Obama endorses slavery
 

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:58:26 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:20:15 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:03:43 -0700, wrote:



I already told you, I expect a means test and raising the retirement
age more than they already have. (it isn't 65 anymore, in case you
haven't noticed)


And, several people have already said that the "means" test already
exists for SS in the form of taxes. Why are you saying this over and
over?

Boater also points out the means test only takes about 12.5 to 23% of
the SS if you make over 32k. I am talking about a means test that will
take a lot more of it as your income increases up to 100%

So you want a 100% tax on SS? That's just plain weird.

Sounds to me like you're not very familiar with regular income tax.
Maybe you've been out of it too long.


OK let me put this in a perspective you can understand. Do you think a
person making over $250,000 a year in retirement should still get all
of their SS?

NO!

Why not, they paid into the system, aren't they entitled to receive the
benefit?

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:08:02 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:58:26 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:20:15 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:03:43 -0700, wrote:


I already told you, I expect a means test and raising the retirement
age more than they already have. (it isn't 65 anymore, in case you
haven't noticed)

And, several people have already said that the "means" test already
exists for SS in the form of taxes. Why are you saying this over and
over?
Boater also points out the means test only takes about 12.5 to 23% of
the SS if you make over 32k. I am talking about a means test that will
take a lot more of it as your income increases up to 100%
So you want a 100% tax on SS? That's just plain weird.

Sounds to me like you're not very familiar with regular income tax.
Maybe you've been out of it too long.

OK let me put this in a perspective you can understand. Do you think a
person making over $250,000 a year in retirement should still get all
of their SS?
I don't. I haven't even applied yet, and I am eligible for the full
amount, which is, what, about $2400 a month? No medicare, either.

The top of the box for age 66 is $2366 if you paid in the max since
1966. (45 years). I only paid in the max for 30 years (66-96), started
drawing at 63.5 years and my check with single 00 withholding is
$1506, Gross is 1772. At 66 that would have been a bit over $2000 as I
recall. I have a statement around here from 2010 with the real
numbers. I think it was $2400 if you wait to 70.


Yeah, my annual statement from SS has a number like that...just under
$2400. I suppose I'll sign up for the monthly check when I'm...old. :)
If my medical bills rise, I'll have myself removed from my union's plan
so I can sign up for Medicare. I don't want to stick my union's health
fund with big bills.

If you are eligible you should take the money now and invest it.

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:58:26 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:20:15 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:03:43 -0700, wrote:



I already told you, I expect a means test and raising the retirement
age more than they already have. (it isn't 65 anymore, in case you
haven't noticed)


And, several people have already said that the "means" test already
exists for SS in the form of taxes. Why are you saying this over and
over?

Boater also points out the means test only takes about 12.5 to 23% of
the SS if you make over 32k. I am talking about a means test that will
take a lot more of it as your income increases up to 100%

So you want a 100% tax on SS? That's just plain weird.

Sounds to me like you're not very familiar with regular income tax.
Maybe you've been out of it too long.


OK let me put this in a perspective you can understand. Do you think a
person making over $250,000 a year in retirement should still get all
of their SS?

NO!

Why not, they paid into the system, aren't they entitled to receive the
benefit?

That was not the original intent...

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

Obama endorses slavery
 

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:30:32 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:13:46 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 01:33:24 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
wrote:

Obamacare is a huge corporate welfare program to the medical and
insurance complex
We true realistic progressives would have preferred a single-payer,
government sponsored plan, such as the one offered federal employees.

The federal plan is still privately managed health care. These are the
choices for Maryland


http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/pla.../states/md.asp

There are many plans and a number of underwriters, but FEHBA is still
managed overall by a federal agency. That was true when I was the
marketing director of a postal plan, and it is true now. Every word in
every document that related to benefits had to be approved by the feds,
and there were a number of federal changes and vetoes before every open
season. Even so, there was no shortage of plan offerings.


They are competing with Blue Cross and the rest of the for profit
companies. I didn't look at the plans but I am betting the
differences are minimal.
The "government employee" thing doesn't impress me. I am old enough to
know what Geico stands for and now that is Warren Buffett


Back when I was marketing a plan, the differences between the plans were
substantial, and the plans themselves, the feds and the old Federal
Times published charts and other comparisons that made it fairly easy to
compare prices and coverage. Not so easy to do that in the so-called
private sector.

I don't get your GEICO connection. The FEHBA program is not operated
like a casualty insurance schema.

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:30:32 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:13:46 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 01:33:24 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
wrote:

Obamacare is a huge corporate welfare program to the medical and
insurance complex
We true realistic progressives would have preferred a single-payer,
government sponsored plan, such as the one offered federal employees.

