Trader4 was right?? gensets vs. car inverters.....

Page 2 of 3  
wrote in message

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/mar/31/paulson-plan-aims-to-temper-regulation /
That is the trillion-dollar Q, f'sure. I wonder about that all the time. My personal opinion/speculation is that nothing would have happened!! FDIC would have covered most of the working class (AND been a whole lot cheaper), and a few investors in Goldman Sucks would have been out of luck. But then, I don't have a degree in economics.....
Excellent response, largely wasted on the likes of the omnicsient Trader4s.
I've forgotten the exact numbers, but it also would have been A LOT cheaper for Le Gummint to simply have kept everyone in dey homes, instead of spreading their cheeks to Wall Street. A number of notables in Congress were dead set *against* the bailout. THEY thought it was foolish, with none of the resulting financial Armageddon bleated by the others.
See, 99% of Congress don't have degrees in economics either, not even in accounting, beyond the Accounting for Dummies that lawyers get. To wit, Greenspan (who DOES have a multiple degrees in eco) to Charlie Rose: But.... but.... but.... but....but..... I THOUGHT the market would regulate ITSELF.....
Yeah, either he was deluded enough to really think that, OR he knew EXACTLY what whazzzup. What Congress et al DOES DO have, however, is UTT expense accounts from dey fav lobbyists..... who, btw, outnumber Congress by AT LEAST 10 to 1.
Be aware, tho, that this was one of Trader4's few semi-coherent posts. But he still believes Big Insurance is some facsimile of a "fair bet", good value, and does not understand the original elegance of the initial proposal of Obamer's Pubic Option. The Trader4's of the world believe that because they lucked out and dodged a bullet, everyone else who didn't dodge it so well deserves what they get.
Trader4 has Big Business's dick so far up his ass, his retinas have started to detach. Dats why he cain't see shit properly. And funny, that Big Business Trader4 is posting here on UseNet, right along with the rest of us.... funny.....
I believe it was in Winner Takes All Politics (segment on Bill Moyes), the authors cite that in 1980, the top 1% had about 10% of the wealth in Merka..... now it's the 0.1% that has that 10%..... And all of them (or some direct minion) are trying to get into politics -- the Ultimate Windfall.
--
EA


>
> --
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

First, it's a false premise that Bush's tax cuts decreased revenue. When Bush left office, revenue was higher that it had ever been in history. Those tax cuts stimulated the economy. Had there been no tax cuts, the economy would have grown slower, there would have been higher unemployment, and perhaps LESS revenue. The deficit was steadily decreasing over Bush's final years. It was down to a mere $160bil in 2007. Today, it's $1.1Tril.
And second, you blamed Bush for CRASHING THE ECONMOMY. There is no link at all between the recession and federal debt. It was caused by a huge speculative bubble in HOUSING. And if deficit spending and debt is the problem, why is it that all you libs want to spend even MORE, borrow even more and are perfectly happy with Obama doing exactly that? In other words, as usual, you make no sense. perfectly

Again, please point to the specifics attributable to Bush. Glass-Steagall repeal was the major deregulation that many point a finger at. That was repealed under CLINTON.

Yes, maybe. But then Congress has direct involvement with Fannie and Freddie, their quasi-govt agencies that they created. What good did that do? Barney Frank pronounced them both sound weeks before they went bankrupt.

The low interest rates were Greenspan's doing, not Bush. Yes, Bush reappointed him, but Greenspan has headed the fed since 1987, including during the 8 years of Clinton. So, again, pointing the finger at Bush doesn't work.

LOL. Typical. The poor SEC just doesn't have enough tax payer money to do it's job. Let's send it even more money, that's always the solution, right?

If you look back through history there have been many, many Bernie MAdoffs and speculative boom/busts, with or without more regulation.

