House passed health care reform...
jps
Tonight at 11:15 pm EST, by a 220 to 215 vote, the House passed their
version of Health Care Reform.
Among the most meaningful pieces of legislation in history making it
through one body of congress is a big deal. There's lots of work left
but I'm damned happy a major bridge has been crossed.
All you folks who hate your fellow Americans and don't think it's
worth the investment have my sympathy.
H the K
Naturally, except for one congressman, the GOP was the party of NO.
Simple solution: Republicans without health care insurance shouldn't be
allowed to get any of the benefits of health care reform.
Of course, that means our boy Just Hate will still not have health
insurance.
nom=de=plume
news:4hqcf5hhn7mace2hf...@4ax.com...
One lone Republican voted for it. 39 Democrats opposed. That pisses me off.
Well, it's on to the Senate. I'm sure they'll do something by 2015. :(
--
Nom=de=Plume
jps
Interesting analysis of the votes:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/08/us/politics/1108-health-care-vote.html?hp?hp
Bill McKee
What happened to that open government stuff. Where bills would be up for
reading and analysis for 5 days before a vote?
jpj...@psbnewton.com
Wasn't that voted down before anyone had a chance to look at it? :>)
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
nom=de=plume
news:mMOdneRd0NOyq2rX...@earthlink.com...
I believe it's been up for 72 hours (3 days). I believe the 5-day thing was
for the stim. bill.
--
Nom=de=Plume
Canuck57
I bet many a republican would opt out if they could. As long as they
don't have to pay any part of the governmetns ploy in grabing more
taxes, they can then afford private insurance.
But that is why they don't want to give you a choice. It is heading
towards becoming a major source of government income. Obama-Congress
debt spending needs to be paid.
I suspect it is a good time to liquidate US holdings.
Canuck57
Lets hope they bog it down and 2010 becomes an election issue on the
very point. A decision this big needs direct voting on the issue.
Hell, if the majority wants government to nationalize health care, so be
it. But I suspect when people take the time to read, this is a hidden
tax grab. Get the cash flow to the government and then turn down
survice levels while they skim the moneys.
H the K
I think the country would be better off if the Republicans would opt out
of it.
Bill McKee
"nom=de=plume" <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote in message
news:hd7e91$plg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
The 5 days was mister Change's promise on all bills. And 72 hours for a
2500 page bill?
nom=de=plume
news:XPKJm.11465$X01....@newsfe07.iad...
Please show me where in the legislation from either House or Senate that
proposes "nationalizing" the healthcare. You can't because that's just a
fear-based line of bs from the far right.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
Do you think you could read the 2000 page bill in five days? I might be able
to, but it would be a full time job.
Feel free to show me where Obama proposed five days for "all" bills.
--
Nom=de=Plume
thunder
>> The 5 days was mister Change's promise on all bills. And 72 hours for
>> a 2500 page bill?
>
> Do you think you could read the 2000 page bill in five days? I might be
> able to, but it would be a full time job.
>
> Feel free to show me where Obama proposed five days for "all" bills.
Bill has it right, and wrong. Obama promised 5 days before he would
*sign* them. Obama doesn't control when they get voted on. Still, it's
a broken promise, one of his seven.
jps
wrote:
The polls are very clear in that Americans want health care reform.
Haley Barbour was on Meet the Press today insisting the majority of
Americans don't want health care reform. I don't know of a single
poll, apart from heavy Republican districts, who are against health
care reform.
Lying straight faced is Republican strong suit.
jps
wrote:
Yes, time to invest in the Chinese stock market. Go for it.
nom=de=plume
That would certainly be foolish by itself. It's good to have diversity in
one's investment. I don't have exclusive domestic investments, but my
international portfolio is rather modest.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
news:ueKdndUNqs_VIWrX...@posted.gtinet...
Ok. Well, I guess I and Bill were half right. To err is human to forgive
devine (Alexander Pope)
--
Nom=de=Plume
Canuck57
I was thinking Brazil. Already have some China ...
Canuck57
He who controls the money controls the business. If the money goes to
the government, and government decides service levels and the take, are
you sure you will be happy?
