwilling to listen to anyone. Having a good chart means very
little.


I actually saw Perot once at EDS in Rockville Md, and he fired me for
having hair on my face. Too bad I didn't work for him.



Jobs will be an issue. If they continue to turn around, then the Dems
don't
have much to worry about.

I am just not sure what these people are going to do. We have exported
most manufacturing and we have several years worth of built and unsold
houses, condos and commercial buildings.

Yes, but the jobs situation is starting to turn around. If that
continues...

The problem is, guys who used to be making $60,000 and up, building
cars and houses are now back working... but for half that at some
menial job.



Ok, so what's your solution?

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:46:08 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



Canada gets mentioned every time this comes up and if you say France,
you are talking about "Free" medical care ... unless you pay taxes.
The problem is that level of taxation is politically impossible here
so it would just be rampaging debt.

Canada gets mentioned as a unlikely and not viable example for the US. The
French med system isn't free. Umm... most people pay taxes, except maybe the
very, very rich, and the very, very poor.

It is mostly young people in mediocre jobs who don't buy insurance.
Those are the ones we need in the system if this is actually going to
be insurance.

Yes, but they could afford it if it's set up properly, which is where we
need to be.

You keep saying "this is where/what we need to blah blah blah, but you
have no ****ing idea how your pipe dreams could be accomplished or who
could fullfill them. You are just another silly left wing whacko.



Otherwise it is just a medical brokerage. Nobody wants to buy
insurance until they think their medical bills will be more than their
premium.

Nobody wants to buy car ins., but we're generally required by law to do
that.


He was a whacko who drove the fiscal policy of Gingrich/Clinton that
got us close to even for a year or two. You could criticize Perot for
being an egotistical jerk but his charts were right on.

Gingrich?? His "Contract on America" was just a rehash of the same bs.
Clinton mostly got things under control.

Perot was unwilling to listen to anyone. Having a good chart means very
little.

I actually saw Perot once at EDS in Rockville Md, and he fired me for
having hair on my face. Too bad I didn't work for him.


The problem is, guys who used to be making $60,000 and up, building
cars and houses are now back working... but for half that at some
menial job.

Ok, so what's your solution?

If he had a solution he would be President. Anything beats the " throw
it at the wall and see if it sticks action guy we presently have in
charge. Sorry President Barry. I love the crabs you sent me, but my
conscience dictates that I tell the truth. (gag)

--

It's flattering to see so many of you turds spoofing me.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:32:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:46:08 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:39:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Canada gets mentioned every time this comes up and if you say France,
you are talking about "Free" medical care ... unless you pay taxes.
The problem is that level of taxation is politically impossible here
so it would just be rampaging debt.

Canada gets mentioned as a unlikely and not viable example for the US. The
French med system isn't free. Umm... most people pay taxes, except maybe
the
very, very rich, and the very, very poor.

In the US 43% of the low end pay no income tax and the high end up
paying around 15%. I don't see that changing anytime soon since the
congress is well bribed by the rich.

Nope... http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html



The people who pay will be paying a lot more and a lot of people who
choose not to buy insurance will have to buy it. That will be a
sticker shock for them

Which people? Those who don't have it, mostly want it. Sure, there are
always a few who choose or can afford not to have it.

It is mostly young people in mediocre jobs who don't buy insurance.
Those are the ones we need in the system if this is actually going to
be insurance.

Yes, but they could afford it if it's set up properly, which is where we
need to be.

"Afford" is a relative term. They don't want to pay anything unless
they are sick and they think a couple hundred a month is too much for
something they don't plan on using.

I don't believe that most people who are uninsured prefer to stay that way.
Can you cite the source for this?


Otherwise it is just a medical brokerage. Nobody wants to buy
insurance until they think their medical bills will be more than their
premium.

Nobody wants to buy car ins., but we're generally required by law to do
that.
... But they have convinced us driving a car is not a right, it is
just from the kindness of the government that we are allowed to drive.

Why do you think it's a right? Is it written into the Constitution? It's a
privilege that needs to be earned.



The deficit isn't a bread and butter issue with most people. You're
talking
about the budget deficit and not the trade deficit right? Just
checking.

It will become a bread and butter issue when bread and butter become
more expensive (the carbon tax). Actually in the late 80s and early
90s, the deficit was an election issue (Ross Perot). It brought us
about 3 years of sound fiscal policy with the help of the 104th
congress.

I don't think you can credit Perot with "sound fiscal policy." He was
another wacko, smart business man that he was.

He was a whacko who drove the fiscal policy of Gingrich/Clinton that
got us close to even for a year or two. You could criticize Perot for
being an egotistical jerk but his charts were right on.

Gingrich?? His "Contract on America" was just a rehash of the same bs.
Clinton mostly got things under control.

