On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:11:48 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 28/01/2010 4:21 PM, bpuharic wrote:
"To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where
we are and where we’re going but where we’ve been. The situation at
this time last year was truly ominous. [...] First, we must understand
what’s happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems
are not the product of the recovery program that’s only just now
getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the
inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend. [...] The
only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to
the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation,
runaway interest rates and unemployment

-----------------

oh...wait...that was reagan in his first SOTU address

sorry. my mistake

the right pretends obama's a coward for simply telling the truth.

No. I think we are reasonable to expect some results from the biggest
debt spend in the history of economics.

says the crybaby, ignoring the fact his friends engineered

-the biggest theft of funds in history from the middle class to the
rich
-the biggest bank failures in history since th 29 crash

guess he, being a right winger, doesn't know history


But you can't find $2 trillion of benefits.

hell, bush spent a trillion dollars on the iraq war alone. that ****ed
money away like it was water


Obama is ****ing away the American dream. Only the stupid believe him,
a polished bull****er. But BS is all he has. Just jive. While he
sells Americans out to debt-government-servatude.

says the crybaby forgetting that the right engineered the biggest bank
collapse in recent history

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:21:32 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

hell, bush spent a trillion dollars on the iraq war alone. that ****ed
money away like it was water

That used to be s shock line and you had to do some creative
bookkeeping to get to a trillion.
The TARP (and other handouts) cost twice that much in one tenth the
time. We didn't even create any jobs. At least The Iraq war employed
lots of people for 10 years making vehicles for the insurgents to blow
up, materiel for the troops and all manner of industrial goods we gave
the Iraqis.
At a certain point what we paid AIG makes Haliburton look like small
time thieves pinching candy bars from the 7-11. Geithner was on TV
yesterday trying to convince me that was a good idea.


Most of TARP has or will be repaid. Not so with the deaths in Iraq.
Haliburton soak us out of billions, and it's still going on.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:21:32 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

hell, bush spent a trillion dollars on the iraq war alone. that ****ed
money away like it was water
That used to be s shock line and you had to do some creative
bookkeeping to get to a trillion.
The TARP (and other handouts) cost twice that much in one tenth the
time. We didn't even create any jobs. At least The Iraq war employed
lots of people for 10 years making vehicles for the insurgents to blow
up, materiel for the troops and all manner of industrial goods we gave
the Iraqis.
At a certain point what we paid AIG makes Haliburton look like small
time thieves pinching candy bars from the 7-11. Geithner was on TV
yesterday trying to convince me that was a good idea.


Most of TARP has or will be repaid. Not so with the deaths in Iraq.
Haliburton soak us out of billions, and it's still going on.


It costs lots of money to run a couple of wars toots. If Halliburton
wasn't profitable then Obama would be bailing them out. No?

On 1/29/10 2:28 AM, wrote:


Again, you can hate Haliburton but they did create a lot of jobs.


Yeah, and Al Capone was the best friend of midwest undertakers.

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:28:15 -0500, wrote:




We'll see how much really gets paid. The big banks were able to pay
but some of them are now saying they didn't really need the money in
the first place. The rat hole that won't give up any of it's money is
AIG. There is nobody there to pay it back. Hedge fund guys like Soros
have it all.

and how much money will iraq pay to the US for the trillion we spent
there?


Again, you can hate Haliburton but they did create a lot of jobs

and the war created 4400 corpses...the flower of american youth. but,
then, they were middle class kids. and the right doesn't particularly
care about american soldiers.

On 1/29/10 6:23 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:28:15 -0500, wrote:




We'll see how much really gets paid. The big banks were able to pay
but some of them are now saying they didn't really need the money in
the first place. The rat hole that won't give up any of it's money is
AIG. There is nobody there to pay it back. Hedge fund guys like Soros
have it all.

and how much money will iraq pay to the US for the trillion we spent
there?


