On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 01:10:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 20:59:37 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Well, he's started to make a difference compared to Bush's laissez faire
capitalistic approach.


How is that? The bailout went to the same fat cats Bush was helping.


you right wingers just dont get it, do yo? you LOVED the way 1929
treated the middle class, and want that repeated. that's what would
have happened if we didnt bail out the banks.

BUT...NDP is right...he's re-regulated proprietary trading and
tightened capital requirements on banks...

Financial regulation left the big banks in charge and did very little
to affect the things that caused the melt down.

nope. he's also created 'death panels' for banks to kill them if they
start to get in trouble

The "insurance reform" is only going to make big pharma, the hospital
conglomerates and the insurance companies richer.

gee i guess that's why 'politico' is reporting lobbyists for the
insurance companies are giving huge sums to the GOP

On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 18:54:39 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 06:07:34 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 01:10:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 20:59:37 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Well, he's started to make a difference compared to Bush's laissez faire
capitalistic approach.


How is that? The bailout went to the same fat cats Bush was helping.


you right wingers just dont get it, do yo? you LOVED the way 1929
treated the middle class, and want that repeated. that's what would
have happened if we didnt bail out the banks.


Why do you suddenly trust the same wall street bankers you have been
trashing for months?

?? where did i say i trust them? they simply left us no choice. look
at what happened to the markets after lehman bros collapsed.

that doesnt mean we have to CONTINUE to trust them like the right wing
says.


BUT...NDP is right...he's re-regulated proprietary trading and
tightened capital requirements on banks...

Financial regulation left the big banks in charge and did very little
to affect the things that caused the melt down.

nope. he's also created 'death panels' for banks to kill them if they
start to get in trouble

"Too big to fail" is still there.

too sophisticated for you, it seems


The "insurance reform" is only going to make big pharma, the hospital
conglomerates and the insurance companies richer.

gee i guess that's why 'politico' is reporting lobbyists for the
insurance companies are giving huge sums to the GOP

They are throwing money at the people they think will take over the
congress. Why bribe a loser?

kind of tells you who ****ed them off, doesn't it?

and it aint the GOP

On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 01:44:06 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 21:18:28 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

you right wingers just dont get it, do yo? you LOVED the way 1929
treated the middle class, and want that repeated. that's what would
have happened if we didnt bail out the banks.


Why do you suddenly trust the same wall street bankers you have been
trashing for months?

?? where did i say i trust them? they simply left us no choice. look
at what happened to the markets after lehman bros collapsed.

that doesnt mean we have to CONTINUE to trust them like the right wing
says.

Why do you care about the markets, you don't have any stocks.

ever hear of a 401K?

The fact
is they did let Lehman fail and the world didn't end.

bull****. it came close. the liquidity crisis was real....but you
never notice when you DONT fall off a cliff

If you didn't
have the huge bailout debts hanging over the companies that did get
bailed out, maybe they would be spreading capital around where it
would create jobs instead of using it to pay back the government.

ah. and how would this have worked for the companies that DIDNT get
the bailout when AIG went under? the world's largest insurance
provider out of business...think that would have had an effect?


The real underlying problem for your middle class is still that we
don't make anything here, at least not enough to employ the 16,000,000
people who can't find a job.

that's because the right wing has spent the last 40 years destroying
the middle class. it worked.




nope. he's also created 'death panels' for banks to kill them if they
start to get in trouble

"Too big to fail" is still there.

too sophisticated for you, it seems

I haven't heard any financial analysts who thinks they fixed to big to
fail or any of the other fundamental problems.

and i have.

We did put some US
banks at a disadvantage compared to foreign banks that may be doing
business in the same building in lower Manhattan.

great. let them take the risk the next time.

They are throwing money at the people they think will take over the
congress. Why bribe a loser?

kind of tells you who ****ed them off, doesn't it?

and it aint the GOP

****ed who off? It seems the voters are the ones ****ed off and that
is why the Dems are going to lose the house, maybe the senate.
Why would the lobbyists want to bribe someone who will be going home
in January?

know who the biggest spender in the next election is?

the US chamber of commerce. they aint pro union and they aint pro
middle class.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 20:59:37 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 19:27:04 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

turns out incomes of most americans are dropping. but not the rich,
thank god!! they're doing just fine.

the american dream is alive. while the middle class continues to get
hammered, the rich prove that america is becoming a plutocracy...all
the while rush and the right wing tell us it isn't


http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cha...-rich-and-poor

Yeah Obama really changed things didn't he.