You can't underestimate the contribution Gingrich made for Clinton's
surplus. Ways and Means is a House function and that is where the
money comes from. They also control spending.

Gingrich did very little that he wasn't forced to do. Clinton called his
bluff as I recall.


Perot was unwilling to listen to anyone. Having a good chart means very
little.

Perot got the public ready to accept the fiscal responsibility
represented by the largest tax increase in history. That is how
Clinton managed a surplus. He also pointed out the problem we have
now, the amount of short term debt the government is carrying. If your
debt is mostly in short term paper you have no idea what the interest
rate will be when you have to roll it over ... or even if anyone will
buy it. If China suddenly decided to just go somewhere else with their
money and not renew their US paper we couldn't pay them what was due.
That is a lot more of a problem for us than global warming, terrorism
and the health care crisis combined. China calling in their cash would
be about as bad as that planet killing comet we are overdue for.

Oh come on... Perot never got much public support, and he quit and then
changed his mind.


I actually saw Perot once at EDS in Rockville Md, and he fired me for
having hair on my face. Too bad I didn't work for him.



Jobs will be an issue. If they continue to turn around, then the Dems
don't
have much to worry about.

I am just not sure what these people are going to do. We have exported
most manufacturing and we have several years worth of built and unsold
houses, condos and commercial buildings.

Yes, but the jobs situation is starting to turn around. If that
continues...

The problem is, guys who used to be making $60,000 and up, building
cars and houses are now back working... but for half that at some
menial job.



Ok, so what's your solution?

Send about 5 million people to Navy Corpsman school and set them up in
storefront clinics doing triage for doctors, actually taking care of
about 20% of the patients.
You don't need 8 years of college to patch up wounds, give shots and
hand out a bottle of pills.

That's going to solve our economic woes? Hardly. And, yes our economy and
the heathcare crisis are interlinked.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 22:59:34 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:32:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:46:08 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:k07dj55knu2m5m920vva9hsjjagfg59qij@4ax. com...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:39:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Canada gets mentioned every time this comes up and if you say France,
you are talking about "Free" medical care ... unless you pay taxes.
The problem is that level of taxation is politically impossible here
so it would just be rampaging debt.

Canada gets mentioned as a unlikely and not viable example for the US.
The
French med system isn't free. Umm... most people pay taxes, except maybe
the
very, very rich, and the very, very poor.

In the US 43% of the low end pay no income tax and the high end up
paying around 15%. I don't see that changing anytime soon since the
congress is well bribed by the rich.

Nope... http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Nope what? If you are really rich you manage to keep most of your
income off of line 37 of your 1040 so that chart is bogus.
I am just citing Warren Buffett and he is probably more honest on his
taxes than your dentist, who is also in that top 1% column.

The numbers you quoted don't match, and if it's off the 1040, then it's
speculation. Where did Buffett say this?




The people who pay will be paying a lot more and a lot of people who
choose not to buy insurance will have to buy it. That will be a
sticker shock for them

Which people? Those who don't have it, mostly want it. Sure, there are
always a few who choose or can afford not to have it.

It is mostly young people in mediocre jobs who don't buy insurance.
Those are the ones we need in the system if this is actually going to
be insurance.

Yes, but they could afford it if it's set up properly, which is where we
need to be.

"Afford" is a relative term. They don't want to pay anything unless
they are sick and they think a couple hundred a month is too much for
something they don't plan on using.

I don't believe that most people who are uninsured prefer to stay that
way.
Can you cite the source for this?

Do you know a 20 something person who thinks health insurance is more
important than a nice car?

If you explain it to someone that age in a careful and complete way, then
yes she'll get it.


Otherwise it is just a medical brokerage. Nobody wants to buy
insurance until they think their medical bills will be more than their
premium.

Nobody wants to buy car ins., but we're generally required by law to do
that.
... But they have convinced us driving a car is not a right, it is
just from the kindness of the government that we are allowed to drive.

Why do you think it's a right? Is it written into the Constitution? It's a
privilege that needs to be earned.


What are you talking about, driving or health care. The Constitution
is silent on both of them.

Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of
government.




The deficit isn't a bread and butter issue with most people. You're
talking
about the budget deficit and not the trade deficit right? Just
checking.

It will become a bread and butter issue when bread and butter become
more expensive (the carbon tax). Actually in the late 80s and early
90s, the deficit was an election issue (Ross Perot). It brought us
about 3 years of sound fiscal policy with the help of the 104th
congress.

I don't think you can credit Perot with "sound fiscal policy." He was
another wacko, smart business man that he was.

He was a whacko who drove the fiscal policy of Gingrich/Clinton that
got us close to even for a year or two. You could criticize Perot for
being an egotistical jerk but his charts were right on.

