Here comes Main Street
Axle
Home sales hit 2-1/2 yr high!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34105403/ns/business-real_estate
Dow favorable after the Bush disaster.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?Symbol=$INDU&&ShowChtBt=Refresh+Chart&DateRangeForm=1&CP=0&PT=7&C9=1&ComparisonsForm=1&CE=0&DisplayForm=1&D4=1&D5=0&D3=0&ViewType=0&PeriodType=7
Looks like Obama is kicking the Republicans ass. Palin has been reduced to
the quitter on Twitter queen.
Werner
> Republicans are crying, they couldn't destroy USA along with their party.
>
>
> Dow favorable after the Bush disaster.http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?Symbol=$INDU...
>
> Looks like Obama is kicking the Republicans ass. Palin has been reduced to
> the quitter on Twitter queen.
He's just like Republicans - only more so.
“The idea that you can fix a period of excess borrowing and excess
consumption by more borrowing and more consumption to me is just
ludicrous,”
Jim Rogers, an American
investment guru
"...government and the banking system have deliberately created
financial bubbles to shore up the economy, engender profits, and
maintain tax revenues."
http://www.rense.com/general85/chall.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h2x7R8pxUs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt4VLX96VLM
The same people who complained about the widening wealth gap now
think
the new money printing and borrowing is such a wonderful and
necessary
policy forget it helps the rich the most. The policies are
intended
to
avoid depressing asset prices which has the effect of
shrinking the
wealth gap. Who owns most of the assets if not the
wealthy? How do
you
stop asset price deflation? By inflation. Who
suffers most from
inflation? Poor people. Who benefits most from
inflation? Rich people
who own assets.
Evidently change we can
believe in is no change. The rich get richer
and the poor get poorer
by government policy, just like always.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtllmgvoT_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nU3fNh-PRk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfoToPyae0s&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSqhrHIfJV0&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Jerry Okamura
"Axle" <d...@dot.net> wrote in message
news:hef1fv$6rv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
....the_pc_jellllybean!!.!!!!.
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nxhQm.36928$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad...
> This is all you need to know to the question who is destroying the USA
Hate to break it to numbskulls, but America is not "being destroyed".
Sorry to rain on your hysterical parade, girls.
Right Wingers Make Me Burp
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:nxhQm.36928$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad...
>> This is all you need to know to the question who is destroying the USA
>
> Hate to break it to numbskulls, but America is not "being destroyed".
It's actually being repaired, after the Bush Administration tried like
hell to kill it.
>
>
> Sorry to rain on your hysterical parade, girls.
>
>
Someday they might figure out that people might take them more seriously
if they didn't scream that way, and actually discussed what was really
happening.
Jerry Okamura
<.... tHe_PC_JelLlLy BeAn!! .! !!! .> wrote in message
news:3ap1sl....@news.alt.net...
Ignorance is bliss
>
>
>
Jerry Okamura
"Right Wingers Make Me Burp" <notgonn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hesgmd$n47$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> .... tHe_PC_JelLlLy BeAn!! .! !!! . wrote:
>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:nxhQm.36928$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad...
>>> This is all you need to know to the question who is destroying the USA
>>
>> Hate to break it to numbskulls, but America is not "being destroyed".
>
> It's actually being repaired, after the Bush Administration tried like
> hell to kill it.
>>
that they cannot possibly pay for?
>>
>> Sorry to rain on your hysterical parade, girls.
>>
>>
> Someday they might figure out that people might take them more seriously
> if they didn't scream that way, and actually discussed what was really
> happening.
What is happening is that they are trying to take away more of our freedoms
and making us more dependent on the government.
Sid9
The United States is not being destroyed.
bush,jr and his cohorts are gone.
The destruction has stopped.
The difficult job of rebuilding proceeds.
Jerry Okamura
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:heuh3g$gff$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Ignorance is bliss
Jerry Okamura
"Once in a China Blue Moon" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-9847A...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <NfzQm.92533$gg6....@newsfe25.iad>,
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> What is happening is that they are trying to take away more of our
>> freedoms
>> and making us more dependent on the government.