That's becaue you don't know what you're talking about. First, the starting falacy is that the economy is static. You think if you raised tax rates from 30% to 40%, you'd get an additional 10% in revenue. It doesn't work that way.
And second, how can you say the Bush tax cuts are the most important reason for the increase in the national debt? Per your own alleged numbers above they amounted to $2 tril over 10 years. The deficit for the year that just ended under OBama is $1.1Tril alone. We've added $5.5 tril under his 4 years and we're continuing to add more. Obama rails against the rich and insists that we must raise taxes on those earning $200,000 a year. I would not call those people rich. But even if you did exactly what Obama wants, you obviously have no idea at all how insignificant it would be. Raising taxes on those making over $200K a year would bring in $75bil to $90bil a year in additional revenue. The deficit is $1.1Tril. See the problem? It's not taxes, it's that SPENDING is out of control. And Obama is actually paying to run ads to encourage more people to apply for food stamps.


There was no steady loss of jobs. Those tax cuts went into effect with the recession that Bush inherited when he took office. They got the economy moving again, they created jobs, and we had the lowest unemployment in history. Yes, that changed with the recession. A recession caused not by tax cuts. It was caused by a speculative bubble in real estate. And if you want to blame tax policy, there is blame there. It's that the govt for decades has had a tax policy that encourages people to speculate in real estate. The mortgage interest is tax deductible. The real estate taxes are tax deductible. And perhaps best of all, if you claim it's your residence, it's usually exempt from any tax when you sell it a big profit. Then people wonder why people speculated in housing?
 So why give the top earners

The jobs did materialize, look at 2000-2007

The economy was in recession when Clinton left office. The stock market had started collapsing in the spring of 2000. Did you accuse Clinton of screwing the stock market? Of him and Greenspan allowing that bubble to go on? That booming stock market was a key part of Clinton's brief surplus. With the stock boom over and the economy in recession, the budget was going into deficit regardless. And if Bush had not cut taxes, the recession would have been deeper and the govt would have wound up with about the same deficits.
As to the wars, the total cost of more than a decade, including both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan is around $1.3 tril. The deficit is now $16tril. We've added $5.5 tril under Obama. So, sorry, but the wars and the Bush tax cuts are not the problem. SPENDING is the problem. Spending has increased by 40% since Bush left. And that with one war entirely over.

And it obviously is no priority at all for Obama and the Dems. He doesn't even talk about it. When asked what the level of national debt was when he took office by David Letterman, Obama said he didn't know....

What would you have done? Send Bin Laden a cake? What did John Kerry, Hillary, Bill Clinton, Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy all say in 2001? They were saying the exact same things about Iraq that Bush and Cheney were. What has OBama done? He's still waging war in Afghanistan 4 years after Bush is gone.

Do you blame Clinton for the very similar stock market bubble that burst because he didn't do anything about it? And that bubble was a lot more obvious. Presidents don't buy houses every day or know that real estate has doubled in Las Vegas. But I bet they know what the DOW and Nasdaq are doing.

It was real growth. The economy does not just consist of housing. Other sectors were performing well with real growth.

That is just such total BS. You really need to take some courses in economics. There is not one bit of evidence that the collapse in housing prices, the collapse in derivatives had anything whatever to do with tax cuts. And revenue was NOT decreasing. The federal govt took in more revenue in 2007 than ever before in history. The deficit was just $160bil. Today it's $1.1 tril with an economy that's been growing for 2 years now.

Again,with the cost of the two wars over a decade+ at $1.3 tril, clearly the wars are NOT the major factor. So, why must you libs always pretend that it's so? And then blame Bush for it all, while all the leading lib Dems were saying the exact same things about Afganistan, Iraq, WMDs, etc?
They seem very concerned now, but I believe

Yes, it would if you had a president that was pro-business instead of being anti-business. And a president that had the right policies. But we don't. For examples of that, look at past recessions and where we would be today. Reagan inherited one hell of a mess. By this time in his administration, we were creating 400,000 jobs a month. One month, it reached $1.2mil. Today, we're lucky to see 90,000.