Canuck57
At least once it is bothched, like GM and GMAC, we can say we told you
so. But unfortunately reversing such a trend, hard to do. Government
gets a taste of all that money is going to be hard to reverse.
Jack
nom=de=plume
As I said, you can't because it doesn't exist.
--
Nom=de=Plume
Bill McKee
Yes, the people are for health care reform. Or really cheaper healthcare.
But do they want the government telling them what services they can have?
The government has never run anything cheaper than private industry. And
ramming through a "healthcare reform" bill in a short time in the back room
and then voting on it less than 3 days later, leads to those FUCKED UP laws
that the unintended consequences are worse than the cure. The Feds should
be working on creating sustainable jobs, cutting spending and curing a
depression first.
nom=de=plume
?? Most of this is total wacko stuff... but I guess you think 45K dead every
year from lack of healthcare is ok.
--
Nom=de=Plume
Bill McKee
"nom=de=plume" <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote in message
They show up at any hospital and they get treated. How many of those 45k
are street people that are ingesting controlled substances and sleeping in
the open in rain and snow?
H the K
That is such a crock of shit. Try getting that sort of treatment for a
serious, chronic condition...
Another ill-informed, right-wing asshole.
Jim
Sounds like Krausie has first hand experience with refusal of treatment
for a serious chronic condition.
nom=de=plume
They? Who's they? You mean the people who can't afford care, so they show up
at the last minute and die? Ok. Those people.
Very few are street people. It's mostly the working poor. Don't believe me?
Look it up.
--
Nom=de=Plume
jps
Oy. Doesn't that happen right now? What makes you think the
government is going to deny any more procedures or care than the
profit making health care business?
>The government has never run anything cheaper than private industry.
Oh boy, here we go. Isn't most medicare administration done by
private industry?
>And
>ramming through a "healthcare reform" bill in a short time in the back room
>and then voting on it less than 3 days later, leads to those FUCKED UP laws
>that the unintended consequences are worse than the cure. The Feds should
>be working on creating sustainable jobs, cutting spending and curing a
>depression first.
Don't you think keeping people solvent who might otherwise be swamped
by medical costs is a good investment?
Perhaps it's not the first consideration in getting us back on our
economic feet but it's up there.
Did President Bush focus only on invading Iraq or was he also working
on making the Chinese-funded tax cuts for US rich permanent?
H the K
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:22:32 -0800, jps<tr...@thedump.com> wrote:
>
>>> One lone Republican voted for it. 39 Democrats opposed. That pisses me off.
>>> Well, it's on to the Senate. I'm sure they'll do something by 2015. :(
>>
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/08/us/politics/1108-health-care-vote.html?hp?hp
>
>
> Those are really republicans who just wear democrat suits.
> I think there are a lot of those, certainly 38 anyway. Dennis K is the
> only one that confused me. I wonder what got up his nose about this.
He thinks it is a weak bill that will only further enrich the health
insurers. He's right, but it is a start.
--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting your time by trying to
*communicate* with me through rec.boats, because, well, you are among
the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster. As always, have a nice,
simple-minded day.
Bill McKee
"H the K" <groun...@snerkville.com> wrote in message
news:haudnbnJ0tmVBmXX...@earthlink.com...
Maybe in Maryland. Hell a majority of the babies delivered at San Diego
hospitals are illegals kids. Los Angeles spent $50 million on welfare
benefits, most on illegals in just one month this year.
Bill McKee
jps, you seem to be a one trick pony. Everything is fubar because Bush
invaded the Middle East. Ain't so, and until you can come up with resonable
debates: kiss my ass!
nom=de=plume
news:k6lhf5tvsbipeodr1...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:09:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
>>?? Most of this is total wacko stuff... but I guess you think 45K dead
>>every
>>year from lack of healthcare is ok.
>
>
>
> 2.381,264 died with health care!
> Statistically they may actually be doing the best.
>
> (total dead 2,426,264 source CDC)
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/deaths.htm
It's pretty bad. In fact, lowering costs includes removing some of the
things that cause the errors that contribute to that total.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
I find it difficult to find one thing that Bush did with actual
compassionate results. Perhaps the Africa AIDS program, but even that was
messed up.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
news:apkhf5deraisfkmta...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 13:47:09 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
>>"Bill McKee" <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> "jps" <tr...@thedump.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4hqcf5hhn7mace2hf...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> Tonight at 11:15 pm EST, by a 220 to 215 vote, the House passed their
>>>> version of Health Care Reform.
