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

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

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:12:51 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:



Nom=de=Plume


We were overspending voraciously before Obama got in. And he has
kicked up
the spending 2-3x.

for good economic reasons as opposed to bush who just killed 4400 US
troops and spent money on tax cuts for the rich

how did the rich use their money? did they give wage increases to the
middle class?

nope the middle class hasnt had a pay increase in 10 y ears.

did they create jobs? nope. no jobs created in 10 years.

what did they do? well...in the last 10 years, the richest 1% have
seen their incomes triple.

They are forecasting trillion dollar deficits for the
next 10 years/ How is this all Bush II's fault?

yeah it is. we have to spend what's needed to get out of the free
market hole we've dug ourselves into.


How about cutting spending
to GM.

peanuts


Point out the good reasons why Obama spending excess amounts of money
is good. Not some talking point that Bush killed a bunch of people,
spent a Trillion dollars. Explain it, or go get an education. Explain
how we are getting more jobs, when California and others reached record
unemployment this last quarter. Show how many foreclosed houses are in
inventory, and which areas are selling, and how much discount from the
last sale. Stop parroting Olberman, etc. He is probably more biased
and not as smart as Rush.



This has been explained many times, and for the record, the "amounts"
aren't "excessive." They're what's needed to get the economy moving
again. Feel free to believe otherwise. Already explained the
unemployment situation several times. Re-read the posts.

Rush is an idiot. You're an idiot. Canuck is an idiot.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If your are going to answer for BP, at least do it coherently. Not some
Olberman talking points or why we do not have the economy moving with all
the debt spending. If you were ever a lawyer, you were fired for
laziness.



You're an idiot. I'm talking to you.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If I am an idiot, I appear brillian compared to you.

On 4/25/10 5:11 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:12:51 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:



Nom=de=Plume


We were overspending voraciously before Obama got in. And he has
kicked up
the spending 2-3x.

for good economic reasons as opposed to bush who just killed 4400 US
troops and spent money on tax cuts for the rich

how did the rich use their money? did they give wage increases to the
middle class?

nope the middle class hasnt had a pay increase in 10 y ears.

did they create jobs? nope. no jobs created in 10 years.

what did they do? well...in the last 10 years, the richest 1% have
seen their incomes triple.

They are forecasting trillion dollar deficits for the
next 10 years/ How is this all Bush II's fault?

yeah it is. we have to spend what's needed to get out of the free
market hole we've dug ourselves into.


How about cutting spending
to GM.

peanuts


Point out the good reasons why Obama spending excess amounts of money
is good. Not some talking point that Bush killed a bunch of people,
spent a Trillion dollars. Explain it, or go get an education. Explain
how we are getting more jobs, when California and others reached record
unemployment this last quarter. Show how many foreclosed houses are in
inventory, and which areas are selling, and how much discount from the
last sale. Stop parroting Olberman, etc. He is probably more biased
and not as smart as Rush.



This has been explained many times, and for the record, the "amounts"
aren't "excessive." They're what's needed to get the economy moving
again. Feel free to believe otherwise. Already explained the
unemployment situation several times. Re-read the posts.

Rush is an idiot. You're an idiot. Canuck is an idiot.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If your are going to answer for BP, at least do it coherently. Not some
Olberman talking points or why we do not have the economy moving with all
the debt spending. If you were ever a lawyer, you were fired for
laziness.



You're an idiot. I'm talking to you.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If I am an idiot, I appear brillian compared to you.




You are only brilliant in comparison to loogy and justhateaturd. In
comparison to someone of ordinary, average intelligence, you are as dumb
as a shoe.

--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:46:53 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 21:05:39 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


i'm a scientist. i go with evidence

the FACT is unemployment has dropped by 10% since obama took office.
teh FACT is we are no longer losing more jobs than we're creating. the
FACT is the economy is growing

those are FACTS. i dont care what rush tells you to believe.




You have to be one ****ty scientist! You state you go with facts and your
can not state a factual fact in your argument. Show me where unemployment
had gone down .0000001% since Obama took office. I will even give your
the
link to the public data graph to start with.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=...t+rate+grap h

ROFLMOA!!! it's obvious you have NO idea what you're talking about!
the official statement of unemployment is HE

http://www.bls.gov/ the US bureau of labor statistics

unemployment reached its peak at 10.7%. it's now 9.7%. a 1% drop in
10% unemployment is TEN PERCENT

you are SUCH an IDIOT!!