LOL. Austerity? What austerity? The Republicans didn't force a downgrade. The USA piling on debt, increasing spending 40% over what it was in 2007, is what resulted in the downgrade. All the Republicans are guilty of is insisting that there finally be real SPENDING cuts. The libs idea is to first start with a fantasy baseline. Pretend that the war in Iraq is still going on. Pretent that the war in Afghanistan would go on for another 10 years. Put in every other spending idea they can. Add all that up, then propose to cut it by 1% in future years and demand that taxes go up immediately as part of it. The net result is the tax increases are real and the spending cuts are totally bogus and never materialize. That's why we're spending 40% more now than in 2007.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Economics 101

No cherry picking. Just the actual numbers, instead of emotion without numbers, which libs prefer.
2000 $236bil surplus 2001 128 surplus
Note that the 2001 budget year began in Oct 2000, before Bush was even elected. There were no Bush tax cuts, etc. Clearly the Clinton surplus, was already cut in half and reversing because the internet stock market bubble and all the capital gains from it had burst in the Spring of 2000 and the economy was in a recession when Clinton left office.
2002 158 deficit 2003 377 2004 412 2005 318 2006 248 2007 161
Clearly the deficit was coming down nicely as the economy continued to grow. And that is with the Bush tax cuts. Then we had the burst of the housing bubble, a severe recession, and:
2008 458
And today? Why it's a honking $1.1tril and has been above $1tril every year under Obama. Numbers don't lie. Revenue is back to where it was under Bush. The problem? SPENDING has increased 40%+ in just 4 years. The libs solution? Raise taxes and spend even MORE....

Actually it was $236bil, based in large part on an internet stock market bubble that had burst in the spring of 2000, before Bush was ever elected. And the economy was already in recession when Clinton left office. So, of course the surplus would not last. I suppose you'd prefer Bush to not have cut taxes, which BTW, the Dems voted for too. Then you could have had worse deficits and unemployment and you could bitch about that. And of course even Obama has done precisely the same thing, arguing that tax cuts are essential to getting the economy moving. It's just that he can't really make up his mind. He's been for them, then against, them, then for them.....

Yet here you are. Is that all you have? Explain to us the exact mechanism whereby the deficits under Bush caused the bubble in housing prices and their subsequent collapse. Explain how the deficits made Fannie and Freddie buy up crappy loans on inflated properties. How it made homeowners line up to speculate on housing. Of course you can't because it just ain't so.....
And if it were, they why the hell is it peachy keen cool for Obama to be running deficits of $1.1 tril with no end in sight? And for him to spread the lie that a big, essential part of the solution is to raise taxes on those "rich" people making $200K+? You obviously don't even understand that if taxes are raised exactly as Obama wants, the projections are it will raise a whopping $80bil a year. That's right, just $80bil a year. The deficit, unfortunately is $1.1tril. See the problem? It's not a tax problem, it's a SPENDING problem.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:00:12 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

actually..there was NO surplus.
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/craigsteiner/2011/08/22/the_clinton_surplus_myth/page/full /
the "surplus" was numbers based on long term speculation that never transpired.
Simply...no surplus. At all. None. Nada. Zip
"
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:32:12 -0500, "Robert Green"

Odd that the wars cost at most..over 12 yrs...1.1 Trillion dollars total. And the 3.5 trillion in bailouts Your Obamassiah gifted his friends with in the past 4 yrs.....?

Build the housing bubble? You seem to be ignoring the fact that Bush and Co warned the Left that the housing bubble was in trouble..and was not just ignored..but castigated by the Left.
http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-white-house-warned-congress-about-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-17-times-in-2008-alone /