>>>>
>>>> Among the most meaningful pieces of legislation in history making it
>>>> through one body of congress is a big deal. There's lots of work left
>>>> but I'm damned happy a major bridge has been crossed.
>>>>
>>>> All you folks who hate your fellow Americans and don't think it's
>>>> worth the investment have my sympathy.
>>>
>>> for
>>> reading and analysis for 5 days before a vote?
>>
>>I believe it's been up for 72 hours (3 days). I believe the 5-day thing
>>was
>>for the stim. bill.
>
>
> You couldn't really read that document in 3 weeks. Not if you actually
> wanted to understand all the other things referenced in it.
It's even worse than that... the language is modified to be in
legislative-ease, so that it can be legally accurate. It's very difficult to
decifer it at that point.
--
Nom=de=Plume
jps
<bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>Yes, the people are for health care reform. Or really cheaper healthcare.
>>>But do they want the government telling them what services they can have?
>>
>> Oy. Doesn't that happen right now? What makes you think the
>> government is going to deny any more procedures or care than the
>> profit making health care business?
>>
>>>The government has never run anything cheaper than private industry.
>>
>> Oh boy, here we go. Isn't most medicare administration done by
>> private industry?
OK, I understand throwing the whole Magilla at you is a little
overwhelming.
Let's start with the two points above.
People don't want the "government" tell them what to do... As if
private health insurance doesn't wield that sword? Have you been
paying attention to all the folks who are dropped, can't get the
companies to cover claims, taking forever to reimburse?
To your second point. Most medicare processing is done by private
industry. Are you suggesting using prison labor or Haitians?
nom=de=plume
news:bvphf5h53lap7mgs0...@4ax.com...
> didn't have insurance? (that is a 42,000,000 pool if you believe the
> current buzz)
> If so the difference in outcome between them and the 2.23 million who
> died with insurance is within the margin or error in numbers like
> this.
> The point is people die, with insurance or not. If medical insurance
> only contributes a couple percent to your chances, it is vastly
> overrated.
> If you want to start analysing those 47000 deaths and find out how
> many came in DOA from accidents, gunshots, drug ODs and other mayhem
> we might even close that gap.
I'm sorry if you don't believe the Mayo Clinic's estimate.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
news:biqhf59cput21mdkh...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:40:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I find it difficult to find one thing that Bush did with actual
>>compassionate results. Perhaps the Africa AIDS program, but even that was
>>messed up.
>
>
> is any more messed up than anything we ever did in Africa.
> It was sure better than Clinton's Somalia or Sudan adventures.
Not sure what Somalia/Sudan conflicts have to do with the AIDS program, but
whatever.
It was highly restrictive and promoted abstinence as the only for of
prevention.
--
Nom=de=Plume
Bill McKee
"nom=de=plume" <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote in message
I stated that jps believes all the crap is Bush's fault. Everything was
perfect before Bush 2. Except We are still spending money in Bosnia, look
what a fine place Clinton left Somalia. Bush was not the one who signed the
bill to let banks be brokerage houses. Something that had worked well after
the 1929 crash. I hope you did better reading on your patent searches.
Bill McKee
As I said, when you can do an intelligible response get back to us.
Jim
results". ??????????
Don White
>
> Maybe in Maryland. Hell a majority of the babies delivered at San Diego
> hospitals are illegals kids. Los Angeles spent $50 million on welfare
> benefits, most on illegals in just one month this year.
>
You should be thinking of that when you're crusin' for cheap labour in those
'shape-up lines' behind Home Depot
H the K
Illegals' kids? Ahh...but born in the USA. Legal kids.
*Jim*
opportunity to work for under the table monies.
It's not everybody that gets to spend 32 years on the bottle capping
line at the Royal CROWN CORPORATION.
Have a nice day Dummy.
nom=de=plume
news:2mthf5p8arel7nada...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 21:05:49 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> people die) and point out it is statistically insignificant in the 2.4
> million deaths annually anyway.
