"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...
"Obama knew the problems coming in." Yet, his actions didn't take
effect until he was well into the position, and the results when
they did have been a slowing of the job loss, a stablization of the
economy, and he's on track to save billions if not trillions. But,
of course the Republicans have a plan... the status quo. To hell
with getting the spending under control in a meaningful way, reform
the financial system, reform the healthcare system, reform the
school system. Just say no!

My crystal ball sure doesn't show the savings of "billions if not
trillions". Are you looking through rose colored glasses?




I'm using the same source as everyone else... the CBO. If you have a
different source, I'd be happy to look at it, as long as it's not
Rush/Beck/Palin/Cheney or Faux News.



I just can't see ridding this country of its "fiscal cancer" anytime
soon. I hope I'm wrong. I know what the CBO says, too many variables
and unforseen circustances. For that matter it could go either way.


I agree with this, and I hope we're both wrong. Of course, the CBO can't
know everything.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Where are the billions in savings? When do they kick in? Look at the
estimated deficits even after Obama if he makes it 2 terms.
http://www.cbo.gov/

"CBO and JCT estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation-H.R. 3590
and the reconciliation proposal- would produce a net reduction in federal
deficits of $138 billion over the 2010-2019 period as result of changes in
direct spending and revenue (see the top panel of Table 1 and subtitle A
of title II on Table 5)."

and

"CBO has not extrapolated estimates further into the future because the
uncertainties surrounding them are magnified even more. However, in view
of the projected net savings during the decade following the 10-year
budget window, CBO anticipates that the reconciliation proposal would
probably continue to reduce budget deficits relative to those under
current law in subsequent decades, assuming that all of its provisions
would continue to be fully implemented."


--
Nom=de=Plume


$138 billion in deficits? BFD! We are looking at Trillions of deficits. A
Trillion is a thousand billion. 138 is negligible.

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:15:18 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:45:52 -0600, Frogloogyherringsnacks
wrote:



Naw. Jest cracker talk from them's too scared of a black man being
Prez. Like I said, we colored folk fish too.
You ain't said nothin but scare talk. Nothin. Not a damn detail.
Why's that, peckerwood?

yeah it's amazing. a rich white guy destroys the economy and the
middle class

and they blame it on the darkie president

You sound really stupid and you probably are. Obama has over spent more
in
the last year than Bush did in 4 years

to repair the damage bush and his wall street playboy buddies did to
the economy

yet you guys blame it on the darkie.

speaking of stupid...

. And Obama's next budget is coming
in with a $1.4 trillion deficit amount.

irrelevant. the interest after all his spending will amount to 3.4% of
GDP...which is about the same as bush number one spent on debt service

you right wing racists are just too stupid to be believed

He is Proposing over spending more
in the next 10 years, that every President, including Bush II, has
overspent
total!

and if he hadnt rescued the economy? what life would she have with 25%
unemployment?

of course you wont answer....




You sound more stupid each day. And more racist. Your wife know you are
posting racist comments? Might get her fired. We have near 25% real
unemployment. What has the deficit spending accomplished in reducing
unemployment, except for saving some mostly overpaid government jobs? The
states are in deep debt due to overspending and over employment. We could
have increased real jobs for less money by letting all taxpayers have a free
ride for the year. And you would not be looking at Goldman Sacksus giving
out billions in bonus money. The Goldman-sacks that got 100 cents on the
dollar for debt, while all others got 3 cents on the dollar. Paulson and
Geitner have to protect their former employer and investments.

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:18:33 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:




Bush screwed the economy. You are somewhat correct. Throw in both a
Republican and Democrat Controlled Congress and you got it more correct.
But Obama knew the problems coming in. He has screwed it up royally. His
spending is out of control, not helping and laying the groundwork for a
huge
crash. Make 1929 look good, maybe.

really? 25% unemployment looks good?

oh. i forgot. you're right wing. to the right wing, the middle class
should ALWAYS get screwed



I am middle class, and my kids are middle class and they are getting screwed
by this administration and the Wall Street you hate. How come we still have
all this unemployment and middle class with little spending money and Wall
Street is giving out billions of bucks in bonus money?