The federal plan is still privately managed health care. These are the
choices for Maryland


http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/pla.../states/md.asp

There are many plans and a number of underwriters, but FEHBA is still
managed overall by a federal agency. That was true when I was the
marketing director of a postal plan, and it is true now. Every word in
every document that related to benefits had to be approved by the feds,
and there were a number of federal changes and vetoes before every open
season. Even so, there was no shortage of plan offerings.


They are competing with Blue Cross and the rest of the for profit
companies. I didn't look at the plans but I am betting the
differences are minimal.
The "government employee" thing doesn't impress me. I am old enough to
know what Geico stands for and now that is Warren Buffett


Back when I was marketing a plan, the differences between the plans were
substantial, and the plans themselves, the feds and the old Federal
Times published charts and other comparisons that made it fairly easy to
compare prices and coverage. Not so easy to do that in the so-called
private sector.

I don't get your GEICO connection. The FEHBA program is not operated
like a casualty insurance schema.

Harry peddled insurance!!!

Obama endorses slavery
 

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:24:05 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:58:26 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:20:15 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:03:43 -0700, wrote:



I already told you, I expect a means test and raising the retirement
age more than they already have. (it isn't 65 anymore, in case you
haven't noticed)


And, several people have already said that the "means" test already
exists for SS in the form of taxes. Why are you saying this over and
over?

Boater also points out the means test only takes about 12.5 to 23% of
the SS if you make over 32k. I am talking about a means test that will
take a lot more of it as your income increases up to 100%

So you want a 100% tax on SS? That's just plain weird.

Sounds to me like you're not very familiar with regular income tax.
Maybe you've been out of it too long.


OK let me put this in a perspective you can understand. Do you think a
person making over $250,000 a year in retirement should still get all
of their SS?

NO!

Why not, they paid into the system, aren't they entitled to receive the
benefit?


Correct. They may have to pay taxes, but that's small potatoes for
people at that income level.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:45:50 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:00:59 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:09:06 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 01:33:24 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
wrote:


wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:34:37 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:23:08 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:57:48 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:05:47 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


You and the boater guy still confuse debt with an asset.

Nope. I understand exactly how SS and debt work.
And I believe debt should be repaid.
You're a welsher, but just won't admit it.
Dance, dance, dance.
Won't turn a con job into a ballet.

It isn't just me. Anyone who understands basic arithmetic knows you
can't pay out more than you make for very long.

Except this isn't your credit card. It's a very complex equation with
complex equation with lots of accounting variables. While it's
certainly true that one can't pay out more than one makes for very
long, "long" is a relative term. We've had deficits for decades and
the national debt has been around since the revolution.. something on
that order. There is absolutely no reason to start foaming at the
mouth and claiming it's near term crisis. Perhaps it's a mid-term
crisis. We can start by increasing taxes on the richest Americans,
reigning in corporate tax avoidance, reducing military spending,
dealing with fraud/abuse. We should not be starting with putting this
on the backs of a struggling middle class.


The last time we had this much of a deficit we had just won WWII. The
rest of the world was a smoking hole in the ground and we owed most of
the money to ourselves. If people wanted to buy things, they had to
buy them from us.
That is not the case now. Other countries own a good chunk of our
debt, bought with dollars we paid for their goods. We are buying more
than we sell only making the problem worse.

Yes, and thanks GWB for getting us in this spot. Thank GOD Obama isn't
beholden to corps anywhere close to how he was..

Obama is closer. He gave them more financial assistance.

Obamacare is a huge corporate welfare program to the medical and
insurance complex

Firstly, there is no such thing as Obamacare. Secondly, the reason the
insurance companies love it is because of two things. The
obstructionism by the right wing and the Democrats' inability to stand
up and be counted.

The insurance companies love the healthcare bill is because it was
written by a couple of Wellpoint lobbyists. I can understand why Obama
wants to disavow it but it was still on his watch.

It's still better than what we had before. More people are covered and
even better aspects have yet to kick in.

The GOP can honestly say they had nothing to do with it. They were not
included in the senate process where the bill was written and they
didn't vote for it.

Total nonsense. Many of their suggestions were included. That's just
right wing nonsense.

This was totally a democratic bill and it pretty much cedes all of the
health care money over to the same insurance companies they like to
vilify.

More nonsense. The ins. companies deserve whatever vilification they
get. They are simply horrible.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:39:15 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:32:51 -0700, wrote:



This was totally a democratic bill and it pretty much cedes all of the
health care money over to the same insurance companies they like to
vilify.

More nonsense. The ins. companies deserve whatever vilification they
get. They are simply horrible.

Yet the health care bill did nothing to limit their take. Well that is
not exactly true, you limited it to 20% but the worst case scenario
had the current insurance company overhead at 17%.