Me an idiot? You are frigging immensely stupid. You said Obama had reduced
unemployment 10% since he came in to office. Let me show you your quote
"the FACT is unemployment has dropped by 10% since Obama took office.
"
It dropped 10% from the highest it was since he came in to office and it may
just be a small perturbation from the census worker hiring. He pushed for
the stimulus to keep unemployment under 8%. IT went from 10.7 to 9.7% last
month. He has gone up since he took over office. Gone up lots. In Feb.
2008 was 5.2%.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:17:49 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:46:53 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

http://www.bls.gov/ the US bureau of labor statistics

unemployment reached its peak at 10.7%. it's now 9.7%. a 1% drop in
10% unemployment is TEN PERCENT

you are SUCH an IDIOT!!



Me an idiot? You are frigging immensely stupid. You said Obama had reduced
unemployment 10% since he came in to office. Let me show you your quote
"the FACT is unemployment has dropped by 10% since Obama took office.
"
It dropped 10% from the highest it was since he came in to office and it may
just be a small perturbation from the census worker hiring. He pushed for
the stimulus to keep unemployment under 8%. IT went from 10.7 to 9.7% last
month. He has gone up since he took over office. Gone up lots. In Feb.
2008 was 5.2%.

guess being right wing prevents you from reading.

unemployment due to bush's policy, reached a high of 10.7%. it's now,
due to obama's policies, 9.7. that's about 10%

whatsamatter? don't they teach math in right wing remedial schools?

On 25/04/2010 11:42 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:12:51 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:



Nom=de=Plume


We were overspending voraciously before Obama got in. And he has
kicked up
the spending 2-3x.

for good economic reasons as opposed to bush who just killed 4400 US
troops and spent money on tax cuts for the rich

how did the rich use their money? did they give wage increases to the
middle class?

nope the middle class hasnt had a pay increase in 10 y ears.

did they create jobs? nope. no jobs created in 10 years.

what did they do? well...in the last 10 years, the richest 1% have
seen their incomes triple.

They are forecasting trillion dollar deficits for the
next 10 years/ How is this all Bush II's fault?

yeah it is. we have to spend what's needed to get out of the free
market hole we've dug ourselves into.


How about cutting spending
to GM.

peanuts


Point out the good reasons why Obama spending excess amounts of money is
good. Not some talking point that Bush killed a bunch of people, spent
a Trillion dollars. Explain it, or go get an education. Explain how we
are getting more jobs, when California and others reached record
unemployment this last quarter. Show how many foreclosed houses are in
inventory, and which areas are selling, and how much discount from the
last sale. Stop parroting Olberman, etc. He is probably more biased
and not as smart as Rush.



This has been explained many times, and for the record, the "amounts"
aren't "excessive." They're what's needed to get the economy moving
again. Feel free to believe otherwise. Already explained the unemployment
situation several times. Re-read the posts.

Rush is an idiot. You're an idiot. Canuck is an idiot.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If your are going to answer for BP, at least do it coherently. Not some
Olberman talking points or why we do not have the economy moving with all
the debt spending. If you were ever a lawyer, you were fired for
laziness.



You're an idiot. I'm talking to you.

So? What was the reason your were fired?

--
Socialism and statism are great as long as someone else pays for it.

On 25/04/2010 5:38 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:46:53 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 21:05:39 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


i'm a scientist. i go with evidence

the FACT is unemployment has dropped by 10% since obama took office.
teh FACT is we are no longer losing more jobs than we're creating. the
FACT is the economy is growing

those are FACTS. i dont care what rush tells you to believe.




You have to be one ****ty scientist! You state you go with facts and your
can not state a factual fact in your argument. Show me where unemployment
had gone down .0000001% since Obama took office. I will even give your the
link to the public data graph to start with.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=...t+rate+grap h

ROFLMOA!!! it's obvious you have NO idea what you're talking about!
the official statement of unemployment is HE

http://www.bls.gov/ the US bureau of labor statistics

unemployment reached its peak at 10.7%. it's now 9.7%. a 1% drop in
10% unemployment is TEN PERCENT

you are SUCH an IDIOT!!

For the 1%, take a look at the long term unemployed numbers now on a
record high since been record since 1963 or something, the ones
unemployed for more than 6 months not counted in the 9.7%.

And if you remove government hiring, it was again a negative month.

Read the fine print. 9.7% is polishing turds.
--
Socialism and statism are great as long as someone else pays for it.

