Failed to pass inspection.
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:23:58 -0400, Harry
wrote:

Koresh was a maniac. He didn't deserve to die, but don't put him out to
be
some kind of American hero standing up to Big Gov't.

Certainly he was a nut but the country is full of them.
Who was the biggest threat to America?


Dick Cheney, even though he wasn't veep then.

No Al Gore was veep and in the end he may end up being the biggest
threat to the republic ever. This TV evangelist has created a scam
bigger than the derivative market where we will be paying billions of
dollars for worthless "carbon credits" and we will be buying them from
his company. 3d world countries will be selling us trees for
outrageous prices and then cutting them down anyway.
You only have to look at the freon credit program to see that kind of
abuse. Countries now manufacture CFCs for the express purpose of
selling the credits when they destroy them

Come on! He might hype it a little bit, but adverse global climate change is
the biggest national threat we have.

Failed to pass inspection.
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:22:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:23:53 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Obama shot his whole wad on this health care gift to the big medicine
lobby and let the rest of the country go to hell (or stay in hell if
that is what you think Bush was).

which was one HELLUVAN accomplishment. and the 'big medicine' lobby
is not too happy with obama

so either you're bull****ting or you're lying.


Let's see what the hall open season has to offer, then you decide how
great this "free" health care plan is working. The insurance company
is already hiking the rates for the families who want to take
advantage of the preexisting condition and those who want to put
their 20 somethings on the policy.
The big medicine people will do just fine. They are going to sell more
government paid for drugs and doctors/hospitals will get more
patients. I still have not seen anything to control the cost, They
just increased availability

There's no "free healthcare plan" as you well know. It's a capitalistic
system. Again, enough of the crazy misinformation.

If they're "hiking the rates," then it must not be free. You've got yours,
but you're unwilling to let anyone else in? That's what it sounds like.


They are hiking the rates because their liabilities have been
increased
They are making insurance companies take on more risk (or in the case
of preexisting conditions a known liability) so the premiums will get
raised to cover that. Insurance companies are just bookies. They don't
care what the bet is, as long as they can lay it off and they still
collect the vig.
Remember, this bill was written by UHC lobbyists.

So far, none of this has happened. Costs will go down over time and save us
billions in the next decade alone. And, we not done with the legislation.

Failed to pass inspection.
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:21:14 -0400, Harry
wrote:

On 6/18/10 12:22 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:23:53 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Obama shot his whole wad on this health care gift to the big medicine
lobby and let the rest of the country go to hell (or stay in hell if
that is what you think Bush was).

which was one HELLUVAN accomplishment. and the 'big medicine' lobby
is not too happy with obama

so either you're bull****ting or you're lying.


Let's see what the hall open season has to offer, then you decide how
great this "free" health care plan is working. The insurance company
is already hiking the rates for the families who want to take
advantage of the preexisting condition and those who want to put
their 20 somethings on the policy.
The big medicine people will do just fine. They are going to sell more
government paid for drugs and doctors/hospitals will get more
patients. I still have not seen anything to control the cost, They
just increased availability

There's no "free healthcare plan" as you well know. It's a capitalistic
system. Again, enough of the crazy misinformation.

If they're "hiking the rates," then it must not be free. You've got
yours, but you're unwilling to let anyone else in? That's what it sounds
like.





The key to understanding gfretwell is to realize that no matter the
issue or politician, what he mostly sees is the downside or the moral
equivalence of everyone and everything. In his eyes, Jonas Salk and Dick
Cheney are no better than each other. :)

My job was always "the fixer" so I look at things as what can go wrong
and what can you do about it.
In the case of Obamacare, the Senate bill was written be a couple
United Health Care lobbyists so "what could go wrong" is very easy to
predict

You don't like Jonas Salk? :(

It's the first of many steps to fix the healthcare cost/delivery system.
This is going to take some time.

Failed to pass inspection.
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:19:24 -0400, Harry
wrote:

In the case of Obamacare, the Senate bill was written be a couple
United Health Care lobbyists so "what could go wrong" is very easy to
predict


I don't buy your premise. I see the bill that passed as only a first
step. Further, the bill was all that could be passed.

That is what scares me. This might be a framework for a real health
care plan but, more likely, it will just be a huge pork barrel where
they keep adding on to it until it becomes another bloated government
money pit.

Well, that's possible, but that's why we need to be vigilant and hold
Congress accountable for what they do.

Failed to pass inspection.
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:24:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Quick question, who regulated offshore drilling before MMS?
(hint, it was the same people, with a different sign on the building)


Hint: Mr. Reagan and James Watt started the agency. No body was
"regulating"
the industry before or after (unfortunately).

I thought it was GW's fault. Are you saying Clinton deregulated
drilling? I guess I am confused.

I didn't mention Clinton, but he didn't fix the problem either. So, he would
be complicit on some level. Bush made things worse for sure.

