On 27/01/2010 3:07 PM, Harry wrote:
On 1/27/10 5:05 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:56:30 -0500,
wrote:

On 1/27/10 4:53 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:00:56 -0500, wrote:


2500 for individuals? 5000 for families?

this is a tax increase 'cuz aint no one gonna get insurance at those
prices

AND it's the biggest tax give away for the rich in history. they would
pay no taxes at all.

more typical GOP right wing bull****





Well, sadly, of course. All the right really wants is to avoid
responsibilities, and let the other guy pay the bills.

yeah. it's a MASSIVE tax INCREASE for the middle class: no tax
deductions for mortgages AND we have have to pay for our health
insurance

BUT the rich get the ultimate tax DEDUCTION: they pay no taxes at all.



Well, of course...the middle and lower income classes exist only to
further enrich the rich.

So the democrat way seems to be is to unemploy us all.

On 27/01/2010 6:08 PM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:00:56 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

Just finished reading this. It's worth consideration, I think.

Short summary can be viewed and read he

http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_rele...pressreleases/
RoadmapSummary.pdf


Detailed report with the numbers to back it up he

http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/entitlement/
roadmap_detailed_entirereport.pdf

Have fun,
Eisboch

Nothing for nothing, but after the response of the American people to the
sausage making of health care reform, I expect these wide-sweeping road
maps to be a thing of the past. Health care reform is one thing. A year
ago, everyone seemed to want it, but this guy wants to overhaul health
care, medicare, social security, *and* taxes. DOA


His roadmap isn't perfect ... or maybe even feasible ... but band-aid
approaches to each crisis isn't going to work either.
It's really time to re-think economics in this global economy and then plan
and act accordingly. The programs and solutions being beaten to death in
D.C. aren't going to solve anything, long term.

Eisboch

Agreed. And the only thing Obama made sense with is government cuts in
spending.

Trouble is, I don't believe he is succinct. How can you be overspending
by $2 trillion a year, promise more can save $30 billion and balance the
budget?

I would say his roadmap has no hope in hell. More BS talk.

I still say government wants health care for the revenue skiming.

On 27/01/2010 8:05 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:20:40 -0700,
wrote:



Because more people are starting to realize what democrat health care
is. An attempt to skim health care revenue for government excesses in
spending and corruption

uh what?

we have the most expensive healthcare in the world. sounds like you
crybabies are worrying about the horse that's already left the barn

. Including the democrat need to fund
dysfunctional private corporations with taxpayers taxes.

that's why we need socialized medicine

Yep, the best services around if you are approved and live long enough
in line.

On 27/01/2010 7:05 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:15:50 -0700,
wrote:

On 27/01/2010 7:00 AM, Eisboch wrote:
Just finished reading this. It's worth consideration, I think.

Short summary can be viewed and read he

http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_rele...mapSummary.pdf


Detailed report with the numbers to back it up he

http://www.house.gov/budget_republic...tirereport.pdf

Have fun,
Eisboch

Probably will never happen, too many greedy love DC for the corruption.

But would certainly vote for it and this Paul D. Ryan. Has a vision, a
good vision.

yeah he has a vision

no taxes for the rich

all taxes paid for by the middle class


How is that different than today? After taxes, it would take the
_entire_ wealth of someone like Bill Gates to keep Obama in debt spend
for just one week.

Think about it. Bill Gates could sell of Microsoft to the Chinese, pay
his taxes owed, and maybe, just maybe keep Obama in a neutral deficit
situation for just one week.

The wealth destruction is mind boggling. Only thing you know for sure
is it will not continue. Sooner of later even the US government will be
broke. Pretty much already is, but no one wants to go to the world to
say hey, these American welchers are not going to pay.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Jan 27, 8:05 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Jan 27, 6:52 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Eisboch" wrote in message

m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
om...

Just finished reading this. It's worth consideration, I think.

Short summary can be viewed and read he

http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_rele...ses/RoadmapSum...

Detailed report with the numbers to back it up he

http://www.house.gov/budget_republic...dmap_detailed_...

Have fun,
Eisboch

Competely DOA as thunder said. Now is the time to spend money not
contract. If the private sector doesn't create jobs, the gov't must.
This
was learned the hard way by the Hoover administration.

Pssst... (looking around nervously) .... the "gov't" is broke.....

Eisboch

No it isn't. It's called deficit spending.

Broke implies insolvent or lacking in funds.
"Deficit spending is the amount by which a government, private
company, or individual's spending exceeds income"

Let's see... I spend more than I make, so I'm lacking in funds, so
therefore I'm "broke".