>
First by "forcing" people to buy health insurance. By making us more
dependent on someone else for our healthcare needs, rather than figuring ouw
a way for each of us to pay for our own healthcare needs. By using the
excuse that it is costing them money, after they decided to pay for our
healthcare, by passing laws to restrict what foods we can eat. By invading
our privacy, to find out who has health insurance and who does not have
health insurance, and what kind of health insurance we have, if any. By
"punishing" those who have no health insurance, and "punishing" some people
who have those "cadillac plans", which of course they conveniently left out
those "cadillac plans" that union workers have, or for that matter what most
government workers have, including those who represent us, and those who
work for those who represent us.
Sid9
Debt clock?
See what Reagan did to America.
See what HW Bush did to America
See what bush,jr, the incompetent, did to America.
See what the Republicans have done to America.
Now we do what we need to do to repair Republican damage.
Debt clock, indeed!
At the end of Clinton's administration the Treasury Department stopped
selling 30 year bonds.
They also had a program going to retire (buy back) bonds early...effectively
reducing the national debt.
Perhaps your remember what happened next.
Sid9
.
In a universal health care system those that do not voluntarily buy health
insurance are freeloaders.
If they get sick they will get health care anyway at the expense of those
who ARE insured.
In addition, if you remove the "pre-existing conditions" clause from private
carriers that will be unfair to insurance companies if people with such
conditions can opt out of purchasing health insurance.
Call it what you like.
Health insurance is not free.
Call it a premium, or call it a tax, or call it a penalty...health care is
not free.
Sid9
"Cadillac plan" premiums are income.
Currently that income is not taxed.
Usually only top executives are excused from such taxation while lower level
employees use "after tax" money to pay their share of the premiums.
Dave Heil
> In article <K6EQm.21707$cX4....@newsfe10.iad>,
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> First by "forcing" people to buy health insurance. By making us more
>
> money to pay for them.
The U.S. Government has no Constitutional power to force anyone to
purchase health insurance. It really is that simple.
Sid9
"Dave Heil" <k8...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:TgGQm.75982$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad...
.
Another constitutional lawyer heard from!
.
.
.
Jerry Okamura
Playing the blame game does not solve the problem. I did not say that only
democrats are at fault. What I will say is Obama it going to make the
problem a whole lot worse. Are you going to deny that?
Jerry Okamura
> In article <K6EQm.21707$cX4....@newsfe10.iad>,
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> First by "forcing" people to buy health insurance. By making us more
>
> no
> money to pay for them.
No, the alternative is to help people pay for their own healthcare needs,
rather than paying for their healthcare needs. And if even then, they are
"deadbeats", then we should let them pay the price for being a "deadbeat",
not rewarding them for being "deadbeats".
>
>> dependent on someone else for our healthcare needs, rather than figuring
>> ouw
>> a way for each of us to pay for our own healthcare needs. By using the
>
> Deadbeats already know how to pay: they skip out on the bill and leave it
> for
> rest of us.
Then they should pay the price, not be rewarded for what they did. This
system is rewarding them for being deadbeats.
>
>> excuse that it is costing them money, after they decided to pay for our
>> healthcare, by passing laws to restrict what foods we can eat. By
>> invading
>
> I continue to pay for my own healthcare. And nobody restricts what I can
> eat.
> The health department does restrict what they can sell.
So then why do you want the government to pay for everyone elses healthcare
needs?
>
>> our privacy, to find out who has health insurance and who does not have
>> health insurance, and what kind of health insurance we have, if any. By
>
> All they have to da is buy the information on the open market. You keep
> electing
> politicians that don't allow privacy constraints to be placed on
> businesses, so
> they freely sell this information amongst themselves.