Well, he's started to make a difference compared to Bush's laissez faire
capitalistic approach.


How is that? The bailout went to the same fat cats Bush was helping.
Financial regulation left the big banks in charge and did very little
to affect the things that caused the melt down.
The "insurance reform" is only going to make big pharma, the hospital
conglomerates and the insurance companies richer.

I still have not heard anyone here answer the question, what is your
2011 insurance bill going to be?

I do know two young 18-24 year olds who have indicated that they have
either lost in one case, or will be losing in another their coverage
because of changes to their parents health care plans, because of the
new laws. I don't have too many details, but one of the kids already
sold his bike, had his last ride around Labor day.

Like you said, a bunch of health care insurance suits sat in a back room
and wrote the plan, everybody knows it, how can Americans go on as if
that never happened?

--
OH, I could do the 105 footer, but I would hate to waste the last few
seconds of my life with my eyes closed, screaming like a little
girl...

On 10/4/10 6:40 AM, I am Tosk wrote:


I do know two young 18-24 year olds who have indicated that they have
either lost in one case, or will be losing in another their coverage
because of changes to their parents health care plans, because of the
new laws.

Bull****.
--
Republicans are the Party of No:
No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals

"Secular Humoresque" wrote in message m...
On 10/4/10 6:40 AM, I am Tosk wrote:


I do know two young 18-24 year olds who have indicated that they have
either lost in one case, or will be losing in another their coverage
because of changes to their parents health care plans, because of the
new laws.

Bull****.
--
Republicans are the Party of No:
No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals


"Bull****"? Is that all you've got?

--
I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually everyone knows.
If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a MAC, it's from an ID
spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his current ID
Boatless Harry

In article ,
says...

"Secular Humoresque" wrote in message m...
On 10/4/10 6:40 AM, I am Tosk wrote:


I do know two young 18-24 year olds who have indicated that they have
either lost in one case, or will be losing in another their coverage
because of changes to their parents health care plans, because of the
new laws.

Bull****.
--
Republicans are the Party of No:
No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals


"Bull****"? Is that all you've got?

Yeah, that's all he has... Google failed boatless harry again...

--
OH, I could do the 105 footer, but I would hate to waste the last few
seconds of my life with my eyes closed, screaming like a little
girl...

On 10/4/10 6:57 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 06:44:26 -0400, Secular Humoresque
wrote:

On 10/4/10 6:40 AM, I am Tosk wrote:


I do know two young 18-24 year olds who have indicated that they have
either lost in one case, or will be losing in another their coverage
because of changes to their parents health care plans, because of the
new laws.

Bull****.


The woman my wife works with wanted to put her 20 something kid on her
2011 policy and it is $200 extra a month,
Putting me on my wife's policy is $500 a month

Did she think it would be "free"? I do think $200 is twice what it
should be, but health insurers are still basically unregulated. We need
to get rid of the health insurance industry as it exists in this country.


--
Republicans are the Party of No:
No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals

"Secular Humoresque" wrote in message
m...
On 10/4/10 6:57 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 06:44:26 -0400, Secular Humoresque
wrote:

On 10/4/10 6:40 AM, I am Tosk wrote:


I do know two young 18-24 year olds who have indicated that they have
either lost in one case, or will be losing in another their coverage
because of changes to their parents health care plans, because of the
new laws.

Bull****.


The woman my wife works with wanted to put her 20 something kid on her
2011 policy and it is $200 extra a month,
Putting me on my wife's policy is $500 a month

Did she think it would be "free"? I do think $200 is twice what it should
be, but health insurers are still basically unregulated. We need to get
rid of the health insurance industry as it exists in this country.


--
Republicans are the Party of No:
No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals

Correct.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 19:11:44 -0400, Secular Humoresque
wrote:

We need
to get rid of the health insurance industry as it exists in this country.

I think health insurance should be something like $3000 deductible
(what I am carrying now). If that was true the cost would be
reasonable and the patient would argue about abusive bills for silly
stuff.
Medical procedures got expensive because they were "free". Nobody
cared that the doctor was charging you $200 for tetanus shot because
the insurance picked it up.

So, someone who works a minimum wage job is suppose to have $3K sitting
around for a doctor?

Please don't blame doctors. The insurance companies bleed them dry with
needless paperwork, all the while delaying claims and obstructing needed
care. Get rid of the insurance companies, and we might have a shot at
decent, affordable health care.