Failed to pass inspection.
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:42:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:23:58 -0400, Harry
wrote:

Koresh was a maniac. He didn't deserve to die, but don't put him out
to
be
some kind of American hero standing up to Big Gov't.

Certainly he was a nut but the country is full of them.
Who was the biggest threat to America?


Dick Cheney, even though he wasn't veep then.

No Al Gore was veep and in the end he may end up being the biggest
threat to the republic ever. This TV evangelist has created a scam
bigger than the derivative market where we will be paying billions of
dollars for worthless "carbon credits" and we will be buying them from
his company. 3d world countries will be selling us trees for
outrageous prices and then cutting them down anyway.
You only have to look at the freon credit program to see that kind of
abuse. Countries now manufacture CFCs for the express purpose of
selling the credits when they destroy them

Come on! He might hype it a little bit, but adverse global climate change
is
the biggest national threat we have.

Do you really think taxing carbon and using the money to buy trees in
Guatemala will change that, particularly when there is no real
guarantee the trees will stay bought.


Don't know. I'm not a carbon tax expert. Something needs to get done. If
that's a positive step, I'm all for it.

Failed to pass inspection.
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:41:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The Bin Laden family was still a big player in Saudi Arabia and
Clinton was afraid to stir up anything that might have jiggled the
price of oil and crashed his rising economy.

They had disowned him, and even Bush was complicit in flying his family
out
after 9/11...

Make up your mind, either the family is part of the problem or they
were innocent


It's not my mind that is made or unmade. This was Bush's decision. I think
you'd need to ask him.

In a more enlightened time we would have just had a foreign national,
working for the CIA, put a bullet in his ear.

Actually bin laden did get CIA (or other? US help) when fighting the
Soviets.

Exactly. They knew how to get at him.

Ok... but, they didn't. Your solution is....


How many lives would that have saved? (Iraqi, Afghani and American)
200,000?

Total agreement there... but we really need to set a good example even if
it's not expedient.


That was the point of using a foreign national and having plausible
deniability. I am old enough to remember when we were very good at
that and the world was actually a lot more peaceful place.


Fidel's cigars? :)

Failed to pass inspection.
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:46:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That is what scares me. This might be a framework for a real health
care plan but, more likely, it will just be a huge pork barrel where
they keep adding on to it until it becomes another bloated government
money pit.

Well, that's possible, but that's why we need to be vigilant and hold
Congress accountable for what they do.

How is that working out so far. I saw a projection today, using
Obama's numbers that the interest on the debt will be $900 billion in
a few years. That assumes interest rates are stable. Indications are
they will go up sharply was world liquidity drops.

It's a bit early to tell how things will ultimately shake out, but spending
in general and the HC legislation HAD to happen or we'd be in much worse
shape, certainly going forward. There are no "indications" that interest
rates will go up sharply... what liquidity? The money supply is stable.

Failed to pass inspection.
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:47:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Hint: Mr. Reagan and James Watt started the agency. No body was
"regulating"
the industry before or after (unfortunately).

I thought it was GW's fault. Are you saying Clinton deregulated
drilling? I guess I am confused.

I didn't mention Clinton, but he didn't fix the problem either. So, he
would
be complicit on some level. Bush made things worse for sure.

You said "Nobody was "regulating" the industry before or after
(unfortunately).Reagan was after and Carter was before".
I couldn't take it any other way.

If Bush started MMS he must have been trying to build the framework
for regulation. (like you say the health care bill did)

The reality is, there were always people at Interior who were
regulating drilling. All they did when they "created" MMS was put a
different logo on their stationary and put a new political appointee
in charge of them. The job down in the trenches never really changes
that much if you are a GSer doing the actual work.

Reagan/Watt started MMS... look it up. Bush just filled it to the brim with
cronies of big oil.

Failed to pass inspection.
 

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

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:42:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:23:58 -0400, Harry
wrote:

Koresh was a maniac. He didn't deserve to die, but don't put him out
to
be
some kind of American hero standing up to Big Gov't.

Certainly he was a nut but the country is full of them.
Who was the biggest threat to America?


Dick Cheney, even though he wasn't veep then.

No Al Gore was veep and in the end he may end up being the biggest
threat to the republic ever. This TV evangelist has created a scam
bigger than the derivative market where we will be paying billions of
dollars for worthless "carbon credits" and we will be buying them from
his company. 3d world countries will be selling us trees for
outrageous prices and then cutting them down anyway.
You only have to look at the freon credit program to see that kind of
abuse. Countries now manufacture CFCs for the express purpose of
selling the credits when they destroy them

Come on! He might hype it a little bit, but adverse global climate change
is
the biggest national threat we have.

Do you really think taxing carbon and using the money to buy trees in
Guatemala will change that, particularly when there is no real
guarantee the trees will stay bought.


Don't know. I'm not a carbon tax expert. Something needs to get done. If
that's a positive step, I'm all for it.


What if it isn't a positive step. What do you think you'd be for then?