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!!

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:34:47 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message


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?

let's see...we spent 25B on GM. 180B on AIG

yet the right focuses on labor union GM rather than the rich guys at
AIG...bankrolled by another rich guy firm, goldman sachs
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?

some of us think america should have cultural values. kind of like
some right wingers think moral values should be imposed by the police.
but liberals dont want police to force anyone to the symphony...or to
have govt regulated sex, like conservatives think we should

"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!!


You guys and your arguments. Unemployment is HIGHER since Obama took
office, 8+% vs the current 9+%. That is FACT. Yes there has been a recent
decrease in the peak. That is also FACT.

You guys I'm sure will figure out the responsible party(s) for both.

Now, back to your name calling.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:20:16 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .


you are SUCH an IDIOT!!


You guys and your arguments. Unemployment is HIGHER since Obama took
office, 8+% vs the current 9+%. That is FACT. Yes there has been a recent
decrease in the peak. That is also FACT.

you're missing the point, of course. the FACT is unemployment is
DECREASING. the doubling of unemployment was caused by bush's
despression which started in 2007.

of COURSE unemployment is higher than it was when obama took office.
this is a MASSIVE depression and the US eoncomy is huge. there was
alot of inertia to overcome. the fact obama has turned around the
biggest depression in 80 years and done it in 1 year is remarkable.


You guys I'm sure will figure out the responsible party(s) for both.

i just present the facts. you decide.


Now, back to your name calling.

OK.

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:20:16 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..


you are SUCH an IDIOT!!


You guys and your arguments. Unemployment is HIGHER since Obama took
office, 8+% vs the current 9+%. That is FACT. Yes there has been a
recent
decrease in the peak. That is also FACT.

you're missing the point, of course. the FACT is unemployment is
DECREASING. the doubling of unemployment was caused by bush's
despression which started in 2007.

of COURSE unemployment is higher than it was when obama took office.
this is a MASSIVE depression and the US eoncomy is huge. there was
alot of inertia to overcome. the fact obama has turned around the
biggest depression in 80 years and done it in 1 year is remarkable.


You guys I'm sure will figure out the responsible party(s) for both.

i just present the facts. you decide.


Now, back to your name calling.

OK.

No, I didn't miss the point at all. It's just the way one sentence
statements without explanation can be and are misleading.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:31:23 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:20:16 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:




You guys I'm sure will figure out the responsible party(s) for both.

i just present the facts. you decide.


Now, back to your name calling.

OK.

No, I didn't miss the point at all. It's just the way one sentence
statements without explanation can be and are misleading.

yeah but where would talk radio be without 'em.

On Apr 24, 3:43*am, jps wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:40:28 -0700, "Bill McKee"



wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
om...
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...xt-big-tax-inc...

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.

Vetoed two spending bills is the problem? *

What do you think that tax giveaway to the wealthy and the *two* wars
did, bring money into the federal coffers?

Those wars were both of choice. *Afganistan is just a Vietnam redux.
Years of ****ing money down a rathole for no gain and a lot of dead
and injured.

The Russians taught us nothing?

And who voted for the dumb **** that's keeping us there?

What a joke you are.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 24/04/2010 11:49 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 23/04/2010 11:41 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 23/04/2010 6:28 PM, bpuharic wrote:
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

Actually, I agree. GM is peanuts really. What is $200 billion in
defunct
debt and bailouts to $14.5 trillion anyways?

At some point government is going to have to downsize to at least 1/2
of
what it is today, maybe less. Even if they pull off
hyper-stagflation,
without the middle class incomes following or exceeding the inflation,
recovery of the debt spiral is not possible. In fact, it will get
worse
as governemnt costs go up but the revenue does not. Real bad
situation
to
be in.

Sort of like a car heading to a brick wall at 150mph.

The USA isn't that far from Greece as you might think. For example,
Japan
is much worse and their economy is failing too. When their debt
defaults,
they might want some of the money they lent to the USA. And sovern
debt
unwinds. Going to collapse liek a house of cards.

Wish our local banks offer Yuan accounts.
--
Socialism and statism are great as long as someone else pays for it.


Fortunately, you're not part of our society.

Yep.

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


So, basically, you have no skin in this game. So, you have no standing.

I have skin in the game.

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


Nope. You don't even get to enter the US. You're just grousing. All wind,
hot all the time.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"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

"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...

"hk" 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?



Look it up yourself if you're able. Chances are you're too stupid to do
that. Instead, listen to Rush.

--
Nom=de=Plume