|
If you care more.....
HankĀ© wrote:
On 10/30/2013 8:41 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: wrote: On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 20:05:10 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/30/13, 7:56 PM, wrote: A pittance. Hell, an F-18 jet runs about $60 million each, and a nuclear submarine is $2 billion. It's too bad the states with Republican governors opted out and, basically, ****ed their citizens, eh? Airplanes are a jobs program for US aerospace employees The prime contractor for Healthcare.Com was a Canadian company. There is more to the opt out than simply rejecting "free money" from the government. It brings on an unfunded mandate in 3 years when the federal money stops. It is similar to those high speed rail deals where the feds get the project started and then walk away leaving the state on the hook to not only finish the project but run a money losing train for decades. The Republican governors turned it down because they are Republicans. Simply said by a simpleton. Not even 36 Republican governors. |
If you care more.....
In article 1525710591404866495.437275bmckeenospam-
, says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 301484919404854896.658239bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: about a $70 million website than a $24 billion shutdown, you just may be a Republican.... Actually a $350 million website, leading to a $ trillion spending function. Cite? Cite my ass. Get off your lazy ass, you are not doing any work anyway. It is already admitted they spent over $300 million on the software that does not work. You think they will require it be made good for no more payments? It's the government. And how much do you think this ACA is going to add to the debt? As expected, nothing but bull**** from you. |
If you care more.....
In article ,
says... On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 16:07:17 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article 301484919404854896.658239bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: about a $70 million website than a $24 billion shutdown, you just may be a Republican.... Actually a $350 million website, leading to a $ trillion spending function. Cite? Do you have a TV? It has been covered extensively for a couple weeks I'm sorry, I've seen NOTHING that says the website will be a trillion dollar spending function. Could you point that out to me, please? |
If you care more.....
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 20:39:59 -0400, Hank© wrote:
On 10/30/2013 8:41 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: wrote: On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 20:05:10 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/30/13, 7:56 PM, wrote: A pittance. Hell, an F-18 jet runs about $60 million each, and a nuclear submarine is $2 billion. It's too bad the states with Republican governors opted out and, basically, ****ed their citizens, eh? Airplanes are a jobs program for US aerospace employees The prime contractor for Healthcare.Com was a Canadian company. There is more to the opt out than simply rejecting "free money" from the government. It brings on an unfunded mandate in 3 years when the federal money stops. It is similar to those high speed rail deals where the feds get the project started and then walk away leaving the state on the hook to not only finish the project but run a money losing train for decades. The Republican governors turned it down because they are Republicans. Simply said by a simpleton. Said well. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
If you care more.....
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:19:55 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 07:37:40 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 16:07:17 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article 301484919404854896.658239bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: about a $70 million website than a $24 billion shutdown, you just may be a Republican.... Actually a $350 million website, leading to a $ trillion spending function. Cite? Do you have a TV? It has been covered extensively for a couple weeks I'm sorry, I've seen NOTHING that says the website will be a trillion dollar spending function. Could you point that out to me, please? I was referring to the $350M for the site. The $1T is conjecture at this point but it is clear that this will be a lot more expensive that it was sold as being. Unlike Medicare, that actually financed itself for over 35 years before going into the red , this program will hit the ground losing money. "The ACA will be budget neutral." "If you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it. Period." How many more lies will unfold? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
If you care more.....
iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1525710591404866495.437275bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 301484919404854896.658239bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: about a $70 million website than a $24 billion shutdown, you just may be a Republican.... Actually a $350 million website, leading to a $ trillion spending function. Cite? Cite my ass. Get off your lazy ass, you are not doing any work anyway. It is already admitted they spent over $300 million on the software that does not work. You think they will require it be made good for no more payments? It's the government. And how much do you think this ACA is going to add to the debt? As expected, nothing but bull**** from you. As expected, you can provide no substance for you posits. |
If you care more.....
wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 07:37:40 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 16:07:17 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article 301484919404854896.658239bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: about a $70 million website than a $24 billion shutdown, you just may be a Republican.... Actually a $350 million website, leading to a $ trillion spending function. Cite? Do you have a TV? It has been covered extensively for a couple weeks I'm sorry, I've seen NOTHING that says the website will be a trillion dollar spending function. Could you point that out to me, please? I was referring to the $350M for the site. The $1T is conjecture at this point but it is clear that this will be a lot more expensive that it was sold as being. Unlike Medicare, that actually financed itself for over 35 years before going into the red , this program will hit the ground losing money. MediCare was only going to cost $500 million when it was proposed. Look how that has worked out. |
If you care more.....
|
If you care more.....
In article , says...
wrote: On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 20:05:10 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/30/13, 7:56 PM, wrote: A pittance. Hell, an F-18 jet runs about $60 million each, and a nuclear submarine is $2 billion. It's too bad the states with Republican governors opted out and, basically, ****ed their citizens, eh? Airplanes are a jobs program for US aerospace employees The prime contractor for Healthcare.Com was a Canadian company. There is more to the opt out than simply rejecting "free money" from the government. It brings on an unfunded mandate in 3 years when the federal money stops. It is similar to those high speed rail deals where the feds get the project started and then walk away leaving the state on the hook to not only finish the project but run a money losing train for decades. The Republican governors turned it down because they are Republicans. Do you remember Bill Clinton's effort to get more cops on the street? He paid for them for the first year and then the local jurisdiction needed to pick up the tab for the continued employment of the cops. Most were terminated when the federal money ran out. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com