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXqxN1XBMH8

Did liberals collapse the housing market?
HOW THE ECONOMY COLLAPSED 1011 1977: Jimmy Carter (D) signs the Community Reinvestment Act, guaranteeing home loans to low-income families.
2 September 14, 1993 Bill Clinton (Democrat) signs NAFTA bill, killing US jobs
3 December 08, 1994 Bill Clinton (Democrat) signs GATT, killing US jobs
4 September 03, 1998, HUD publishes report damning FREDDIE MAC and FANNIE MAE for not lending home loans to unqualified blacks and Mexicans. EEOC charges that FREDDIE MAC and FANNIE MAE create "hostile" work environment toward blacks
.5 1999: Bill Clinton (D) puts the CRA on steroids, pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase the number of sub-prime loans.
6 March 02, 2000, Franklin D. Raines (Democrat) chairman of FANNIE MAE pledges to open lending to unqualified blacks and Mexicans
.7 October 10, 2000 Bill Clinton (Democrat) signs U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000, killing US jobs
8 April 2001, Bush administration raised red flags over massive low-documentation loans by FNMA
9 September 30, 2002, African-American Safiyyah Rahmaan, (Democrat) sues FANNIE MAE for not lending to enough unqualified blacks
.10 September 10, 2003, Treasury Secretary John Snow (Republican) recommends to the House Financial Services Committee to impose controls on FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC. Barney Frank (Democrat) and Maxine Waters (Democrat) object to controls.
11 October 2003, less than a month later, Fannie Mae disclosed 1.2 billion dollars in "accounting errors".
12 November 2003, Bush Administration increases warnings of toxic loans made by FANNIE MAE.
13 December 21, 2004, Franklin Raines (Democrat) resigns from FANNIE MAE
.14 February 2005, Bush budget plan exposes potential disaster from FANNIE MAE loans.
15 February 17, 2005, Alan Greenspan recommends limits on FANNIE MAE lending.
16 April 6, 2005, Senator Chuck Schumer (Democrat) refutes placing limits on FANNIE MAE.
17 June 2005, Deputy Secretary of Treasury, Samuel Bodman (Republican) warns of risks caused by FANNIE MAE lending to unqualified lenders.
18 April 2006, Goldman Sachs sold $494 million of securities on toxic FANNIE MAE loans.
19 May 25, 2006, Senator John McCain (Republican) warns of risks of slack limits on FANNIE MAE lending.
20 August 2007, Bush (Republican) asks Congress to put through limits on FANNIE MAE lending.
21 December 2007, Bush (Republican) warns Congress to hurry limits on FANNIE MAE lending.
22 March 2008, Bush (Republican) warns Congress again.
23 April 2008, Bush (Republican) warns Congress again.
24 April 2008, Goldman Sachs donates $1,000,000 to Obama campaign.25 April 2008, AIG donates $630,000 to Obama campaign.
26 April 2008, Morgan Stanley donates $485,823 to Obama campaign.
27 May 03, 2008, Bush (Republican) warns Congress again.
28 May 19,2008, Bush (Republican) warns Congress again.
29 May 31, 2008, Bush (Republican) makes radio address warning Congress to pass limits on FANNIE MAE.
30 June 2008, Bush (Republican) warns Congress again.
31 July 2008, Congress finally passes a reform bill on FANNIE MAE lending.
32 November 4, 2008, Hussein Obama elected president.
33 December 18, 2008 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee conducts further hearings into FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC.
34 February 17, 2009, Hussein Obama (Democrat) signs bailout program.
35 March, 2009, AIG reports $62,000,000,000 loss.
36 April 2009, Goldman Sachs reports $780,000,000 loss.
37 April, 2009, Morgan Stanley reports $1,300,000,000 loss.
38 American taxpayers get stuck in the #$%$ with over $787,000,000,000 in bailouts
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
The first thing liberals did when the sub-prime mortgage was instigated before the November elections was to say "There is plenty of blame to go around" It was said instantly and loudly from every newspaper and television station. It was said consistently. There appeared to be no equivocation.
However. Not one of those pablum distributing liars ever gave a single example of Conservative values causing the catastrophe. This was done by liberals and for liberals. You mention how derivatives of the bad loans were made possible by deregulation of the Glass Stegal Act. This was the sole instance of deregulation and it was done to make the Community Reinvestment Act work better.
Since all liberal thought, policy, values and beliefs are based on specific, and very alluring lies. All liberal rhetoric is justification of those lies. Liberals instantly started to say this debacle was caused by "deregulation" in order to justify larger government intrusion into our lives.
Deregulation became the enemy and regulations were deemed good. Go figure??
Just to debunk the myth that deregulation caused the sub-prime tsunami let me postulate a housing and loan market with no regulations at all.
There would be no fannie or Freddie to assume bad loans. banks who made loans would be on the hook if they went bad and 50% of the wealth of our nation would not have been squandered.
Yes! Liberals did collapse the housing market. The next question to consider is, did they do it deliberately?
Gunner
"
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/13/2012 1:49 PM, Gunner wrote:

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-white-house-warned-congress-about-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-17-times-in-2008-alone /
I was offered one of those "Affirmative Action Home Loans" back when things were flying high. I knew damn well if I took it and something happened to me to knock me off my feet, I would be unable to pay the mortgage. I got hurt and very ill but I've managed to survive without living under a bridge or tent in the woods because I knew better than to volunteer to having a millstone placed around my neck. O_o
TDD
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/10/19581-james-carville-80-of-democrats-politically-clueless /
And the hilariously ironic aspect is that the fact check, by http://www.ijreview.com , originates from a political conservative site; their own kind are characterizing the quote as fraudulent.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Heh, you on fraud: the pot calling the kettle black.
--
EA



Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, you undeniably are, and being moronic adds an even worse element.