What in the world has that got to do with what I said? Yes, the can, but
they are not doing that are they? Besides, what information can they buy in
the open market that will tell them who has health insurance and who does
not have health insurance and what kind of health insurance they have? If
they can do that, then why is one of the Seante versions, proposing to give
the Internal Revenue Service the right to get that information? You don't
make any sense at all.
>
>> "punishing" those who have no health insurance, and "punishing" some
>> people
>> who have those "cadillac plans", which of course they conveniently left
>> out
>> those "cadillac plans" that union workers have, or for that matter what
>> most
>> government workers have, including those who represent us, and those who
>> work for those who represent us.
>
> I don't get to deduct healthcare premiums from fica income. How about
> letting
> everyone have the same deductions.
>
Now that is a good question. Why aren't they doing that?
>
> You haven't listed any freedoms lost except the ability of deadbeats to
> skip
> out. Privacy isn't a freedom and you never worried about it before.
>
> --
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to
> be.
> Silver silverware - Where is the love? At least I can stay in
> character.
> Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? Annoying Usenet one post at a
> time.
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you,
> Sarah.
Jerry Okamura
Yep, they sure are. So what? If you are going to provide free healthcare,
why shouldn't people be "freeloaders"? They are going to get taken care of
even if they are "freeloaders" aren't they?
>
> If they get sick they will get health care anyway at the expense of those
> who ARE insured.
Yep, that is what happens when you create the kind of system they want to
create.
>
> In addition, if you remove the "pre-existing conditions" clause from
> private carriers that will be unfair to insurance companies if people with
> such conditions can opt out of purchasing health insurance.
Why should anyone buy insurance, if you are going to force insurance
companies to accept even those with pre-existing conditions? Why spend the
money paying for health insurance until you need to have health insurance?
They can't deny you from getting the health insurance can they, under the
proposed plan that is being floated around can they?
>
>
> Call it what you like.
> Health insurance is not free.
> Call it a premium, or call it a tax, or call it a penalty...health care is
> not free.
>
I did not say it was free. Buying any kind of insurance is a bet. You are
betting you will need that insurance and the insurance company is betting
you will not need the insurance. But you don't have to make that bet. You
can pay for your own needs, with your own money.
Jerry Okamura
Phlip
>
> No, the alternative is to help people pay for their own healthcare
> needs, rather than paying for their healthcare needs. And if even then,
> they are "deadbeats", then we should let them pay the price for being a
> "deadbeat", not rewarding them for being "deadbeats".
Just don't make me pay too much for them being a deadbeat.
Specifically, what's the minimum extra I can pay to minimize the societal cost
of them being a deadbeat. Or picking the wrong parents...
Phlip
> Playing the blame game does not solve the problem. I did not say that
> only democrats are at fault. What I will say is Obama it going to make
> the problem a whole lot worse. Are you going to deny that?
Can you back up your claim without overtly or covertly using the word "Socialism"?
(And I could remind you that's what the most prosperous nations in Europe use...)
Jerry Okamura
> In article <8ZTQm.76032$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad>,
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Playing the blame game does not solve the problem. I did not say that
>> only
>> democrats are at fault. What I will say is Obama it going to make the
>> problem a whole lot worse. Are you going to deny that?
>
> fault.
>
Not listening. I did not say it was all Obama's fault did I?
Jerry Okamura
"Phlip" <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:guUQm.81828$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad...
Yes, I certainly can. The National debt has increased by a huge amount in
his less than one year in office. The National debt will increase by
another huge amount, if the next fiscal year budget is not greatly amended.
The Natioonal debt will increase by even a larger amount, if this healthcare
reform bill passes. That does not count all the other initiatives that are
going through Congress now. As for what the "other" European nations are
doing, two wrongs do not make a right. Just look at this web site and tell
me that we don't have a really big problem.
Jerry Okamura
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>
>> No, the alternative is to help people pay for their own healthcare needs,
>> rather than paying for their healthcare needs. And if even then, they
>> are "deadbeats", then we should let them pay the price for being a
>> "deadbeat", not rewarding them for being "deadbeats".
