wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:41:51 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What??? Bush bankrupted the economy and you're blaming Obama????

The thing that really is going to bankrupt the country is the
entitlements.
That was an 80 year process where nobody was willing to say no and
nobody was willing to actually pay for it. They just passed the cost
on to the next generation. Minor stuff like the 4 or 5 wars were
trivial since they have an end. There is no end to the entitlements
and they will gobble up an ever increasing part of the GDP until we
fix the problem or until the country actually does bankrupt itself.
This medical insurance boondoggle is just more grease for the slippery
slope. To start with, does anyone really think congress will actually
make the Medicare cuts part of the "savings" are based on?

I think you're right in the long run... entitlements need to be dealt with
appropriately. That doesn't mean ending them, ala GWB moving them to the
stock market.

The "cuts" are mostly for waste and fraud, and I think some of them, perhaps
even a significant portion of them will be acted upon. One can take the
extremely pessimistic view that they won't be of course.

Do you think the insurance companies won't restructure the "Cadillac
plans" enough by 2018 (the current "cut in" data) that they avoid that
tax?

I'm not a big fan of the current bill in it's entirety, but portions of it
are good and it can be fixed, much like other programs are fixed after the
initial legislation passes.

Do you think they will actually raise any of the taxes necessary to
fund this?

On the rich, I hope so. They can afford it.

If so, you have been living in a cave for the last 40 years.

No... mostly nice houses.

All the spending is immediate and the funding is years down the road.

Well, that's an exaggeration. Much of the funding of many programs is
collected as taxes yearly. It's "down the road," but not necessarily years
down the road.


There is also no restraint on what insurance companies will charge,
only the mandate that they have to cover more people. They would do
that tomorrow ... if we were willing to pay for it. This bill makes
sure we will. You will see this October when the new policies come
out. The election in November. Any questions about how that will come
out?


Yes, we need to regulate them. This is one item that needs to get fixed via
legislation. However, if a public option was included, we wouldn't need as
much regulation. It's wildly popular with the public, but for some reason
the Dems in the Senate are afraid of doing what's popular (and right).

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 22:07:12 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 07/03/2010 7:56 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:44:01 -0700,
wrote:

yep. thinks that all working people are lazy...cant believe we
actually work

Cool. Save your money as Obama is at some point going to have to pass
on the tax bill for this insane debt-bailout spending.

guess he thinks obama's been president for 9 years. guess he forgot
bush ****ed away a TRILLION dollars in iraq

a TRILLION dollars. and he says NOTHING about that.

because bush is rich and white.


The mesiah has spent, now you must pay.

the money was spent before obama ever took office. you're just too
economically illterate to know that. it's simpler and easier to blame
it on the darkie

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 21:52:41 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On S

I doubt you are middle class, just someone who doesn't like their new
station in life as a poor working class. If you work? You work?

yep. thinks that all working people are lazy...cant believe we
actually work


Since Obama and the corrupt Congress has spent much more than Bush even
thought of spending,

uh...wrong. at least they spent it HERE. bush ****ed it away in iraq.
and look how the iraqis love us for saving their country!! wasnt that
trillion well spent!

and bush set up the TARP program. obama just implemented it




And interest rates will
definitely be higher. What are you going to do then? There will be no
money for bailouts, no money for healthcare. The government if it is the
banker for healthcare, will just keep the money and meter out a minimum of
heathcare. What has the stimulus accomplished? Other than keeping overpaid
government workers on the payrole.

we're already headed for collapse of healthcare. if the GOP had a plan
they would have done something. they didn't.

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:35:43 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 07/03/2010 11:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...


"Interest rates will definitely be higher." You must be an oracle. Duhh...
they're currently at historic lows, so that's not much of a leap in logic.

They can't go lower than zero.

Obama spent FAR less than Bush. Interesting how you right nuts forget about
the $10T in tax cuts for the rich and the Iraqi war's $6T.

Not as rate/time. For rate over time, Obama is debt-spending more than
4 times faster. By the end of 2010, 2 years, Obama will have debt spent
about the same as Bush did in 8 years.

to keep the US economy afloat. bush poured a TRILLION into iraq

what did that get us? any more jobs? more security? anything at all
for a TRILLION dollars?


"No money for healthcare." So, a public option or even better a single-payer
system would have 100s of billions. Nope, can't do that, right?

Eventually, when you can't pay for something you lose it. Just takes time.

which was already happening in healthcare, with double digit increases
over the last 10 years

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:30:30 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:


I am with you on this, but bpuharic and nom-du-plume types are clearly
an issue because they support Obama's madness. I am not sure if it is
selfishness or stupidity or both, but they sure follow the pied piper
like good little sheep.

gee. he forgets..or ignores, the fact the rich WHITE guy spent a
TRILLION in iraq for NOTHING. at least obama is spending on the US
economy. bush paid his rich halliburton/KKR buddies.


One thing no Obamanite wants to realize is how much unemployment has
Obama debt-bailout spend cost in jobs?

you mean because unemployment has dropped 3% over the last few months?
that what you complaining about?

you want it at 25%. good luck with that, right winger

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:30:30 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:


I am with you on this, but bpuharic and nom-du-plume types are clearly
an issue because they support Obama's madness. I am not sure if it is
selfishness or stupidity or both, but they sure follow the pied piper
like good little sheep.

gee. he forgets..or ignores, the fact the rich WHITE guy spent a
TRILLION in iraq for NOTHING. at least obama is spending on the US
economy. bush paid his rich halliburton/KKR buddies.


