On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:31:48 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 14/06/2011 4:50 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:10:16 -0600,
wrote:

On 14/06/2011 3:53 AM, wf3h wrote:

Just know how screwed up it left Canada and Obamacare is just a huge tax
grab. Dumbsh1t Obama doesn't seem to get it.

and medical care in the US is free, right? we spend less of a
proportion of our GDP on medical care than canada, right? our
healthcare is cheaper and more affordable than canada's right?

Nothing is free. That is a fleabag fantasy. The question is who and
how it is paid for.

and yet you think american healthcare is free.

Never said it was. But you can change providers if one isn't servicing
your needs.

really? can you?

tell you what. find me someone here in the US w/o health insurance

who can change his provider, OK?


The results are much higher service levels than you see in
Canada. You have more MRIs, you get surgery faster...less likely to die
waiting.

and how long do you wait in americ a w/o insurance?

and where's the proof that 'longer waits' have ANY effect on
healthcare?


meanwhile milions dont have it in the US.

For many it is about priorities.


the right wing bull**** continues. a cliche lin lieu of the facts

guess he doesnt know that.e

I do. I lived in a rental, neighbors told us their experience. Skipped
HC for decades, going to Greece, Italy, Spain, China...every year some
place new. Then he needed a bypass and they had to sell the house.
They had the money.

ah. he comes up with a little readers digest bull**** story about why
the middle class needs to be dstroyed. we're all lazy you see....only
the guys on wall street work hard


Don't get me wrong, I am not against universal health care. I just have
a huge gripe on how it is implemented and run. Ends up being a greedy
government tax grab if your not careful. And rationing sets in even
though they don't talk about it. Even preferences, politicians first,
then workers, the old folks get idle time.

let's see. in america

govt run healthcare....medicare...is MORE efficient and less costly
than PRIVATE heathcare

but the facts dont deter the right

and the right wing IGNORES the fact WE HAVE RATIONING in the US

he's completely unwaware of the fact WE RATION HEALTHCARE


Yep, an no line ups and the best care. We have no choice, government
took it away from in hyper-taxation.

HAHAHAHA the best care?

proof?

Lots. If health care is so great in Canada, why would a premier got to
Florida? What better proof of that do you need.

a reader's digest anecdote in lieu of a response...typical of the
right


well...none. none at all. life expectancy is higher in many countries
like japan with socialized medicine

but he has his fantasies

and line? uh...how long do you wait in the US if you have no
insurance?

No clue, I always was with aid up insurance. But agree here, if
cocaine, heroin and/or booze is more important than your family, why
waste resources on you?

more attacks on the middle class...also typical of the right...


For Canada, health care tuned out to be a government tax grab.

and yet it works

Marginally. But the coverage is crap. Most people purchase additional
coverage anyways. You have to, $2600/year in my case. Just to make up
for what government does not cover. Like travel abroad. Private room
so I don't share with 12 others.

no response about why healthcare in canada s as good as in the
US...even though it's cheaper...


in the US it's an insurance grab. govt medcial care is better AND
cheaper than the free market

Doubt it. Just fleabagger bull****.

HAHAHAHA

let's see...he's right wing so has NO CLUE about FACTS. he makes up
BULL**** and doesnt even know he's WRONG!! he has his MYTHS so the
facts dont matter. that's WHY he's right wing

let's look at US vs canadian healthcare costs, shall we?

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00...a62f970c-popup

Remember, I lived there for 10
years and used the system twice for myself. Busted rib and a case of
fly fishing elbow, bursitis (sp?). Know of others, work buddy. US is
consistently faster and in most cases better..

and he comes up with a nice little reader's digest bull**** story.
he's wrong. he wont let facts get in his way. he's coppletely WRONG

but he's right wing so is totally stupid

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:53:38 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 14/06/2011 5:06 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:56:25 -0600,
wrote:

Government is trying to end the depression with bu11sh1t. They generate
4.5% inflation, GDP grows by 2.25% and they say the depression has
ended. Only with fleabagger math, as inflation adjusted the economy
still shrank. And in shrink, it also generated less government revenue.
A real vicious economic cycle caused by government debtors denial and
mindless statism.

4.5% inflation?

where? ppi index went up 0.2% last month

Don't believe the government numbers.

HAHAHAHA they reported the ppi went up 0.8% in april. he believed THAT
because it fit in with his right wing myth

NOW the numbers are all wrong!

ROFLMAO. that's EXACTLY how the right wing operates!