>
> Just don't make me pay too much for them being a deadbeat.
You don't have to pay a dime for these deadbeats, "if" our governemt would
not be helping the deadbeats.
>
> Specifically, what's the minimum extra I can pay to minimize the societal
> cost of them being a deadbeat. Or picking the wrong parents...
Don't help them
Jerry Okamura
> In article <_3UQm.76035$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad>,
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> > The alternative is making me pay for deadbeats who have heart attacks
>> > and
>> > no
>> > money to pay for them.
>>
>> No, the alternative is to help people pay for their own healthcare needs,
>
No, it is socialist when you pay for their needs. It is not socialism if
you help people help themselves.
>
>> Then they should pay the price, not be rewarded for what they did. This
>> system is rewarding them for being deadbeats.
>
> And that's why you're arguing against reforming it. You are a dirty little
> commie; you've decided my ability to pay for my own healthcare entitles
> you to
> bleed me to pay for deadbeats. Thanks, but better fed than red.
>
No, I want our government, if they are going to get in the business of
helping us, to help ourselves, rather than to help us directly.
>>> > they freely sell this information amongst themselves.
Well, of course some of them do, that helps others to "game the system".
>>
>> What in the world has that got to do with what I said? Yes, the can, but
>> they are not doing that are they? Besides, what information can they buy
>> in
>
> Yes, they are, you idiot.
Why? What is wrong with the govenrment helping us help ourselves vs.
helping us directly?
>
>> the open market that will tell them who has health insurance and who does
>> not have health insurance and what kind of health insurance they have?
>> If
>
> It affects your credit, your ability to get a mortgage to buy a house, to
> get a
> business loan. It affects your ability to get insurance and what rate you
> will
> pay. It affects your ability to get a job, to compete for contracts.
Which is relevant to what I said how? How is the open market going to tell
the government who has health insurance and who does not have health
insurance? If they could do that, then why is one Senate version going to
give the IRS the authorization to get that information.
>
> You really haven't got a clue how the real world works. What else could I
> expect
> from a dirty little commie like you?
I am nowhere close to being a commie. A commie would not be proposing that
the government help us help ourselves, rather than helping us directly.
Jerry Okamura
> In article <aaUQm.76036$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad>,
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> > In a universal health care system those that do not voluntarily buy
>> > health
>> > insurance are freeloaders.
>>
>> Yep, they sure are. So what? If you are going to provide free
>> healthcare,
>
Because when the government provides free healthcare, you will be paying for
that free healthcare, whether you like it or not.
>
>> Yep, that is what happens when you create the kind of system they want to
>> create.
>
> A system that requires everyone to pay in? Oh, wait, you're whining
> because it
> is a system that requires you to pay in. I see, so the argument is
First of all EVERYONE will not be paying in, only a small fraction of the
population will be footing the bill. Second, if the government helped us
pay for our own healthcare needs, we are the ones who will be paying the
bill.
>
> - You don't want to be forced to pay for healthcare.
> - Therefore you want a system that you skip on.
> - But such a system is unsustainable.
> - Therefore you want a system that doesn't let you skip on services
> provided.
I want a system where each person is responsible for paying for their own
needs.
>
> The only system that can meet your criteria is one that allows refusal of
> all
> treatment whatsoever without prior proof of ability to pay. That means if
> you
> are brought unconscious into an emergency room bleeding out your life,
> they can
> kick you to the curb to die unless you can prove your ability to pay.
When someone else pays your bills, they can pay or they can refuse to pay.
When you pay your bills, you decide to pay or not pay.
>
> It's an important to explain exactly what you want so that we can decide
> if it's
> a system we want to live (and die) with.
I want a system where the individual is responsible for their own well
being, by paying their own bills.
>
>> Why should anyone buy insurance, if you are going to force insurance
>> companies to accept even those with pre-existing conditions? Why spend
>> the
>> money paying for health insurance until you need to have health
>> insurance?