> It is about the same outcome you have from the insured.
>
> Saying being uninsured killed 47000 people means about as much as
> saying living in California killed 257,000 people last year.
>
I think you need to look at the methodology..
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
news:rauhf5hb8ol994cdi...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 21:08:15 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>I find it difficult to find one thing that Bush did with actual
>>>>compassionate results. Perhaps the Africa AIDS program, but even that
>>>>was
>>>>messed up.
>>>
>>>
>>> The AIDS in Africa actually was pretty successful. I am not sure that
>>> is any more messed up than anything we ever did in Africa.
>>> It was sure better than Clinton's Somalia or Sudan adventures.
>>
>>
>>Not sure what Somalia/Sudan conflicts have to do with the AIDS program,
>>but
>>whatever.
>
>>
>>It was highly restrictive and promoted abstinence as the only for of
>>prevention.
>
> companies to provide cheap drug cocktails.
>
Yes, that was the good part for sure.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
Somalia? That's pretty insignificant in the scheme of things. Bosnia... we
did a lot of good there. Do you deny that?
It's not all Bush's fault. He just was a significant contributor ... more
than anyone else.
--
Nom=de=Plume
jps
<bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
You've got no balls Bill. You can't argue the points so you turn tail
and run.
Got your number, old turd.
Your ego is all wrapped up in winning but, unfortunately, you're on
the wrong side. Good luck with your new party affiliation.
Libertarian, were guverment cant do nothin rite.
H the K
That would be Loonitarian. Loonitarians are Republicans who want even
less responsibility.
jps
Try to explain the concept of "all ships in the harbor" concept to a
Loonitarian. They'll tell you there's always been poor people and
there always will be poor people and to just get over it.
Doesn't matter whether by sloth or a foot on the throat.
Bill McKee
"Don White" <whi...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4af98315$0$5339$9a56...@news.aliant.net...
I see you are showing your stupidity again.
Bill McKee
"H the K" <groun...@snerkville.com> wrote in message
news:_8mdneDy8I2DG2TX...@earthlink.com...
> On 11/10/09 10:13 AM, Don White wrote:
>> "Bill McKee"<bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:R5idnSMu15AGRGXX...@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>> Maybe in Maryland. Hell a majority of the babies delivered at San Diego
>>> hospitals are illegals kids. Los Angeles spent $50 million on welfare
>>> benefits, most on illegals in just one month this year.
>>>
>>
>> You should be thinking of that when you're crusin' for cheap labour in
>> those
>> 'shape-up lines' behind Home Depot
>>
>>
>
>
> Illegals' kids? Ahh...but born in the USA. Legal kids.
>
>
And the kids should not be given legal status.
Bill McKee
"nom=de=plume" <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote in message
Bush just added to the Clusterf*&k. Somalia, killed a lot of our men for
nothing. Bosnia was not our problem, we had no right to interfere. And
Albanians and Serbs have been killing each other for 600 years. Let Europe
take care of the problem if needed, was their playground. How many billions
we waste there? And we are still there.
*Jim*
*Jim*
nom=de=plume
If they're born in the US, their citizens. Been that way a fairly long time.
:)
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
news:rhijf5h08pesfjrpe...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:10:00 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>> If you want to start analysing those 47000 deaths and find out how
>>>>> many came in DOA from accidents, gunshots, drug ODs and other mayhem
>>>>> we might even close that gap.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm sorry if you don't believe the Mayo Clinic's estimate.
>>>
>>> I didn't deny the statistic. I only ask what is in it (how did these
>>> people die) and point out it is statistically insignificant in the 2.4
>>> million deaths annually anyway.
>>> It is about the same outcome you have from the insured.
>>>
>>> Saying being uninsured killed 47000 people means about as much as
>>> saying living in California killed 257,000 people last year.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I think you need to look at the methodology..
>
> people without insurance who died. Considering that those with the
> most dangerous lifestyles are also the most likely to not have
> insurance, I am not shocked at all.
>
> 1090 per 100,000 vs 810 per 100,000 is not a huge difference when you
> take into account crime, poor diet, smoking, drug abuse, risky sex
> practices, bad living conditions and the other slings and arrows
> encountered by the under class who are most likely to make up the
> "uninsured" in a statistic.