On 24/04/2010 11:34 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
m...
On 4/23/10 11:26 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 23/04/2010 8:29 AM, hk wrote:
On 4/23/10 10:21 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 23/04/2010 7:48 AM, hk wrote:
On 4/23/10 9:42 AM, Canuck57 wrote:

Now if you lose 5% or 7% purchasing power over a working career,
I
doubt
anyone would argue that it would buy a boat... right?

After all given Democat/Obama debt-spending is at record levels,
bailing
out the inept, lazy, corrupt comes at a cost right?

http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/20...-tax-increase/





The big reason greedy big fat government likes VAT is simple, it
gets
everyone. Shares the pain. Instead of punitive taxes on the 30%
(or
less) of those that work in non-governmetn jobs and pay any
signifigant
amout of taxes, it isn't limited to the 30%. It gets 100% of us.



Us? Why would you be subject to such a tax, *if* it were imposed
in the
USA? You're a Canadian, living in Canada.

Oh...and you're quoting from Faux News, the home of tea partying
teabaggers...the bull**** news network.

What? You don't believe big mouth debt spender Obama doesn't want a
huge
increase in revenue from the sheeples?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100421/...e/us_obama_tax


First, I asked why you used "us," since "us," as you used it,
wouldn't
apply to Canadians living in Canada. You're not one of us, as it
were.

Second, there's no need to even consider what you think are your
points
when you use terms like "big mouth debt spender Obama." Obama is
extricating this country from a terrific mess left him by his
predecessor. It looks like what he has done so far is beginning to
work.
The opposing party had no logical plan for bringing us out of Bush
recession.

Well, Obama talks a lot, big mouth.

Running into the second year of record debt spending makes Obama a
debt
monger.

US government is hungry for your money, you are right, I will not
have
to pay much of the US VAT. But I used to like going to Montana
shopping,
guess I had better go early this year as to avoid the US VAT.

Anyone who thought Obamanomics in and Obamanation is about to find
out
that Obama isn't free, he is quite taxing.


I never thought repairing the damage caused by eight years of Bush and
Cheney would be free, and I thought our taxes would go up in order to
help pull this country out of the Bush-Cheney deep, dark hole. My wife
and I expect to be paying more in taxes next year, in one form or
another.

If you want to live in fear of a VAT that may be imposted in the
future, you go right ahead. It'll just be another entry on the stupid
decisions you've made in live.


If he wants to correct the Bush overspending, seems an odd way to do
the job. Should be cutting spending by the Fed's. Lots of Bush's
problem is he vetoed maybe 2 spending bills in the 8 years. And Bush
overspending in his 8 years is probably the major screwup. Even more
than opening up a 2nd front in the war.



Cutting what spending by the Fed? Specifically what? Oh wait, let me
guess... programs that help the poor and the middle class.

Nice slam on Bush though...

--
Nom=de=Plume


We were overspending voraciously before Obama got in. And he has kicked
up the spending 2-3x. They are forecasting trillion dollar deficits for
the next 10 years/ How is this all Bush II's fault? How about cutting
spending to GM. They just paid back a 5 billion buck loan with interest.
Where did the pay back money come from? Serious question! It came from
TARP money. So paying back a loan with another loan. We the people own
60% of new GM. The present people in power say we will get all our money
back when GM goes public again. That would take a capitalization of $50
billion dollars. GM stock was never worth that much when they were
successful. And 80% would still not return the $80 billion or so we took
off the GM books. Cut Goldman Sachs 150% Let them fold. Demand back
every bit of money we lent them. If they can pay $6+ billion in bonus
money with our taxpayer paid funds, we can demand back all the money and
a penalty for screwing us. Stop spending a couple million here, a couple
million there on some of the asinine research the government is funding
these days. We can not afford some of these items. Why are we funding
the arts through the Federal government? KILL the NEA! Is not a Federal
government function. Lot of cutting with out cutting vital programs to
the poor. Cut back on the Education Bureau. Was not even a federal
deptpartment until 1974. Now it controls most money for education in the
USA. And only charges a 20-25% handling fee for sending the money back
to the states with strings attached. Where would you and your clone HK
cut the overspending? Even you must have some tolerable ideas about
reducing government costs. Cut unemployment extensions. Save money and
give incentives to work.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...952375172.html



You're really looney. We the people are on track to make a profit from the
GM ownership. That must be a bummer for you.

Let Goldman fold, but don't break up big banks. Throw millions more out of
work. Sounds like your typical right-wing bs to me.

Forget the arts, forget education. If you can't afford to go to school,
too bad. Forget unemployment insurance... those people don't have to eat.

Let's start with PayGo. Oh wait, the Republicans aren't interested.