Find a government CPI and check
out cars, homes, gold, silver even flour say from 1914. You will find
CPI is bogus. Keeps unions happy to BS them down. Ponzi number, make
you think a 2.5% raise is good if they tell you inflation s 2%.

unions??

the US HAS NO UNIONS!! HAHAHAHAA


and the teabaggers think we have to cut taxes on the rich because
their income only went up 500% in the last 30 years.

and federal taxes are at a 40 year low

but the right knows none of this

Tax reciepts are but not net tax load. Because over 20% are unemployed
and company are not making money like they used too. No profit, no/low
wages means less taxes.

companies are not making money???? HAHAHAHA the right winger doesnt
realzie that corporate profits are the HIGHEST IN HISTORY!!

ROFLMAO. EVERYTHING HE SAYS IS WRONG.

THAT is why he's right wing!

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:56:19 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 14/06/2011 5:08 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:36:00 -0600,
wrote:



HAHAHAHA far too many on the consumption side??

ROFLMAO!!! the problem is NOT ENOUGH consumption!

he's SUCH a moron and he's right wing!

And can't have consumption if your credit is bouncing and your working
for less. That is why Reagonomics worked and Obamanomics screwed up.
Reagan left the month 100% efficiently in the peoples pockets. Obama,
he redistributes it to big corps, banks corruption and fleabaggers on
welfare.

reagonomics worked?

he raised taxes.

he deregulated and laid the foundation for the rape of the US economy
by the banks

and it worked?? HAHAHAHA

and, because obama's black, the racist kluxer blames HIM for what BUSH
did

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 01:01:18 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 14/06/2011 5:10 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:17:35 -0600,
wrote:

On 14/06/2011 4:07 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:48:46 -0600,
wrote:
and why the right wants to destroy it. the right is an elitist,
property based ideology that hates the middle class

Screw unions, they are just the other side of the greed coin.


really? then why do countries that have strong unions have strong
manufacturing?

You mean like Japan? Lets examine that.

Unions in Japan DEMAND loyalty or management will not run you off, the
unions will. Unions are also responsible in helping management make a
modest, sustainable profit, and to address employee issues. Hell, they
are more like a HR department than a union.

let's see. let's look at germany, shall we?

30% unionized work force

unemployment is 7% vs 9% here

their manufacturing base is stronger. as it is with much of the OECD.



CEOs are expected to resign when they lay off people for issues not
involving the laid off persons performance. And very rare to see a CEO
get paid more than 10 times the lowest wage they pay.

yep. and here in the good ol' free market US, CEO's get HUNDREDS of
times what the average worker gets


Strikes rare too. As government will step in and tell the unions to get
back to work or quit if demands are not reasonable for the type of work.

You do know socialist worker unions started the Nazi movement right?

uh...no they didnt. you lying sack of **** nazi lover. since when did
you start loving hitler?

Look it up, they did.

i did. the first thing hitler did was to kill the union leaders

you dont know **** about history

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:17:38 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:21:23 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:07 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers

says the right winger with a reader's digest view of economics


should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

It was something called lend lease that got the factories moving again.

So, money was spent by the US gov't. This stabilized the economy.
Thanks for the confirmation.

It was just like any other business deal. The corporations were told
that if they made and sold the items now they would get some money down
the road. This loaded up the companies billables and they could use that
to borrow against.

Which is exactly what happens when the gov't pumps money into the
economy for things like the STIM. Jobs are created and people pay
taxes. Same with the GM/Chrysler bailouts. All those people are still
employed and paying taxes.

The best bang for your buck (other than a war) are things like food
stamps. That money returns to the economy immediately, and is a net
positive, esp. in the short term.

How much of the "STIM" money has been spent and what was it spent on?


Look it up. Two people posted the link.

Just like a liberal, wants someone else to do the work.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:16:47 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 14/06/2011 3:03 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:26:07 -0600,
wrote:

On 14/06/2011 11:14 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:21:23 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:07 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers

says the right winger with a reader's digest view of economics


should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

It was something called lend lease that got the factories moving again.

So, money was spent by the US gov't. This stabilized the economy.
Thanks for the confirmation.

It was just like any other business deal. The corporations were told
that if they made and sold the items now they would get some money down
the road. This loaded up the companies billables and they could use that
to borrow against.

Which is exactly what happens when the gov't pumps money into the
economy for things like the STIM. Jobs are created and people pay
taxes. Same with the GM/Chrysler bailouts. All those people are still
employed and paying taxes.