Gingrich?? His "Contract on America" was just a rehash of the same bs.
Clinton mostly got things under control.

You can't underestimate the contribution Gingrich made for Clinton's
surplus. Ways and Means is a House function and that is where the
money comes from. They also control spending.

Gingrich did very little that he wasn't forced to do. Clinton called his
bluff as I recall.

Gingrich ran on a policy of fiscal responsibility and that was a big
part of the "contract"
They may have bickered on TV but Clinton and Gingrich were actually a
very effective team. Neither would have succeeded without the other.

BS. Read up... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America


Perot was unwilling to listen to anyone. Having a good chart means very
little.

Perot got the public ready to accept the fiscal responsibility
represented by the largest tax increase in history. That is how
Clinton managed a surplus. He also pointed out the problem we have
now, the amount of short term debt the government is carrying. If your
debt is mostly in short term paper you have no idea what the interest
rate will be when you have to roll it over ... or even if anyone will
buy it. If China suddenly decided to just go somewhere else with their
money and not renew their US paper we couldn't pay them what was due.
That is a lot more of a problem for us than global warming, terrorism
and the health care crisis combined. China calling in their cash would
be about as bad as that planet killing comet we are overdue for.

Oh come on... Perot never got much public support, and he quit and then
changed his mind.

It wasn't that Perot was a serious candidate, it was the questions he
made everyone else answer.

No one answered anything. He was mostly ignored.

You notice that after that, the rules were changed to ensure another
outsider could never get a seat at the table.
If you are not anointed by the Remocrat/Depublican oligarchy, you
can't enter the debates

Ah, so it's back to conspiracy theories? Or, the more likely answer is that
there hasn't been any viable third-party candidates.

Ok, so what's your solution?

Send about 5 million people to Navy Corpsman school and set them up in
storefront clinics doing triage for doctors, actually taking care of
about 20% of the patients.
You don't need 8 years of college to patch up wounds, give shots and
hand out a bottle of pills.

That's going to solve our economic woes? Hardly. And, yes our economy and
the heathcare crisis are interlinked.

It would be training for a job that can't be exported and it would
bend the health care cost curve. What else do you want?

The high school dropout who was making $60,000 on the line putting the
left front wheel on a Chevy is going to be in trouble, no matter what
we do.
Getting him a GED still won't get him UAW money.
That is the 60 year old "union bubble" that globalism popped.


Stop blaming the union for management's ill deeds. One immediate problem
with it is that it'll never happen. You're going to force people into the
school? Sure.


--
Nom=de=Plume

On 12/27/09 1:14 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 22:59:34 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:32:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:46:08 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:39:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Canada gets mentioned every time this comes up and if you say France,
you are talking about "Free" medical care ... unless you pay taxes.
The problem is that level of taxation is politically impossible here
so it would just be rampaging debt.

Canada gets mentioned as a unlikely and not viable example for the US.
The
French med system isn't free. Umm... most people pay taxes, except maybe
the
very, very rich, and the very, very poor.

In the US 43% of the low end pay no income tax and the high end up
paying around 15%. I don't see that changing anytime soon since the
congress is well bribed by the rich.

Nope... http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Nope what? If you are really rich you manage to keep most of your
income off of line 37 of your 1040 so that chart is bogus.
I am just citing Warren Buffett and he is probably more honest on his
taxes than your dentist, who is also in that top 1% column.

The numbers you quoted don't match, and if it's off the 1040, then it's
speculation. Where did Buffett say this?




The people who pay will be paying a lot more and a lot of people who
choose not to buy insurance will have to buy it. That will be a
sticker shock for them

Which people? Those who don't have it, mostly want it. Sure, there are
always a few who choose or can afford not to have it.

It is mostly young people in mediocre jobs who don't buy insurance.
Those are the ones we need in the system if this is actually going to
be insurance.

Yes, but they could afford it if it's set up properly, which is where we
need to be.

"Afford" is a relative term. They don't want to pay anything unless
they are sick and they think a couple hundred a month is too much for
something they don't plan on using.

I don't believe that most people who are uninsured prefer to stay that
way.
Can you cite the source for this?

Do you know a 20 something person who thinks health insurance is more
important than a nice car?

If you explain it to someone that age in a careful and complete way, then
yes she'll get it.


Otherwise it is just a medical brokerage. Nobody wants to buy
insurance until they think their medical bills will be more than their
premium.

Nobody wants to buy car ins., but we're generally required by law to do
that.
... But they have convinced us driving a car is not a right, it is
just from the kindness of the government that we are allowed to drive.

Why do you think it's a right? Is it written into the Constitution? It's a
privilege that needs to be earned.


What are you talking about, driving or health care. The Constitution
is silent on both of them.

Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of
government.