>
> Because you are forced to pay in? Oh, wait you don't want to force people
> to pay
> in, therefore ignoring preconditions will bankrupt insurers. But you don't
> want
> to force them out of business, therefore the solution is--ah-ha--the
> status quo
> where people with previous conditions are denied coverage; you then expect
> them
> to die off without raising a fuss.
You cannot "force" people to do what they do not want to do. That is why
prohibition did not work. It is why the war on drugs does not work. It is
why every attempt to prevent illegals from entering this country does not
work.
>
>> I did not say it was free. Buying any kind of insurance is a bet. You
>> are
>
> No, it's not. It's a diffusion of risk so nobody faces ruin on one
> unfortunate
> event. It's a win for society because it allows people to take risks that
> can
> lead to economic growth. Bankruptcy and patent are two other aspects of
> the same
> principle.
>
Yes, it is a "diffusion of risk", but if you pay and you never use the
benefits, you spent money you did not have to spend.
Phlip
>>> No, the alternative is to help people pay for their own healthcare
>>> needs,
>>
>> Help people pay? Sounds socialist to me, you dirty little commie.
>
> No, it is socialist when you pay for their needs. It is not socialism
> if you help people help themselves.
Insurance is where you pay for someone else's needs.
Most of us, knock on wood, will never need a heart-lung transplant. Yet we
(should) pay into health insurance more than we eventually take out.
That fits your definition of socialism. That was China Blue's point.
Rick Saunders
> Republicans are crying, they couldn't destroy USA along with their party.
Hey, tool, just for shits 'n giggles: Explain why,
exactly, the Republicans would want to destroy
their party AND the country? C'mon, put down
that tumbler of Obama-ade and give it a shot.
Rick Saunders
> Palin has been reduced to
> the quitter on Twitter queen.
Yeah, selling a million copies of her book must
really get her down, loser.
Rick Saunders
<notgonnaans...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hate to break it to numbskulls, but America is not "being destroyed".
>
> It's actually being repaired, after the Bush Administration tried like
> hell to kill it.
And why, exactly, would a President try to "kill" his
country? C'mon, have another big slug of Obama-ade
and try to put together a coherent answer. Without
cursing and insults, if that's even possible.
Rick Saunders
wrote:
> In article <NfzQm.92533$gg6.28...@newsfe25.iad>,
> �"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> > What is happening is that they are trying to take away more of our freedoms
> > and making us more dependent on the government.
>
> Take away what freedoms, specificially?
Why, the same ones that Bush tried to take away,
of course! Or didn't you know that Obama's adopted,
without change, ALL of Bush's anti-terror programs?
Rick Saunders
wrote:
> In article <K6EQm.21707$cX4.4...@newsfe10.iad>,
> �"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > First by "forcing" people to buy health insurance. �By making us more
>
> money to pay for them.
Hey, buddy -- pssst -- who the hell d'you think is gonna
pay for alla them gummint "subsidies" needed to force
everyone to have ObamaCare? Yup: you!
> I continue to pay for my own healthcare. And nobody restricts what I can eat.
Yet. When Obama's footing the bill, Obama will decide
what's best for you. Ain't that the liberal way?
Rick Saunders
> "Dave Heil" <k...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>
> news:TgGQm.75982$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad...> Once in a China Blue Moon wrote:
> >> �"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >>> First by "forcing" people to buy health insurance. �By making us more
>
> >> The alternative is making me pay for deadbeats who have heart attacks and
> >> no money to pay for them.
>
> > The U.S. Government has no Constitutional power to force anyone to
> > purchase health insurance. �It really is that simple.
> .
Okay, bright eyes: Why don't you point out where,
exactly, the Constitution gives Congress the power to
force you to buy something? Doesn't take a lawyer
to read the Constitution, does it?
HH&C
wrote:
> So how many Bubbas can pay to get their arteries scraped clean out of their own
> pocket?
How many artists can?