wrote in message
...
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.
Clinton was powerless when faced with a GOP congress

Clinton stood up the Gingrich's contract on America quite successfully.

The Democratic majority congress was powerless when faced with Bush
and now the Democratic White House and Democratically controlled
congress is powerless when faced with a GOP minority.

Not powerless, but without guts.

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

May have? He was a lousy leader. We're much worse off.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"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.

What?? Deem and Pass? That's your problem now? It's been used 100s of times
by both parties.


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.

May have??

You seem to look for any excuse to slam Obama, yet you had little to say
about Bush I suspect when he was in power.


--
Nom=de=Plume

On 3/19/10 1:21 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:02:08 -0400, 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.
Clinton was powerless when faced with a GOP congress

Clinton stood up the Gingrich's contract on America quite successfully.

The Democratic majority congress was powerless when faced with Bush
and now the Democratic White House and Democratically controlled
congress is powerless when faced with a GOP minority.

Not powerless, but without guts.

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

May have? He was a lousy leader. We're much worse off.


Bush, or, more accurately, his handlers, led us down the path to near
destruction.


--


If the X-MimeOLE "header" doesn't say:

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8)
Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 (or higher)

then it isn't me, it's an ID spoofer.

"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...
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



Can't speak for him, but if I had been in charge I wouldn't have invaded
Iraq. Bush didn't "keep us safe" after 9/11 by invading Iraq.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"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.

You don't know what you're talking about... that's $138B in deficit
_reduction_. The second decade will see $1.3T.

Yes, you're an idiot.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

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

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

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Larry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

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. And Obama's next
budget is
coming in with a $1.4 trillion deficit amount. He is Proposing
over
spending more in the next 10 years, that every President,
including Bush
II, has overspent total! My new granddaughter is due tomorrow.
She will
enter the world with a $74,000 debt burden. And you want no pain
due to
the overspending by both Dem's and Republican's you have voted
for. We
all deserve a severe beating for letting our elected
representatives,
especially the present ones who are setting records, over spend.
We
should revolt at the idea they can screw the people and then get
full pay
for the rest of their lives. We need to hold their feet to the
fire to
both stop spending like drunken sailors and get rid of pensions
that
reward them as if they were royalty.



As usual, you're just wrong....

http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/19/oba...19hassett.html




That report is 14 months old.




Ok. Produce something more recent. Bush was much worse and ruined the
economy, but it's Obama's fault, right?

--
Nom=de=Plume


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.



"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!

Keep flailing away. I'm sure someone out there is listening.

--
Nom=de=Plume


The only reason the layoffs are slowing is at least 20% of the
workforce is out of work. Lots of the working at underemployed. How
did that bank bailout help? Stopped foreclosures? Helped in loan
liquidity?

Really? The only reason. And you know this because you have some inside
information? Or, more likely, you're listening to someone's talking
point.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Nope, I have an analytical brain. You have a brain?



So far, you haven't shown it in public.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"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?



Middle class huh? Maybe barely. Why don't you tell us about all the money
you made on your patents? Then, you can claim I'm not a PA.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"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.

If it's possible for you, read the recent Atlantic article about Geitner.
Hint: He's a lot smarter than you.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

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

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

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Larry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

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. And Obama's next
budget is
coming in with a $1.4 trillion deficit amount. He is Proposing
over
spending more in the next 10 years, that every President,
including Bush
II, has overspent total! My new granddaughter is due tomorrow.
She will
enter the world with a $74,000 debt burden. And you want no pain
due to
the overspending by both Dem's and Republican's you have voted
for. We
all deserve a severe beating for letting our elected
representatives,
especially the present ones who are setting records, over spend.
We
should revolt at the idea they can screw the people and then get
full pay
for the rest of their lives. We need to hold their feet to the
fire to
both stop spending like drunken sailors and get rid of pensions
that
reward them as if they were royalty.



As usual, you're just wrong....

http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/19/oba...19hassett.html




That report is 14 months old.




Ok. Produce something more recent. Bush was much worse and ruined
the economy, but it's Obama's fault, right?

--
Nom=de=Plume


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.



"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!

Keep flailing away. I'm sure someone out there is listening.

--
Nom=de=Plume


The only reason the layoffs are slowing is at least 20% of the
workforce is out of work. Lots of the working at underemployed. How
did that bank bailout help? Stopped foreclosures? Helped in loan
liquidity?

Really? The only reason. And you know this because you have some inside
information? Or, more likely, you're listening to someone's talking
point.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Nope, I have an analytical brain. You have a brain?



So far, you haven't shown it in public.

--
Nom=de=Plume


And another brainless comment by nom-de-dum

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

"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.

You don't know what you're talking about... that's $138B in deficit
_reduction_. The second decade will see $1.3T.

Yes, you're an idiot.

--
Nom=de=Plume


The 2nd decade will definately see a reduction in deficits. Not because of
anything positive that Obama is doing now. You realize that the 2nd decade
will be 2 or 6 years after Obama? We will have such high debt in the 2nd
decade that will will not be able to borrow, so we are going to be like
Greece and have to tighten our belts. Big time cinching of the belt.