They're required to spend more of the money on healthcare. But, beyond
that, I thought profit and free enterprise are the right wing mantra.
If so, why are you complaining about how much the ins. companies make?

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 01:01:13 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:48:26 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:39:15 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:32:51 -0700, wrote:



This was totally a democratic bill and it pretty much cedes all of the
health care money over to the same insurance companies they like to
vilify.

More nonsense. The ins. companies deserve whatever vilification they
get. They are simply horrible.

Yet the health care bill did nothing to limit their take. Well that is
not exactly true, you limited it to 20% but the worst case scenario
had the current insurance company overhead at 17%.

They're required to spend more of the money on healthcare. But, beyond
that, I thought profit and free enterprise are the right wing mantra.
If so, why are you complaining about how much the ins. companies make?

It is more the hypocrisy of you not complaining about a bill that
gives insurance companies 20% cap when they were only taking 17 when
you claim it is better for the consumer.

Me not complaining? I've complained about it from the beginning.
You're the one who seems to be saying that you've got yours and to
hell with everyone else.

The fact is that the current healthcare reform legislation IS better
for the consumer. It's flawed and should be fixed, but it is better
than what we had before.

I really do not believe this will do anything to cut the cost of
health care.

Yes, I've heard you say that. You don't have any facts to support it,
but I've heard you say it.

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article ,
says...

Yeah, my annual statement from SS has a number like that...just under
$2400. I suppose I'll sign up for the monthly check when I'm...old. :)
If my medical bills rise, I'll have myself removed from my union's plan
so I can sign up for Medicare. I don't want to stick my union's health
fund with big bills.

If you are eligible you should take the money now and invest it.



Harry put his finger on it. His union "cadillac plan" is better than
Medicare and he knows he will have to lose it when he starts
collecting SS.


But, the government is here to help you.

Obama endorses slavery
 

BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
Yeah, my annual statement from SS has a number like that...just under
$2400. I suppose I'll sign up for the monthly check when I'm...old. :)
If my medical bills rise, I'll have myself removed from my union's plan
so I can sign up for Medicare. I don't want to stick my union's health
fund with big bills.
If you are eligible you should take the money now and invest it.


Harry put his finger on it. His union "cadillac plan" is better than
Medicare and he knows he will have to lose it when he starts
collecting SS.


But, the government is here to help you.

There's no doubt in my mind that the United States will, within the next
20 years, have a decent, government-sponsored health care plan that will
cover everyone who lives here. The effort has been helped some by the
Ryan plan to destroy Medicare and the fact that virtually all
Republicans jumped aboard that particular ship to disaster.

Recent legitimate surveys show that even the majority of teahadists
don't want Medicare to go away. And what is Medicare but one of those
danged "socialist" programs. Gotta love it.

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.

I don't see anything morally wrong in doing to the very wealthy what
they have been doing to the rest of the country since the 1980s.

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
Yeah, my annual statement from SS has a number like that...just under
$2400. I suppose I'll sign up for the monthly check when I'm...old. :)
If my medical bills rise, I'll have myself removed from my union's plan
so I can sign up for Medicare. I don't want to stick my union's health
fund with big bills.
If you are eligible you should take the money now and invest it.


Harry put his finger on it. His union "cadillac plan" is better than
Medicare and he knows he will have to lose it when he starts
collecting SS.


But, the government is here to help you.

There's no doubt in my mind that the United States will, within the next
20 years, have a decent, government-sponsored health care plan that will
cover everyone who lives here. The effort has been helped some by the
Ryan plan to destroy Medicare and the fact that virtually all
Republicans jumped aboard that particular ship to disaster.

Recent legitimate surveys show that even the majority of teahadists
don't want Medicare to go away. And what is Medicare but one of those
danged "socialist" programs. Gotta love it.

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.

I don't see anything morally wrong in doing to the very wealthy what
they have been doing to the rest of the country since the 1980s.

Unless the nanny state is reversed there will be non United States of
America in 20 years.

Obama endorses slavery
 

BAR wrote:
In , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...
BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
Yeah, my annual statement from SS has a number like that...just under
$2400. I suppose I'll sign up for the monthly check when I'm...old. :)
If my medical bills rise, I'll have myself removed from my union's plan
so I can sign up for Medicare. I don't want to stick my union's health
fund with big bills.
If you are eligible you should take the money now and invest it.


Harry put his finger on it. His union "cadillac plan" is better than
Medicare and he knows he will have to lose it when he starts
collecting SS.

But, the government is here to help you.
There's no doubt in my mind that the United States will, within the next
20 years, have a decent, government-sponsored health care plan that will
cover everyone who lives here. The effort has been helped some by the
Ryan plan to destroy Medicare and the fact that virtually all
Republicans jumped aboard that particular ship to disaster.