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

"CBO has not extrapolated estimates further into the future because the
uncertainties surrounding them are magnified even more. However, in view
of the projected net savings during the decade following the 10-year
budget window, CBO anticipates that the reconciliation proposal would
probably continue to reduce budget deficits relative to those under
current law in subsequent decades, assuming that all of its provisions
would continue to be fully implemented."


--
Nom=de=Plume

Now *there's* a positive statement you can take to the bank. (whew)

Eisboch

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:39:29 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:02:08 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Something that I am sure will be pointed out in the congressional
elections is that the economy tanked after the Democrats took over
both houses in 2006. Neither Bush nor Obama is going to be on the
ballot but about 468 people from congress will be.

and who was president?

oh. bush.

You sure paint the Democrats to be a powerless party.

they are


Bush may have been a moron and he may have led us down a horrific path
but he was a leader.

the right is always more organzed than the center. rich, powerful
elites know exactly what they want and how to get it.

I am middle class, and my kids are middle class and they are getting screwed
by this administration and the Wall Street you hate

this administration is the reason we dont have 25% unemployment.

you prefer to be jobless and have your kids in the streets? that your
preference?

.. How come we still have
all this unemployment and middle class with little spending money and Wall
Street is giving out billions of bucks in bonus money?

because that's the way we, the middle class, voted. we voted ALWAYS to
protect the rich. to bail out the rich. and we're doing it again. the
tea baggers main goal:

protect the rich.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:53:55 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:15:18 -0700, "Bill McKee"


and if he hadnt rescued the economy? what life would she have with 25%
unemployment?

of course you wont answer....




You sound more stupid each day.

so now im a republican?

And more racist.

so now i'm DEFINITELY a republican?


Your wife know you are
posting racist comments? Might get her fired. We have near 25% real
unemployment.

apples and fish. by your measurement, then, in 29 we have 50% real
unemployment

is that what you prefer? why do you hate the darkie president?


What has the deficit spending accomplished in reducing
unemployment, except for saving some mostly overpaid government jobs?

it's generated 1.5M jobs and kept unemployment at 10% instead of 25%

you, being a right wing shill, are unhappy because the rich are only
making billions instead of trillions.

The
states are in deep debt due to overspending and over employment. We could
have increased real jobs for less money by letting all taxpayers have a free
ride for the year. And you would not be looking at Goldman Sacksus giving
out billions in bonus money. The Goldman-sacks that got 100 cents on the
dollar for debt, while all others got 3 cents on the dollar. Paulson and
Geitner have to protect their former employer and investments.

that's because bush and his cronies gamed the system to hold the
middle class hostage to the interests of your rich friends

"Jim" wrote in message
...

Of course, if the health care bill fails to pass, you're right about
Obama's leadership.
That's the acid test, right there.
Means he even got the lobbyist-bought Dems in line - or didn't.

Jim - A proud African-American, expecting my man Obama to come through.



My only problem with Obama right now is his recent comments that he is not
concerned
with the parliamentary rules of Congress .... or how Congress skirts them
..... as long as he
gets what he wants passed.

That is a potentially dangerous attitude for any POTUS.
Bush may have "lied" (if you are that opinion), but he convinced Congress
to vote to support him without violating the process.

Eisboch

Eisboch

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:39:29 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:02:08 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Something that I am sure will be pointed out in the congressional
elections is that the economy tanked after the Democrats took over
both houses in 2006. Neither Bush nor Obama is going to be on the
ballot but about 468 people from congress will be.

and who was president?

oh. bush.

You sure paint the Democrats to be a powerless party.

they are


Bush may have been a moron and he may have led us down a horrific path
but he was a leader.

the right is always more organzed than the center. rich, powerful
elites know exactly what they want and how to get it.


Intelligence has no social or financial prerequisites.

Eisboch

In article ,
says...


Bush may have been a moron and he may have led us down a horrific path
but he was a leader.

Just out of curiosity, I have been hearing you say this for years so I have to
ask... What would you have done in response to 911 to keep Bin Laden and his
crew running around hiding under rocks... And please don't tell me what you
"wouldn't" do, or hear about weather we are indeed safe or not, I want to know
how you would have kept America safe after the terror attacks of the 90's and
911?

Thanks, Scotty