One thing no Obamanite wants to realize is how much unemployment has
Obama debt-bailout spend cost in jobs?

you mean because unemployment has dropped 3% over the last few months?
that what you complaining about?

you want it at 25%. good luck with that, right winger


Well, to give him credit, the chart at this site is pretty subtle. Perhaps
it's too subtle for Canuck.

http://palatnikfactor.com/2010/02/06...resident-bush/

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:30:30 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:


I am with you on this, but bpuharic and nom-du-plume types are clearly
an issue because they support Obama's madness. I am not sure if it is
selfishness or stupidity or both, but they sure follow the pied piper
like good little sheep.

gee. he forgets..or ignores, the fact the rich WHITE guy spent a
TRILLION in iraq for NOTHING. at least obama is spending on the US
economy. bush paid his rich halliburton/KKR buddies.


One thing no Obamanite wants to realize is how much unemployment has
Obama debt-bailout spend cost in jobs?

you mean because unemployment has dropped 3% over the last few months?
that what you complaining about?

you want it at 25%. good luck with that, right winger


Well, to give him credit, the chart at this site is pretty subtle. Perhaps
it's too subtle for Canuck.

http://palatnikfactor.com/2010/02/06...resident-bush/

--
Nom=de=Plume


That chart showes that Obama's "Stimulus" has failed. Resolutely failed.
There are less jobs being lost each month because there are not that many
jobs being done. Show us a chart of the real unemployment.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:30:30 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:


I am with you on this, but bpuharic and nom-du-plume types are clearly
an issue because they support Obama's madness. I am not sure if it is
selfishness or stupidity or both, but they sure follow the pied piper
like good little sheep.

gee. he forgets..or ignores, the fact the rich WHITE guy spent a
TRILLION in iraq for NOTHING. at least obama is spending on the US
economy. bush paid his rich halliburton/KKR buddies.


One thing no Obamanite wants to realize is how much unemployment has
Obama debt-bailout spend cost in jobs?

you mean because unemployment has dropped 3% over the last few months?
that what you complaining about?

you want it at 25%. good luck with that, right winger


Well, to give him credit, the chart at this site is pretty subtle.
Perhaps it's too subtle for Canuck.

http://palatnikfactor.com/2010/02/06...resident-bush/

--
Nom=de=Plume


That chart showes that Obama's "Stimulus" has failed. Resolutely failed.
There are less jobs being lost each month because there are not that many
jobs being done. Show us a chart of the real unemployment.

Good God... it's a mirror of what Bush caused. You really need to stop
listening to Rush.

There's a recovery underway. It may not be strong, it might not even be
sustainable. We'll have to wait and see, but to deny reality....

FYI, it's fewer jobs being loss, not less jobs being lost, but you got it
right fewer jobs are being lost. Yes, there are people dropping off the
unemployment roles and are no longer being counted. Yes, the unemployment
numbers are worse because of this fact, but the rate of job loss is slowing.
Just about all economists agree that the job situation isn't getting worse
but getting better.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:30:30 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:


I am with you on this, but bpuharic and nom-du-plume types are clearly
an issue because they support Obama's madness. I am not sure if it is
selfishness or stupidity or both, but they sure follow the pied piper
like good little sheep.
gee. he forgets..or ignores, the fact the rich WHITE guy spent a
TRILLION in iraq for NOTHING. at least obama is spending on the US
economy. bush paid his rich halliburton/KKR buddies.

One thing no Obamanite wants to realize is how much unemployment has
Obama debt-bailout spend cost in jobs?
you mean because unemployment has dropped 3% over the last few months?
that what you complaining about?

you want it at 25%. good luck with that, right winger

Well, to give him credit, the chart at this site is pretty subtle.
Perhaps it's too subtle for Canuck.

http://palatnikfactor.com/2010/02/06...resident-bush/

--
Nom=de=Plume

That chart showes that Obama's "Stimulus" has failed. Resolutely failed.
There are less jobs being lost each month because there are not that many
jobs being done. Show us a chart of the real unemployment.

Good God... it's a mirror of what Bush caused. You really need to stop
listening to Rush.

There's a recovery underway. It may not be strong, it might not even be
sustainable. We'll have to wait and see, but to deny reality....

FYI, it's fewer jobs being loss, not less jobs being lost, but you got it
right fewer jobs are being lost. Yes, there are people dropping off the
unemployment roles and are no longer being counted. Yes, the unemployment
numbers are worse because of this fact, but the rate of job loss is slowing.
Just about all economists agree that the job situation isn't getting worse
but getting better.

The ship is still sinking but at a slower rate. Hot damn. That's
wonderful news.

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 22:08:28 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:





Well, to give him credit, the chart at this site is pretty subtle. Perhaps
it's too subtle for Canuck.

http://palatnikfactor.com/2010/02/06...resident-bush/

--
Nom=de=Plume


That chart showes that Obama's "Stimulus" has failed. Resolutely failed.
There are less jobs being lost each month because there are not that many
jobs being done. Show us a chart of the real unemployment.

really? creating 1.5M jobs is a failure?

oh, yes, i forgot. the right wing thinks that if it helps the middle
class, it's a failure. only programs that help the rich can be
successful

it's a matter of their fundamenalist faith