Recent legitimate surveys show that even the majority of teahadists
don't want Medicare to go away. And what is Medicare but one of those
danged "socialist" programs. Gotta love it.

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.

I don't see anything morally wrong in doing to the very wealthy what
they have been doing to the rest of the country since the 1980s.

Unless the nanny state is reversed there will be non United States of
America in 20 years.



Most of the modern nations in this world provide health care to their
inhabitants. We could and should, too. All it will take is drastically
cutting the funds we are wasting on military adventurism, raising taxes
on the wealthy, cutting waste in health care expenditures, and
restructuring our national priorities so they serve ordinary Americans
*first*.

Obama endorses slavery
 

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400,
wrote:

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.


I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero,
it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich
people to make up the other $700B.




You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting
we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending
$100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down
the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure
rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share.

So just how did you come to that number as a good number to supply our
military? What will you do with all of the soldiers who will be out of
the military and jobless?

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article ,
says...

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400,
wrote:

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.


I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero,
it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich
people to make up the other $700B.




You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting
we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending
$100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down
the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure
rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share.

So just how did you come to that number as a good number to supply our
military? What will you do with all of the soldiers who will be out of
the military and jobless?

In all seriousness, harry could care less about them as most of them
tend to vote republican anyway...



--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

Obama endorses slavery
 

I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...
In , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400,
wrote:

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.

I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero,
it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich
people to make up the other $700B.



You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting
we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending
$100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down
the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure
rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share.
So just how did you come to that number as a good number to supply our
military? What will you do with all of the soldiers who will be out of
the military and jobless?

In all seriousness, harry could care less about them as most of them
tend to vote republican anyway...





Oohhh..the loogywannabe wants me to respond to him....oohhh.

Ain't gonna happen, crap-for-brains.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 08:41:43 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , payer3389
says...

BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
Yeah, my annual statement from SS has a number like that...just under
$2400. I suppose I'll sign up for the monthly check when I'm...old. :)
If my medical bills rise, I'll have myself removed from my union's plan
so I can sign up for Medicare. I don't want to stick my union's health
fund with big bills.
If you are eligible you should take the money now and invest it.


Harry put his finger on it. His union "cadillac plan" is better than
Medicare and he knows he will have to lose it when he starts
collecting SS.


But, the government is here to help you.

There's no doubt in my mind that the United States will, within the next
20 years, have a decent, government-sponsored health care plan that will
cover everyone who lives here. The effort has been helped some by the
Ryan plan to destroy Medicare and the fact that virtually all
Republicans jumped aboard that particular ship to disaster.

Recent legitimate surveys show that even the majority of teahadists
don't want Medicare to go away. And what is Medicare but one of those
danged "socialist" programs. Gotta love it.

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.

I don't see anything morally wrong in doing to the very wealthy what
they have been doing to the rest of the country since the 1980s.

Unless the nanny state is reversed there will be non United States of
America in 20 years.


Feel free to buy more guns. I'm sure that's your ultimate solution.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:27:08 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400,
wrote:

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.


I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero,
it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich
people to make up the other $700B.




You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting
we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending
$100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down
the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure
rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share.

Of course! It's a disaster on the order of biblical disasters. The sky
will turn black and steaming vents will open up if we don't pay off
the entire debt on some made up timeline.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:13:52 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 23:19:45 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 01:01:13 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:48:26 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:39:15 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:32:51 -0700, wrote:



This was totally a democratic bill and it pretty much cedes all of the
health care money over to the same insurance companies they like to
vilify.

More nonsense. The ins. companies deserve whatever vilification they
get. They are simply horrible.

Yet the health care bill did nothing to limit their take. Well that is
not exactly true, you limited it to 20% but the worst case scenario
had the current insurance company overhead at 17%.

They're required to spend more of the money on healthcare. But, beyond
that, I thought profit and free enterprise are the right wing mantra.
If so, why are you complaining about how much the ins. companies make?

It is more the hypocrisy of you not complaining about a bill that
gives insurance companies 20% cap when they were only taking 17 when
you claim it is better for the consumer.

Me not complaining? I've complained about it from the beginning.
You're the one who seems to be saying that you've got yours and to
hell with everyone else.

Have mine? What I have is $3,000 deductible, basically no insurance at
all.

But, of course you don't need insurance and you never will, and
neither will all the other people, apparently.


The fact is that the current healthcare reform legislation IS better
for the consumer. It's flawed and should be fixed, but it is better
than what we had before.

I really do not believe this will do anything to cut the cost of
health care.

Yes, I've heard you say that. You don't have any facts to support it,
but I've heard you say it.

My insurance cost went up to a level I was unwilling to pay. That is
fact enough for me.