>
> I was discussing this with someone else last night and we have another
> interesting statistic to throw in the fray.
> Heart disease in the leading cause of death in the US but we also lead
> the world in obesity. The numbers when compared to the other countries
> we use as models for the successes of public medicine are striking.
> Chew on this and tell me spending a trillion on insurance will make us
> healthier.
> Percentage of citizens who are clinically defined as being obese
I'm no expert re the methodology. I don't have the time to look right now,
but let's just assume it is as you say.
In any case, the latter part of your comment... "spending a trillion" is not
actually spending, since the criteria is deficit neutral, which it pretty
much is currently (FYI, I don't think it needs to be deficit neutral, but
that's not the issue/question). It would actually save money compared to the
high cost of doing nothing. You think a trillion is bad? Just wait if we do
nothing.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
Bush promoted the clusterfk, but ok. Somalia was a mistake, but thousands of
our troops didn't die. "any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved
in mankind").
We saved lives in Bosnia, and it was necessary to "interfere" in ethnic
cleansing. We should have intervened in Rwanda and we should intervene in
Darfur. Don't forget that WW2 started in the region.
--
Nom=de=Plume
I am Tosk
says...
It's an old law that no longer serves it's origional purpose of taking
care of the children of slaves... Now it just is an excuse for the
democrats to build their voter base..
jps
<bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Please tell us how many billions we've wasted in Bosnia.
Then tell us how many billions it takes to make a trillion x 3. Can
you say several orders of magnitude?
H the K
Sorry, bozo. They're born here, they're citizens.
Vic Smith
>On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:10:00 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
><nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>> If you want to start analysing those 47000 deaths and find out how
>>>>> many came in DOA from accidents, gunshots, drug ODs and other mayhem
>>>>> we might even close that gap.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm sorry if you don't believe the Mayo Clinic's estimate.
>>>
>>> I didn't deny the statistic. I only ask what is in it (how did these
>>> people die) and point out it is statistically insignificant in the 2.4
>>> million deaths annually anyway.
>>> It is about the same outcome you have from the insured.
>>>
>>> Saying being uninsured killed 47000 people means about as much as
>>> saying living in California killed 257,000 people last year.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I think you need to look at the methodology..
>
>Enlighten me. From what I can tell the 47k is simply the number of
>people without insurance who died. Considering that those with the
>most dangerous lifestyles are also the most likely to not have
>insurance, I am not shocked at all.
>
Being out of a job or in a low-paying job is now a "dangerous
lifestyle?"
Here, be enlightened.
A fat slob smoker/drinker with insurance has better odds to survive
than a fat slob smoker/drinker without insurance.
And a slim non-smoker, non-drinker smoker with hypertension, diabetes,
or other undiagnosed ailments has less odds to survive than the same
who has insurance.
Though statistics usually lie in some fashion, common sense should be
allowed to kick in. This is hardly rocket science.
http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2009/09/uninsured_hold.html
--Vic
Bill McKee
"*Jim*" <***@***.com> wrote in message
news:006b2cf2$0$7065$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Actually they are still debating that. Was to make sure the slaves were
citizens after emancipation. The parents were here legally.
Bill McKee
"nom=de=plume" <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote in message
See my other reply.
Bill McKee
"nom=de=plume" <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote in message
Why should we interfere in Bosnia because of ethic cleansing? Ruwanda was a
lot better place to interfere. Bosnia has had Albanians cleansing Serbs and
Serbs cleansing Albanians for centuries. But the Albanians seem to have the
upper hand in all the years. They ran death camps for the NAZI and even
some of the Germans were grossed out by the gusto that they went about the
job. Are we the police department for Europe?
Bill McKee
A billion hear a billion there, and you are talking real money. How many
billions has Obama overspent in the last 10 months?
I am Tosk
gfre...@aol.com says...
>
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:31:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> I was discussing this with someone else last night and we have another
> >> interesting statistic to throw in the fray.
> >> Heart disease in the leading cause of death in the US but we also lead
> >> the world in obesity. The numbers when compared to the other countries
> >> we use as models for the successes of public medicine are striking.
> >> Chew on this and tell me spending a trillion on insurance will make us
> >> healthier.
