|
If you care more.....
about a $70 million website than a $24 billion shutdown, you just may be
a Republican.... |
If you care more.....
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. |
If you care more.....
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? |
If you care more.....
On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:41:14 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
about a $70 million website than a $24 billion shutdown, you just may be a Republican.... Flagged for the **** it is. |
If you care more.....
On 10/30/2013 1:41 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
about a $70 million website than a $24 billion shutdown, you just may be a Republican.... Ya, why did we pay those federal workers for not working. Mikek |
If you care more.....
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? |
If you care more.....
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. |
If you care more.....
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. |
If you care more.....
On 10/30/2013 9:29 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
And perhaps I'll be on the cover of GQ. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. Found the cure yet? |
If you care more.....
On 10/30/13, 9:24 PM, wrote:
On 31 Oct 2013 00:41:53 GMT, 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. Perhaps that simply means they care about run away deficit spending. And perhaps I'll be on the cover of GQ. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
If you care more.....
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. 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. |
If you care more.....
In article 529716552404932807.066227bmckeenospam-
, says... 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. Let's recap, shall we? YOU said "a $ trillion spending function". That is pure bull****, you can't prove anything like it, so instead you start your deflection. Now just WHO isn't providing "substance for you posits". And JOHN, Bill said above "you posits". You need to get on his ass and stay on it for a couple of weeks. Post nothing to him but that. |
If you care more.....
iBoaterer wrote:
In article 529716552404932807.066227bmckeenospam- , says... 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. Let's recap, shall we? YOU said "a $ trillion spending function". That is pure bull****, you can't prove anything like it, so instead you start your deflection. Now just WHO isn't providing "substance for you posits". And JOHN, Bill said above "you posits". You need to get on his ass and stay on it for a couple of weeks. Post nothing to him but that. How much subsidy do you think this will cost? Less than a Trillion? |
If you care more.....
In article 768206550405019050.519288bmckeenospam-
, says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 529716552404932807.066227bmckeenospam- , says... 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. Let's recap, shall we? YOU said "a $ trillion spending function". That is pure bull****, you can't prove anything like it, so instead you start your deflection. Now just WHO isn't providing "substance for you posits". And JOHN, Bill said above "you posits". You need to get on his ass and stay on it for a couple of weeks. Post nothing to him but that. How much subsidy do you think this will cost? Less than a Trillion? What I think it will cost isn't important to this conversation, you always try to change the subject! YOU said it was a trillion dollar spending function. You have no data nor any evidence that this is the case. |
If you care more.....
|
If you care more.....
On 11/1/13, 4:22 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 15:32:05 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/1/13, 3:29 PM, wrote: On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 12:38:01 -0500, Califbill wrote: How much subsidy do you think this will cost? Less than a Trillion? The real issue is not what this was sold as in version 1.0 but what it evolves into as the short comings are revealed. The CBO scored what they were told, not what this thing will end up being ,... Just like Medicare. Congress always finds it easier to add new benefits than to get the revenue to pay for them. Universal medicare, just like modern countries in the rest of the world have. Of course, we'll have to clean out the sharks... Medicare is not really single payer. There is still at least one private insurance company involved and there may be 2 or more. Several of the European nations have a universal system that involves private insurers and also allows them to sell supplemental policies. They've mostly cleaned out their sharks. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
If you care more.....
wrote:
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 17:13:02 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Universal medicare, just like modern countries in the rest of the world have. Of course, we'll have to clean out the sharks... Medicare is not really single payer. There is still at least one private insurance company involved and there may be 2 or more. Several of the European nations have a universal system that involves private insurers and also allows them to sell supplemental policies. They've mostly cleaned out their sharks. The open question is whether Americans would ever tolerate European level taxes. You also have a huge fight on your hands from doctors, lawyers and insurance companies, a fiscal perpetual motion machine that throws unconscionable amounts of money at our politicians. The remains of the middle class, those kicked out of it and those who find the door slammed shut will restructure the country properly. |
If you care more.....
On 11/1/2013 7:44 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
The remains of the middle class, those kicked out of it and those who find the door slammed shut will restructure the country properly. The lowest achievers in our country are going to do this? I can't wait. SNERK! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:56 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright �2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com