So, you opted out. I pray you stay healthy or have deep pockets.

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article ,
says...

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400,
wrote:

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.


I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero,
it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich
people to make up the other $700B.




You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting
we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending
$100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down
the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure
rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share.

So just how did you come to that number as a good number to supply our
military? What will you do with all of the soldiers who will be out of
the military and jobless?

Oops, he didn't think about that.

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400,
wrote:

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.


I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero,
it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich
people to make up the other $700B.




You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting
we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending
$100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down
the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure
rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share.

So just how did you come to that number as a good number to supply our
military? What will you do with all of the soldiers who will be out of
the military and jobless?

Oops, he didn't think about that.

He did. He is more in the Westborough Baptist Church state of mind when
it comes to our men and women in uniform. Remember, most of them vote
republican anyway.

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

Obama endorses slavery
 

BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
In , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400,
wrote:

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.

I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero,
it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich
people to make up the other $700B.



You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting
we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending
$100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down
the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure
rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share.

So just how did you come to that number as a good number to supply our
military? What will you do with all of the soldiers who will be out of
the military and jobless?

Oops, he didn't think about that.

I've previously posted several times that the military downsizing should
take place as the economy and employment improves. The military remains
an employer of last resort for many, and for that, it performs a task
society needs.

We've been blowing a half trillion dollars or more on the military for a
long, long time. It's time for that lunacy to stop.

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article ,
says...

I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...
In , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400,
wrote:

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.

I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero,
it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich
people to make up the other $700B.



You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting
we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending
$100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down
the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure
rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share.
So just how did you come to that number as a good number to supply our
military? What will you do with all of the soldiers who will be out of
the military and jobless?

In all seriousness, harry could care less about them as most of them
tend to vote republican anyway...





Oohhh..the loogywannabe wants me to respond to him....oohhh.

Ain't gonna happen, crap-for-brains.

Because you don't have a decent answer, dip****.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:28:43 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:27:08 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400,
wrote:

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.


I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero,
it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich
people to make up the other $700B.




You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting
we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending
$100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down
the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure
rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share.

If you don't cut the deficit (the amount we spend vs what we take in)
you do have to pay it off every year. We are not talking about the
rolling debt, we are talking about how much more we spend every year
more than we take in.

No, you don't. Not in the short term. Only in the long term. It's an
issue that needs an intelligent solution, not cut gov't to the bone
and throw a bunch of people out of work.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:49:05 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:46:47 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:13:52 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 23:19:45 -0700, wrote:

Me not complaining? I've complained about it from the beginning.
You're the one who seems to be saying that you've got yours and to
hell with everyone else.

Have mine? What I have is $3,000 deductible, basically no insurance at
all.

But, of course you don't need insurance and you never will, and
neither will all the other people, apparently.


The fact is that the current healthcare reform legislation IS better
for the consumer. It's flawed and should be fixed, but it is better
than what we had before.

I really do not believe this will do anything to cut the cost of
health care.

Yes, I've heard you say that. You don't have any facts to support it,
but I've heard you say it.

My insurance cost went up to a level I was unwilling to pay. That is
fact enough for me.

So, you opted out. I pray you stay healthy or have deep pockets.

I have the 3 grand if that is what you mean.
It is simple math. I can pay the 3 grand in monthly premiums, sick or
not or save my money and only pay if I get sick. The low deductible
plans are a rip off these days. Like everyone else, if you don't have
the money to pay, it costs more for everything.

So you do have some insurance that kicks in after the $3K. Good idea.
$3K is not far from my deductible.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:17:19 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 08:58:01 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
In , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400,
wrote:

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.

I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero,
it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich
people to make up the other $700B.



You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting
we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending
$100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down
the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure
rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share.

So just how did you come to that number as a good number to supply our
military? What will you do with all of the soldiers who will be out of
the military and jobless?

Oops, he didn't think about that.

I've previously posted several times that the military downsizing should
take place as the economy and employment improves. The military remains
an employer of last resort for many, and for that, it performs a task
society needs.

We've been blowing a half trillion dollars or more on the military for a
long, long time. It's time for that lunacy to stop.


The soldiers are one issue but the biggest part of the military budget
goes to the military industrial complex and the people in that
business are smart enough to be sure they generate jobs in all 50
states so everyone in congress all has an ox to be gored if a contract
is cut. That is why we are building planes the pentagon doesn't want
like the extra C-17s.

Therefore, we should shut down the gov't because of Planned
Parenthood. I get it.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:57:48 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:11:56 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:17:19 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 08:58:01 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
In , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400,
wrote:

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.

I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero,
it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich
people to make up the other $700B.