The deficit isn't a bread and butter issue with most people. You're
talking
about the budget deficit and not the trade deficit right? Just
checking.

It will become a bread and butter issue when bread and butter become
more expensive (the carbon tax). Actually in the late 80s and early
90s, the deficit was an election issue (Ross Perot). It brought us
about 3 years of sound fiscal policy with the help of the 104th
congress.

I don't think you can credit Perot with "sound fiscal policy." He was
another wacko, smart business man that he was.

He was a whacko who drove the fiscal policy of Gingrich/Clinton that
got us close to even for a year or two. You could criticize Perot for
being an egotistical jerk but his charts were right on.

Gingrich?? His "Contract on America" was just a rehash of the same bs.
Clinton mostly got things under control.

You can't underestimate the contribution Gingrich made for Clinton's
surplus. Ways and Means is a House function and that is where the
money comes from. They also control spending.

Gingrich did very little that he wasn't forced to do. Clinton called his
bluff as I recall.

Gingrich ran on a policy of fiscal responsibility and that was a big
part of the "contract"
They may have bickered on TV but Clinton and Gingrich were actually a
very effective team. Neither would have succeeded without the other.

BS. Read up... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America


Perot was unwilling to listen to anyone. Having a good chart means very
little.

Perot got the public ready to accept the fiscal responsibility
represented by the largest tax increase in history. That is how
Clinton managed a surplus. He also pointed out the problem we have
now, the amount of short term debt the government is carrying. If your
debt is mostly in short term paper you have no idea what the interest
rate will be when you have to roll it over ... or even if anyone will
buy it. If China suddenly decided to just go somewhere else with their
money and not renew their US paper we couldn't pay them what was due.
That is a lot more of a problem for us than global warming, terrorism
and the health care crisis combined. China calling in their cash would
be about as bad as that planet killing comet we are overdue for.

Oh come on... Perot never got much public support, and he quit and then
changed his mind.

It wasn't that Perot was a serious candidate, it was the questions he
made everyone else answer.

No one answered anything. He was mostly ignored.

You notice that after that, the rules were changed to ensure another
outsider could never get a seat at the table.
If you are not anointed by the Remocrat/Depublican oligarchy, you
can't enter the debates

Ah, so it's back to conspiracy theories? Or, the more likely answer is that
there hasn't been any viable third-party candidates.

Ok, so what's your solution?

Send about 5 million people to Navy Corpsman school and set them up in
storefront clinics doing triage for doctors, actually taking care of
about 20% of the patients.
You don't need 8 years of college to patch up wounds, give shots and
hand out a bottle of pills.

That's going to solve our economic woes? Hardly. And, yes our economy and
the heathcare crisis are interlinked.

It would be training for a job that can't be exported and it would
bend the health care cost curve. What else do you want?

The high school dropout who was making $60,000 on the line putting the
left front wheel on a Chevy is going to be in trouble, no matter what
we do.
Getting him a GED still won't get him UAW money.
That is the 60 year old "union bubble" that globalism popped.


Stop blaming the union for management's ill deeds. One immediate problem
with it is that it'll never happen. You're going to force people into the
school? Sure.



It's always so nice when those with some means want to crap on those
with no means. It's so...Republican.

On 12/27/09 2:29 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:20:33 -0500,
wrote:

The high school dropout who was making $60,000 on the line putting the
left front wheel on a Chevy is going to be in trouble, no matter what
we do.
Getting him a GED still won't get him UAW money.
That is the 60 year old "union bubble" that globalism popped.


Stop blaming the union for management's ill deeds. One immediate problem
with it is that it'll never happen. You're going to force people into the
school? Sure.



It's always so nice when those with some means want to crap on those
with no means. It's so...Republican.

A republican would want to keep paying $60,000 a year for a menial job
and charge $30,000 for the crappy car they build.(making a tidy profit
along the way).
Unfortunately that economic model has been crushed by a global
marketplace where the cost of labor is driven down by what the
customer wants to pay. If those hillbillies in Tennessee can build a
Honda for $20,000 that performs better than a Chevy, people buy it, no
matter what aging ex-football stars say.



If those hillbillies in japan can build that car for $20,000, it's
because they have a national health care system that spreads its cost
over the entire country, and not the manufacturer of that car.

I know many highly skilled construction workers whose straight rate is
$50 an hour. The morons who whine about this say construction workers
aren't worth $50 an hour times the usual 1800-hour work year for a total
of $90,000 a year. Of course, very, very few workers get 1800 hours a
year or even close to it. For full pension and welfare benefits, 1200
hours a year is considered a full work year. That's about $60,000, and
from that must be deducted health care and pension payments. There's a
lot of downtime in construction work.

On the other hand there are many crooks and near crooks on wall street
who make many times that $60,000 a year. Now there is a group that is
grossly overpaid.