--
Nom=de=Plume


You are completely loony. Answer the question that I posed to BP. Not some
asinine talking points. Where the hell we the people going to make a profit
on GM? When it goes public? What would the capitalization have to be fore
use to break even. I did not say kill education. I said kill the US Dept
of Education. Killing it would instantly give a 20% raise in money
available to local schools. We could get rid of a lot of asinine rules.
Rules that have nothing to do with educating the children. Just make a law
that all schools have to be funded equally per student in a state. They
have to teach the 3 R's. You a fail to have a decent graduation rate, the
teachers and administrators are fired. Easy. The kids do not show up for
class, they are taken off the rolls and banned from them and their families
receiving welfare. Ever. You fail to get at least a GED, no public
assistance. Where is there a Federal responsibility to fund the arts? Why
should the San Francisco opera get Federal money? Same for a symphony in
Houston or Fargo?

Agreed, agreed, agreed. Government needs to get back to basics.

But would agree to replace the entire federal education department of
anything with a simple law stating the states need to provide a minim
K12 education. They can collect and do the taxes. Get the feds out of
porking to reduce corruption.

As for art...pure pork. Whack...

I wish I could find that poster sized chart that had all the US
governemtn departments on it. It had each department and it's spending
and 100's if not a 1000 departments in it. All the squares were sized
to spending. Massive amount of legacy pork from years gone by and
duplications.

Lots of room to cut pork and not affect 99% of us.

--
Socialism and statism are great as long as someone else pays for it.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:37:06 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 25/04/2010 5:38 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:46:53 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:



unemployment reached its peak at 10.7%. it's now 9.7%. a 1% drop in
10% unemployment is TEN PERCENT

you are SUCH an IDIOT!!

For the 1%, take a look at the long term unemployed numbers now on a
record high since been record since 1963 or something, the ones
unemployed for more than 6 months not counted in the 9.7%.

so you admit unemployment is coming down under obama? thanks. i
already knew that

and long term unemployment? those are the folks who are still looking
for work and havent given up.

why havent they given up? because obama's economic policies have kept
them in the searching mode, vs giving up.

thanks. i already knew that. in fact, i predicted unemployment may
start to rise as those who've actually given up re-enter the search
mode, looking for work

thanks to obama's policies.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:52:21 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:



Agreed, agreed, agreed. Government needs to get back to basics.

But would agree to replace the entire federal education department of
anything with a simple law stating the states need to provide a minim
K12 education. They can collect and do the taxes. Get the feds out of
porking to reduce corruption.

As for art...pure pork. Whack...


it's funny...the nations that produce the best test scores...have,
just like socialized medicine, a national education policy that
minimizes local involvement

that's what we need for the US.

oh...and by the by...most countries have 'socialized' education...

where's the right wing bitching about THAT?

On 25/04/2010 11:42 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:12:51 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:



Nom=de=Plume


We were overspending voraciously before Obama got in. And he has
kicked up
the spending 2-3x.

for good economic reasons as opposed to bush who just killed 4400 US
troops and spent money on tax cuts for the rich

how did the rich use their money? did they give wage increases to the
middle class?

nope the middle class hasnt had a pay increase in 10 y ears.

did they create jobs? nope. no jobs created in 10 years.

what did they do? well...in the last 10 years, the richest 1% have
seen their incomes triple.

They are forecasting trillion dollar deficits for the
next 10 years/ How is this all Bush II's fault?

yeah it is. we have to spend what's needed to get out of the free
market hole we've dug ourselves into.


How about cutting spending
to GM.

peanuts


Point out the good reasons why Obama spending excess amounts of money is
good. Not some talking point that Bush killed a bunch of people, spent
a Trillion dollars. Explain it, or go get an education. Explain how we
are getting more jobs, when California and others reached record
unemployment this last quarter. Show how many foreclosed houses are in
inventory, and which areas are selling, and how much discount from the
last sale. Stop parroting Olberman, etc. He is probably more biased
and not as smart as Rush.



This has been explained many times, and for the record, the "amounts"
aren't "excessive." They're what's needed to get the economy moving
again. Feel free to believe otherwise. Already explained the unemployment
situation several times. Re-read the posts.

Rush is an idiot. You're an idiot. Canuck is an idiot.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If your are going to answer for BP, at least do it coherently. Not some
Olberman talking points or why we do not have the economy moving with all
the debt spending. If you were ever a lawyer, you were fired for
laziness.



You're an idiot. I'm talking to you.

We won't talk to you if you don't talk to us.

--
Socialism and statism are great as long as someone else pays for it.