You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting
we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending
$100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down
the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure
rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share.

So just how did you come to that number as a good number to supply our
military? What will you do with all of the soldiers who will be out of
the military and jobless?

Oops, he didn't think about that.

I've previously posted several times that the military downsizing should
take place as the economy and employment improves. The military remains
an employer of last resort for many, and for that, it performs a task
society needs.

We've been blowing a half trillion dollars or more on the military for a
long, long time. It's time for that lunacy to stop.


The soldiers are one issue but the biggest part of the military budget
goes to the military industrial complex and the people in that
business are smart enough to be sure they generate jobs in all 50
states so everyone in congress all has an ox to be gored if a contract
is cut. That is why we are building planes the pentagon doesn't want
like the extra C-17s.

Therefore, we should shut down the gov't because of Planned
Parenthood. I get it.

Are we changing ther subject again?

Trying to follow your logic is like riding a Mad Mouse.

According to you, one is never supposed to talk about anything unless
that's how the thread started. Why aren't you talking about Obama and
slavery???

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:28:14 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:19:20 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:28:43 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:27:08 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400,
wrote:

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.


I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero,
it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich
people to make up the other $700B.




You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting
we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending
$100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down
the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure
rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share.

If you don't cut the deficit (the amount we spend vs what we take in)
you do have to pay it off every year. We are not talking about the
rolling debt, we are talking about how much more we spend every year
more than we take in.

No, you don't. Not in the short term. Only in the long term. It's an
issue that needs an intelligent solution, not cut gov't to the bone
and throw a bunch of people out of work.

What do you think will happen when these cuts have to be made because
our interest payments triple and we can't afford the entitlements?

Again, you always take the worst situation. Who says they all have to
happen at once? The right wing. There's no middle ground is there.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 02:10:33 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 20:48:04 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:57:48 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:11:56 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:17:19 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 08:58:01 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
In , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400,
wrote:

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.

I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero,
it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich
people to make up the other $700B.



You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting
we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending
$100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down
the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure
rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share.

So just how did you come to that number as a good number to supply our
military? What will you do with all of the soldiers who will be out of
the military and jobless?

Oops, he didn't think about that.

I've previously posted several times that the military downsizing should
take place as the economy and employment improves. The military remains
an employer of last resort for many, and for that, it performs a task
society needs.

We've been blowing a half trillion dollars or more on the military for a
long, long time. It's time for that lunacy to stop.


The soldiers are one issue but the biggest part of the military budget
goes to the military industrial complex and the people in that
business are smart enough to be sure they generate jobs in all 50
states so everyone in congress all has an ox to be gored if a contract
is cut. That is why we are building planes the pentagon doesn't want
like the extra C-17s.

Therefore, we should shut down the gov't because of Planned
Parenthood. I get it.

Are we changing ther subject again?

Trying to follow your logic is like riding a Mad Mouse.

According to you, one is never supposed to talk about anything unless
that's how the thread started. Why aren't you talking about Obama and
slavery???

There should be some logical flow in your response. We were talking
about military spending, 9 consecutive posts and you leaped to
abortion.

We (or Frogbreath) were talking about Obama and slavery. Why can't you
stay on topic?

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 02:13:28 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 20:48:45 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:28:14 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:19:20 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:28:43 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:27:08 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400,
wrote:

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.


I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero,
it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich
people to make up the other $700B.




You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting
we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending
$100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down
the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure
rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share.

If you don't cut the deficit (the amount we spend vs what we take in)
you do have to pay it off every year. We are not talking about the
rolling debt, we are talking about how much more we spend every year
more than we take in.

No, you don't. Not in the short term. Only in the long term. It's an
issue that needs an intelligent solution, not cut gov't to the bone
and throw a bunch of people out of work.

What do you think will happen when these cuts have to be made because
our interest payments triple and we can't afford the entitlements?

Again, you always take the worst situation. Who says they all have to
happen at once? The right wing. There's no middle ground is there.


Do you even have a clue how much of our debt is in short term notes
that roll over in months not years so the interest rate can change in
a flash. You keep talking about "long term" and "years down the road"
but we could get clobbered in a matter of months.

There's no evidence to support that fear.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:41:22 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:53:15 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 02:13:28 -0400, wrote:




Do you even have a clue how much of our debt is in short term notes
that roll over in months not years so the interest rate can change in
a flash. You keep talking about "long term" and "years down the road"
but we could get clobbered in a matter of months.

There's no evidence to support that fear.