As with paranoia, jealously obviously runs quite deep.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Almost certainly misdirection by the much reviled and well proven to be fraudulant Snopes
The Probably False is a dead giveaway. Along with the suddenly pulled rebuttles to the Obama birth cert scandal.
-- ""
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

So odd that the quote only appears on kook sites; not on any reputable media site, right or left. So odd that it's totally out of character with everything else Carville's written. So odd that he's denied making it. So odd that it doesn't even have his name spelled correctly. Talk about dead giveaways. So odd that the Internet's crawling with hoaxes yet some still naively believe crap like this.
It's just more made up, partisan bullshit. You might have noticed that strategy didn't work. Some people say that it was Mitt's naked lies about the auto industry sealed his fate.
-- Bobby G. .
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

False Facts = True Facts. Ackshooly, as far as Le Pubic is concerned, False Facts are BETTER than True Facts!!
--
EA


>
> --
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message <stuff snipped>

Somewhere along the line, the media began to become obsessed with reporting a story through the eyes of people on both sides of an issue. The problem became one of finding at least some opposing viewpoints that were kooky and presenting them alongside realistic viewpoints as if they had equal weight. Creationism v. evolution is one example, at least in terms of provable assertions. Creationists have the bible and evolutionists everything else.
Here's a news story about how Facebook is fast become fraud central:
SAN FRANCISCO - The Facebook page for Gaston Memorial Hospital, in Gastonia, N.C., offers a chicken salad recipe to encourage healthy eating, tips on avoiding injuries at Zumba class, and pictures of staff members dressed up at Halloween. Typical stuff for a hospital in a small town. . . . But in October, another Facebook page for the hospital popped up. This one posted denunciations of President Obama and what it derided as "Obamacare." It swiftly gathered hundreds of followers, and the anti-Obama screeds picked up "likes." . . .The fake page came down 11 days later, as mysteriously as it had come up. The hospital says it has no clue who was behind it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/technology/false-posts-on-facebook-undermine-its-credibility.html
I know!!! (-: Well, I can make a pretty good guess. The same people who faked the Carville quote. For the same tired old reasons.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:54:27 -0500, "Robert Green"

Could have been somebody at the hospital itself. The medical industry has as many wackos/quacks as most other industries. Went to a new doctor for a yearly exam a month ago, because I'm now on Medicare, and have the "no-cost" United Health Care Advantage supplemental. Previous medical group doesn't take it. You know, the "major free enterprise United Health Care company" insurance plan paid for by U.S. Government for the past so many decades. Doctor was a total quack. He had my complete medical history, all my "issues," a couple moderately serious. None about pissing. First question: "How many times do you get up at night to urinate?" My answer: "I don't." He expresses a look of shock on his face. Second question: "Who do you think will win, Obama or Romney?" My answer: "Obama." He expresses a look of shock on his face. Third question: "Why?" My answer: "Romney is an obvious flip-flopping liar, with no core values." His face expresses shock and puzzlement. Then he goes on for maybe 10 minutes talking about the evils of Obama and "socialism.". I argued back enough to let him get the idea he was wearing a tin-foil hat. No medical questions but the first. No looking in the ear, no light in the eye or hammer to the knee, no urine sample, didn't ask me to take off a stitch of clothing, much less stick his finger up my ass. Real drive-by exam. Quite amazing, and I never encountered such shoddy work before. The "cabinet carpenter" in a recent thread here is a better doctor. His "nurse" took BP and a blood sample. They never followed up with results. Probably too busy filing claims for money with the U.S. Government. Medical industry "closet socialists." Of course I won't be back there next year. Don't know about facebook, only go there when family posts photos.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Even if that were true, a lot of us would rather have someone with no core values, instead of someone with precisely the WRONG values, who is an anti-business, America bashing, socialist. The fact that Obama sat in the Reverend Wrights hate filled church for 20 years told me all I needed to know about him.....
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:54:41 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Right. Fox News trumpeting a south side black preacher-man for months on end can make you believe anything - even 4 years later. Or are they still talking about Wright? But you're forgetting the roots of Obama's beliefs can easily be seen by studying the Kenyan anti-Colonial Mau Mau. Right. I see the Republican "leadership" kicking, spitting and stomping on Romney's still warm body. Not merely as a loser, but as a cur. The same jokers who barely a week ago endorsed him for POTUS. If he won, they would deem him noble. Never saw anything quite like it. But Romney still has you. May you live happily ever after. You truly deserve each other. Now I'm done with this. You keep spitting into the wind..
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Who reported on what Wright said for years in that church is irrelevant. What he said and how Obama could listen to those hateful, racist, anti-American sermons and choose Wright to marry him, is the issue.