The best bang for your buck (other than a war) are things like food
stamps. That money returns to the economy immediately, and is a net
positive, esp. in the short term.

Look up the fine print of lend lease. First, it was less than a
trillion dollars to end a decade long depression. Very, very cheap and
efficient compared to Obamanomics. And no government debt for it.

It was also precipitated by the ned for war munitions and goods for the
world. No such needs to that level are needed today. But could be why
Obama is war hungry. A bad mad debtor.

Third element, it didn't have a debt battered business base. Debt of
government, business and people were relatively low compared to today.
Some economists say the end of the depression may have occured anyways
and in fact had already started before WW II.

The US gov't was going broke during WWII. That's what the bond push
was all about.

For God's sake, look things up before you quack.

But that was for US weapons not forign weapons....look it up dough brain.

Bozo... we're talking about gov't spending. Gov't spent. The economy
recovered. I know it's a difficult concept for someone of your low
intellect...

With all of the current government spending around the US at the
federal, state and local level why is the unemployment rate at 9%?

On 6/15/11 7:43 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:17:38 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:21:23 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:07 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers

says the right winger with a reader's digest view of economics


should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

It was something called lend lease that got the factories moving again.

So, money was spent by the US gov't. This stabilized the economy.
Thanks for the confirmation.

It was just like any other business deal. The corporations were told
that if they made and sold the items now they would get some money down
the road. This loaded up the companies billables and they could use that
to borrow against.

Which is exactly what happens when the gov't pumps money into the
economy for things like the STIM. Jobs are created and people pay
taxes. Same with the GM/Chrysler bailouts. All those people are still
employed and paying taxes.

The best bang for your buck (other than a war) are things like food
stamps. That money returns to the economy immediately, and is a net
positive, esp. in the short term.

How much of the "STIM" money has been spent and what was it spent on?


Look it up. Two people posted the link.

Just like a liberal, wants someone else to do the work.




Typical conservative: not enough smarts to look things up.

--
Want to discuss recreational boating and fishing in a forum where
personal insults are not allowed?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec-boating-fishing

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:19:49 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:22:44 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:02:05 -0400, wrote:


spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

It was something called lend lease that got the factories moving again.

That was when the rest of the world was borrowing from us.

Bob, do you see the difference?


Greg, do you see that the US gov't was injecting money into the
economy? Do you see why it doesn't make much difference how it does it
and that via a war isn't exactly the best way to do that... unless you
don't mind killing a lot of people in the name of profit of course.

Never mind. You're hiding. I forgot.

It is funny that when some try to tell us that the only way to make
money is to spend money. Yet it just never seems to work with
governments. They more the spend the more debt they create for everyone.

It's funny that you don't know anything about how an economy works.

Governments do not generate wealth. The only thing governments are good
at with respect to money is waste, fraud and corruption.

Wealth isn't the issue. It's the middle class who are getting screwed
and they're not interested in wealth. They're interested in short term
survival.

Wrong, wealth is the issue. Without generating new wealth you are just
moving the same money around.

Do you know where wealth comes from? It comes from natural resources.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:21:09 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:24:05 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:02:05 -0400, wrote:


spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

It was something called lend lease that got the factories moving again.

That was when the rest of the world was borrowing from us.

Bob, do you see the difference?


yep. typical LIBERAL KEYNESIAN economcis

-borrow and spend in bad times
-pay back in good

thanks. i already knew that

That is national suicide and we are seeing it occur right in front of
our eyes.

We have borrowed and spent our self to near insolvency.


This is a long term problem, not a short term problem. Get real.

The spending has been going on for about 100 years. It needs to stop.


Tomorrow... and screw the middle class who are going to get hurt. No
need to actually fix the problems, just screw over people. Typical
right-wing greedy asshole.

The progressive movement with its ideals that people need to be taken
care of has gotten us into this mess. People need to be told that they
are responsible for themselves and that they will no longer be given
government assistance.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:24:20 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:52:17 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

really? from where? the non existent pay increases of the middle
class? the renmimbi is undervalued and has been for years

you're just too stupid to know that


Bottom line, US economics is now owned by China. Far too much money
expansion from the US Fed and government debt to stop it now. The
reality hasn't set in, but China is already in many ways the #1 world
economy.

the chinese hold about 5% of US debt

so tell me again how they rule us

You are the self appointed economic genius, tell us.


gee. the answer is obvious

they dont rule us

You only know how to pick up rocks and throw them.