One of these days you will hear a democrat say it and then it will
have been obvious all along to you.
The fact remains that there are a lot of these short term notes being
rolled over into long term paper. In a way that is good because you do
not have to keep going to the well for the money but the bad news is
the interest rate is about 10 times as high, being over 3% instead of
the 0.3% they pay on short term paper.
Right now our average interest rate on the debt is around 1.5%
($206.7 Billion a year)

Right now, we're trying to recover from a devastating financial
calamity. Right now is not the time to try and fix a long-term
problem.

Obama endorses slavery
 

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:06:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:52:55 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:41:22 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:53:15 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 02:13:28 -0400, wrote:




Do you even have a clue how much of our debt is in short term notes
that roll over in months not years so the interest rate can change in
a flash. You keep talking about "long term" and "years down the road"
but we could get clobbered in a matter of months.

There's no evidence to support that fear.

One of these days you will hear a democrat say it and then it will
have been obvious all along to you.
The fact remains that there are a lot of these short term notes being
rolled over into long term paper. In a way that is good because you do
not have to keep going to the well for the money but the bad news is
the interest rate is about 10 times as high, being over 3% instead of
the 0.3% they pay on short term paper.
Right now our average interest rate on the debt is around 1.5%
($206.7 Billion a year)

Right now, we're trying to recover from a devastating financial
calamity. Right now is not the time to try and fix a long-term
problem.

We are not actually recovering anything if we are creating an
unsustainable debt.

Every time you buy a house and get a mortgage, you create an
unsustainable debt, since you have no absolute guaranty that you'll
have a job long enough to pay off the mortgage.

The key word of course is "if." Our debt may be "unsustainable" if you
assume the very worst case scenario. In all other scenarios, the
problem can be (and actually is being) address, even though you want
to believe otherwise.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:35:32 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:59:15 -0700, wrote:


Do you even have a clue how much of our debt is in short term notes
that roll over in months not years so the interest rate can change in
a flash. You keep talking about "long term" and "years down the road"
but we could get clobbered in a matter of months.

There's no evidence to support that fear.

One of these days you will hear a democrat say it and then it will
have been obvious all along to you.
The fact remains that there are a lot of these short term notes being
rolled over into long term paper. In a way that is good because you do
not have to keep going to the well for the money but the bad news is
the interest rate is about 10 times as high, being over 3% instead of
the 0.3% they pay on short term paper.
Right now our average interest rate on the debt is around 1.5%
($206.7 Billion a year)

Right now, we're trying to recover from a devastating financial
calamity. Right now is not the time to try and fix a long-term
problem.

We are not actually recovering anything if we are creating an
unsustainable debt.

Every time you buy a house and get a mortgage, you create an
unsustainable debt, since you have no absolute guaranty that you'll
have a job long enough to pay off the mortgage.

It is not an unsustainable debt if you are generating enough revenue
to pay down the principle. We are not even stopping the growth of the
principle.

The key word of course is "if." Our debt may be "unsustainable" if you
assume the very worst case scenario. In all other scenarios, the
problem can be (and actually is being) address, even though you want
to believe otherwise.

I only assume the projected scenario in the best case examples given
by the people who have plans they can't even get passed. (like Simpson
Bowles or Ryan)

There is only one budget proposal out there that has the debt coming
down by 2021 but it gores so many oxen I doubt you could even get most
of the democrats to support it and you wouldn't get any republicans.

http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/Th...2%20Budget.pdf


How about we start with subsidies and the military budget.

The Ryan proposal calls for $165B cuts in Medicare ... basically
eliminating it.

The big oil subsidies, tax cuts for millionaires (Bush's cuts), tax
breaks for corps that create jobs overseas (lost revenue) is about
$170B.

Let's end those subsidies.

Then there's the military budget. How about not $1 more, as proposed
in the NYT op-ed piece..

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/opinion/20wed1.html

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 17:25:44 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:22:41 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:35:32 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:59:15 -0700, wrote:


Do you even have a clue how much of our debt is in short term notes
that roll over in months not years so the interest rate can change in
a flash. You keep talking about "long term" and "years down the road"
but we could get clobbered in a matter of months.

There's no evidence to support that fear.

One of these days you will hear a democrat say it and then it will
have been obvious all along to you.
The fact remains that there are a lot of these short term notes being
rolled over into long term paper. In a way that is good because you do
not have to keep going to the well for the money but the bad news is
the interest rate is about 10 times as high, being over 3% instead of
the 0.3% they pay on short term paper.
Right now our average interest rate on the debt is around 1.5%
($206.7 Billion a year)

Right now, we're trying to recover from a devastating financial
calamity. Right now is not the time to try and fix a long-term
problem.

We are not actually recovering anything if we are creating an
unsustainable debt.

Every time you buy a house and get a mortgage, you create an
unsustainable debt, since you have no absolute guaranty that you'll
have a job long enough to pay off the mortgage.

It is not an unsustainable debt if you are generating enough revenue
to pay down the principle. We are not even stopping the growth of the
principle.