More recently it's come to light that he had a full fledged communist as a mentor when he was a child. I'd consider that a more likely foundation of his belief system.

No, it was YOU who was kicking him, right here, after the election.

Oh, I'm sure you'll be back again with more leftist drivel.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/16/2012 7:13 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

> those hateful, racist, anti-American sermons and choose > Wright to marry him, is the issue.
Illinois has gay marriage?
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

My guess is that it's part of a sore-loser pushback against the ACA. You know, the same kind of people that blame the ACA for all their ills like the coal company that fired its workers claiming it was because of Obama's war on coal. Funny how economists seem to believe that the coal industry is suffering from the competition of gas produced by fracking. All these supposedly super-smart businessmen like the founder of Papa John's Pizza are boiling mad because the spent so much money trying to buy the election for Romney and ended up with nothing to show for all the money they spent except their wangs in their hands. That's *got* to burn.

Congratulations, Vic, you're what Romney might call a moocher or a taker because you're getting healthcare benefits from the Feds. He tended to always discount the fact that Medicare and Social Security are not giveaways. People have paid into these programs for most of their lives when they finally get to collect. Many never even live long enough to collect and folks like Ryan want to make that even MORE likely by forcing people to work even longer before they collect.
I am immensely curious to see how the R's will deal with the looming budget crisis. For a state like Florida to go for Obama tells me that Medicare is still the third rail of politics, waiting to electrocute any Republicans that try to mess with it.
Still, Vic, you're now one of the 47% (which Romney flipped on again and now says he really meant - his apology was the lying part). (-: Reminds me of that old logic joke. "Today, Mitt Romney announced "Everything I say is a lie." When asked about his statement, Romney countered: "I'm lying now!"

That's a lie, Vic. Of course he has core values. Rich people who got rich raping American businesses should get even MORE tax breaks so they can sell off even MORE of US businesses.

What amazes me is that despite the very effective propaganda machine the R's have, they couldn't figure out how to use it to win the election. I doubt 1% of those howling about Benghazi-gate ever heard of it before their propaganda masters began trying to make it a wedge issue.

You sound disappointed. (0:

I've always found nurse-practictioners to give more thorough exams. The AMA is fighting the expansion of NPs like they were plague carriers.

There's an enormous amount of waste that can be eliminated in Medicare and Medicaid. I believe that once it's addressed a significant savings will be achieved. The irony is that as you've discovered, a lot of doctors are conservative and as they deride the ACA and universal healthcare, they cash those government checks as fast as they can.

I won't even do that. I think it's silly to give away my content for someone else to monetarize.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Heh! I saw a TV anchor discussing the budget with a Republican congressman. He made a point, then another point, then another, all clearly refuting the propositions of the anchor. Finally, she says:
"What makes you such an expert on economics? You'd think you had a degree in it or something!"
His response: "I do. Two degrees. With highest honors. You?"
"(silence)"
I recall a poster on another newsgroup responding to something Charles Krauthammer said:
"What the fuck does a TV commentator know about economics or the mental process to lead some, according to him, to a flawed reasoning?"
Of course I had to throw in: McGill University, BA Economics, Summa cum Laude Balliol College, Oxford, Commonwealth Scholar in Politics Harvard Medical School Residency in Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital Board Certified in Psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.