Again, you can hate Haliburton but they did create a lot of jobs

and the war created 4400 corpses...the flower of american youth. but,
then, they were middle class kids. and the right doesn't particularly
care about american soldiers.



The right cares about profits and the growth of corporatism. It is good
at manipulating boobus Americanus, as evidenced by Tosk here being a
rightie. Tosk is an uneducated, skill-less, jobless drag on society, and
yet he thinks his interests lie with a side who views him as nothing
more than a serf to be exploited. D'oh.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:23:39 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:28:15 -0500, wrote:




We'll see how much really gets paid. The big banks were able to pay
but some of them are now saying they didn't really need the money in
the first place. The rat hole that won't give up any of it's money is
AIG. There is nobody there to pay it back. Hedge fund guys like Soros
have it all.

and how much money will iraq pay to the US for the trillion we spent
there?


Again, you can hate Haliburton but they did create a lot of jobs

and the war created 4400 corpses...the flower of american youth. but,
then, they were middle class kids. and the right doesn't particularly
care about american soldiers.

I am not a fan of the war, never have been. I am still waiting for
Obama to get us out.


But it's his fault that the country is in financial trouble, even though
Bush got us into Iraq, which is costing $10B a month???

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:47:03 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

But it's his fault that the country is in financial trouble, even though
Bush got us into Iraq, which is costing $10B a month???

Which Bush? HW got us into Iraq and his 3 sons have not extracted us
yet. Granted W was the worst by a long shot but they all spent
exorbitant sums there


I was talking about Obama, but you chopped that part out. At least Bush I
stopped before toppling the gov't. He actually listened to his advisors.
Bush II just listened to Cheney.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:30:38 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:23:39 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:28:15 -0500, wrote:




We'll see how much really gets paid. The big banks were able to pay
but some of them are now saying they didn't really need the money in
the first place. The rat hole that won't give up any of it's money is
AIG. There is nobody there to pay it back. Hedge fund guys like Soros
have it all.

and how much money will iraq pay to the US for the trillion we spent
there?


Again, you can hate Haliburton but they did create a lot of jobs

and the war created 4400 corpses...the flower of american youth. but,
then, they were middle class kids. and the right doesn't particularly
care about american soldiers.

I am not a fan of the war, never have been. I am still waiting for
Obama to get us out.

you just don't leave a war like you leave a dance. and the last
american marine has already left iraq. the army will follow next
year.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:42:39 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:21:32 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

hell, bush spent a trillion dollars on the iraq war alone. that ****ed
money away like it was water

That used to be s shock line and you had to do some creative
bookkeeping to get to a trillion.
The TARP (and other handouts) cost twice that much in one tenth the
time. We didn't even create any jobs. At least The Iraq war employed
lots of people for 10 years making vehicles for the insurgents to blow
up, materiel for the troops and all manner of industrial goods we gave
the Iraqis.
At a certain point what we paid AIG makes Haliburton look like small
time thieves pinching candy bars from the 7-11. Geithner was on TV
yesterday trying to convince me that was a good idea.


Most of TARP has or will be repaid. Not so with the deaths in Iraq.
Haliburton soak us out of billions, and it's still going on.


We'll see how much really gets paid. The big banks were able to pay
but some of them are now saying they didn't really need the money in
the first place. The rat hole that won't give up any of it's money is
AIG. There is nobody there to pay it back. Hedge fund guys like Soros
have it all.

AIG owes about $70B. That's about 1 years worth of the Iraqi war. I believe
all of the major banks have paid back the money. Keep blaming Soros if that
makes you feel better.


Again, you can hate Haliburton but they did create a lot of jobs. How
many jobs did TARP create? For that matter you really need a good
sense of humor to believe the stimulus is creating many jobs. The $2B
clunker deal may have kept some Canadians and Japs working an extra
month last fall and a few car dealers got through Thanksgiving with
the lights on but they are screwed again now.

Believe what you want. The stim helped, which is obvious. Is it the final
answer, no.

--
Nom=de=Plume