The key word of course is "if." Our debt may be "unsustainable" if you
assume the very worst case scenario. In all other scenarios, the
problem can be (and actually is being) address, even though you want
to believe otherwise.

I only assume the projected scenario in the best case examples given
by the people who have plans they can't even get passed. (like Simpson
Bowles or Ryan)

There is only one budget proposal out there that has the debt coming
down by 2021 but it gores so many oxen I doubt you could even get most
of the democrats to support it and you wouldn't get any republicans.

http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/Th...2%20Budget.pdf


How about we start with subsidies and the military budget.

The Ryan proposal calls for $165B cuts in Medicare ... basically
eliminating it.

That is less than half of what they spend but I see your point.
I doubt anyone is really taking his idea seriously but I applaud the
bravery to even open the dialog. We do need to find a way to get a
handle on costs.

Less than half of what Medicare spends? So what. It's the meat of it,
as you know.

Ryan is NO HERO. He's a pandering jerk who wants to deny people basic
healthcare cover for the sake of big business and his own political
aspirations. He did "open the dialog" at all.


The big oil subsidies, tax cuts for millionaires (Bush's cuts), tax
breaks for corps that create jobs overseas (lost revenue) is about
$170B.

OK


Let's end those subsidies.

Then there's the military budget. How about not $1 more, as proposed
in the NYT op-ed piece..

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/opinion/20wed1.html

That is the hardest nut to crack, maybe even harder than entitlements,
simply because virtually every state gets pork from DoD.
I agree we build far too many unneeded weapons platforms.
Unfortunately, they all represent high tech jobs for someone.

As said, all that has to happen is not spend more. Spending the same
is a good start.

I liked Ed Rendell on one of the talking head shows proposing that we
take all of that effort and declare war on our aging infrastructure
with the same zeal we used to counter the various enemies, real or
imagined.
The other thing in the CPC budget Harry and I have been talking about
for years is defunding the Iraq and Afghanistan crusades.

The right wing is staunchly opposed to spending money on
infrastructure, unless of course, it's in their district.

The Iraq war is winding down, as you know. There's no need to pull the
rug out from a largely successful campaign to get us out without allow
the country to collapse. The Afg. war is in the make or break stage.
While no war monger, I think it's worth following Patreaus' advice for
now.

There are a reported 150 suspected (mostly low level) terrorists in
Afghanistan and we have 150,000 people looking for them.
That is projected to be $1.8 trillion in 10 years.
Instead we are spending another couple hundred billion on other
adventures in the middle east and we are not even sure who the people
we are putting in power will turn out to be.

A couple of hundred billion or things other than the Iraq/Afg wars?
Huh? Where are you getting that number?

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article ,
says...


There is only one budget proposal out there that has the debt coming
down by 2021 but it gores so many oxen I doubt you could even get most
of the democrats to support it and you wouldn't get any republicans.

http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/Th...2%20Budget.pdf

That's a pretty good start.
I didn't read all the details, but I would prefer more reductions in
Medicare spending, and higher tax rates for millionaires.
Bring the debt down faster.
Jobs needs more thought. We need more manufacturing, even if those jobs
won't pay as much as they did in their heyday.
Jobs are the big revenue generator, the seeds of most good.
There are easy methods to knock 20% off Medicare spending with no
significant change to those who use it.
Another problem is I saw no ban of Lite beer.
As you say, it won't happen.
Congress is too full of dishonest flim-flammers.
Most who are sincere are stupid, or intransigent,
Pretty sad that this government has broken down.

Obama endorses slavery
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:22:41 -0700, wrote:


The Ryan proposal calls for $165B cuts in Medicare ... basically
eliminating it.

That is less than half of what they spend but I see your point.
I doubt anyone is really taking his idea seriously but I applaud the
bravery to even open the dialog. We do need to find a way to get a
handle on costs.


Ryan isn't brave, he's stupid and isolated in his little ideological
cocoon He wants to kill Medicare. His next step would be SS.
He had no idea how his "plan" would **** the GOP.
Don't mistake stupid sincerity for bravery.

Obama endorses slavery
 

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:21:54 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:22:41 -0700, wrote:


The Ryan proposal calls for $165B cuts in Medicare ... basically
eliminating it.

That is less than half of what they spend but I see your point.
I doubt anyone is really taking his idea seriously but I applaud the
bravery to even open the dialog. We do need to find a way to get a
handle on costs.


Ryan isn't brave, he's stupid and isolated in his little ideological
cocoon He wants to kill Medicare. His next step would be SS.
He had no idea how his "plan" would **** the GOP.
Don't mistake stupid sincerity for bravery.

if he were brave he'd propose doubling capital gains taxes and
subjecting them to social security taxes