Really? So, I guess you've never purchased anything on your credit card
that
you couldn't immediately afford. You've never bought a house, because
you'd
be unable to pay off the mortgage immediately. Same goes with a car.

Having a line of credit and being broke are not mutually exclusive.
Signing up and getting credit neither rescues you from being broke,
nor does it protect you from it. In fact, it exposes you even more to
the possibility of ending up broke.

Never said it did. I said that using your credit doesn't mean you're broke.
Which is what you're claiming.

Never heard of an entity overextending their credit line or buying
such a large house that they become insolvent, broke, and ultimately
they have to file for bankruptcy? Really? Someone is broke, uses a
line of credit, then are still broke and can't service that credit?

Since the US gov't isn't insolvent, broke, perhaps you would like to try for
some other point? We're servicing the debt just fine. It can't go on
forever, but it's still manageable.

If you're broke and you have to reach into a line of credit to buy
some gas, you aren't "less" broke when your tank is full. In fact,
you're even more "broke".

You're saying the same thing over and over, hoping it will make a different
point. It won't.

Sure you went to school? They taught this basic stuff at least by the
8th grade or so.

I guess you missed that grade then.

Just... think.

Good advice.

Yep, hope you take it!

You really sound pathetic. Why not just admit you're wrong.


--
Nom=de=Plume

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 27/01/2010 3:07 PM, Harry wrote:
On 1/27/10 5:05 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:56:30 -0500,
wrote:

On 1/27/10 4:53 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:00:56 -0500, wrote:


2500 for individuals? 5000 for families?

this is a tax increase 'cuz aint no one gonna get insurance at those
prices

AND it's the biggest tax give away for the rich in history. they would
pay no taxes at all.

more typical GOP right wing bull****





Well, sadly, of course. All the right really wants is to avoid
responsibilities, and let the other guy pay the bills.

yeah. it's a MASSIVE tax INCREASE for the middle class: no tax
deductions for mortgages AND we have have to pay for our health
insurance

BUT the rich get the ultimate tax DEDUCTION: they pay no taxes at all.



Well, of course...the middle and lower income classes exist only to
further enrich the rich.

So the democrat way seems to be is to unemploy us all.


Only ex-pats like you.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:23:22 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since the US gov't isn't insolvent, broke, perhaps you would like to try
for
some other point? We're servicing the debt just fine. It can't go on
forever, but it's still manageable.

This really gets down to net worth. If you owe more than you could
cash out for, you are broke. I had this explained to be by a financial
planner in the early 70s and it turned my life around.

The federal government probably has a positive net worth but are we
really willing to sell off all the federal properties?


We have quite a bit more than a slight positive net worth, and there's no
reason to sell off anything. We're not being liquidated.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:05:38 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Really? So, I guess you've never purchased anything on your credit card
that
you couldn't immediately afford. You've never bought a house, because
you'd
be unable to pay off the mortgage immediately. Same goes with a car.

I figured out pretty early in my life that was a losing proposition.
It is a whole lot better to save your money until you can afford what
you want. Otherwise you are just making bankers rich. If you can't
afford a $15,000 car on your salary, how in the hell can you afford to
pay $19,000 for the same car? (a 4 year 12% note)
I understand young people borrowing money early in their life but if
they are still borrowing money in their 40s they will always be broke.

Have you looked recently at what percentage of the federal budget goes
to servicing our debt?


You're certainly right that it's not a good idea to finance things that you
can pay for without putting yourself in a cash flow problem situation. Cars
are a great example of people spending more than they should. I've never
purchased a new car, and I've never purchased one on credit. Some people
don't have that option, but one should avoid it whenever possible. Houses
are a different story. The vast, vast majority get a mortgage. Credit card
use is dangerous if not done properly, but I certainly use mine. I don't run
a balance, and I haven't seen grad school. It's still a loan, however.

I believe the service on the debt is 15% or so of the budget... something
like that.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:48:08 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The federal government probably has a positive net worth but are we
really willing to sell off all the federal properties?


We have quite a bit more than a slight positive net worth, and there's no
reason to sell off anything. We're not being liquidated.

The government has a liquidity problem. If the Chinese, Japanese and
Brits decide to let their federal paper mature without rolling it
over, we don't have a way to pay them without devaluing the dollar.


I disagree. We've never missed a payment on the debt service. They wouldn't
do that, since they'd be hurt much worse than we, and they're making money.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:04:22 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I believe the service on the debt is 15% or so of the budget... something
like that.


$383,071,060,815.42 last year 12,3%

Expect to see that shoot up with the extra $2 trillion


What extra $2T? And, it won't make that much difference. The "debt" issue is
seriously overblown. It's not insignificant, but it's not anywhere close to
a crisis.

--
Nom=de=Plume