> >> Percentage of citizens who are clinically defined as being obese
> >
> >
> >I'm no expert re the methodology. I don't have the time to look right now,
> >but let's just assume it is as you say.
> >
> >In any case, the latter part of your comment... "spending a trillion" is not
> >actually spending, since the criteria is deficit neutral, which it pretty
> >much is currently (FYI, I don't think it needs to be deficit neutral, but
> >that's not the issue/question). It would actually save money compared to the
> >high cost of doing nothing. You think a trillion is bad? Just wait if we do
> >nothing.
>
>
> post office is self sustaining.
Nobody believes it will be, although we do have a bunch of liars out
there that are still saying it will...
H the K
Why would this concern you? You are unemployed. You don't pay taxes.
nom=de=plume
Not sure who you mean by "they." It's a pretty straightforward legal status.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
news:2o8kf5pu61rmuoigr...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:31:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> interesting statistic to throw in the fray.
>>> Heart disease in the leading cause of death in the US but we also lead
>>> the world in obesity. The numbers when compared to the other countries
>>> we use as models for the successes of public medicine are striking.
>>> Chew on this and tell me spending a trillion on insurance will make us
>>> healthier.
>>> Percentage of citizens who are clinically defined as being obese
>>
>>
>>I'm no expert re the methodology. I don't have the time to look right now,
>>but let's just assume it is as you say.
>>
>>In any case, the latter part of your comment... "spending a trillion" is
>>not
>>actually spending, since the criteria is deficit neutral, which it pretty
>>much is currently (FYI, I don't think it needs to be deficit neutral, but
>>that's not the issue/question). It would actually save money compared to
>>the
>>high cost of doing nothing. You think a trillion is bad? Just wait if we
>>do
>>nothing.
>
>
> post office is self sustaining.
It's as deficit neutral as possible in a political environment. It certainly
won't be spending trillions more.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
Besides the second question (answer is no), I'm not sure what point you're
trying to make. We saved lives there. The intervention worked.
--
Nom=de=Plume
jps
<bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What's wrong, don't want to answer the question?
Facts in context reveal some nasty truths don't they?
Bosnia is a drop in the very large bucket that Bush opened up to pay
for Iraq.
nom=de=plume
news:4e9kf5lsvjetr5j85...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:14:54 -0800, "Bill McKee"
> <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Why should we interfere in Bosnia because of ethic cleansing? Ruwanda was
>>a
>>lot better place to interfere.
>
>
> European kids with big brown eyes on the news and we wanted to go
> rescue them
> When they put those pictures of African kids with flies on them, on TV
> we just send Sally Struthers a few bucks and feel lucky we don't have
> to go there.
Certainly true. Regrettable, but true.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
news:dv8kf5ltrhmd5ojik...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:35:10 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Somalia was a mistake, but thousands of
>>our troops didn't die.
>
> cared about them. It was real easy for Clinton to get out immediately.
>
Especially given the political climate in the US at the time.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
Some for sure... can't be helped really. Not nearly as much as Bush wasted
in his administration.
--
Nom=de=Plume
Don White
~~ Snerk ~~
Bill McKee
"nom=de=plume" <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote in message
No, even some politicians are questioning if someone here illegally can give
birth to a citizen. Needs to be adjudicated.
Bill McKee
"nom=de=plume" <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote in message
Did we save lives? Maybe. They are still killing Serbs now that Bosnia is
non serb. Still not our place to go in. If you argue it is because of
ethnic cleansing, then you have to say Iraq is a good war, and we should be
there. Saddam was trying to ethnic cleanse Kurds.
Bill McKee
If it does not matter how much Bosnia costs. then you have to ignore the
financials of Iraq. Both are wars, and both cost lots of money, and both
are places we most likely should have not gone. I realize you are blind in
your partisanship.
Bill McKee
"nom=de=plume" <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote in message >
> in his administration.
>
> --
> Nom=de=Plume
>
Youe opinion. But all Obama's spending has not turned around the recession.
Percentage of unemployment still rising, and that excludes those that have
given up on getting a job. The stock market is mostly a bubble driven by
all the money given to "too big to fail" financial houses. Which have now
decided to give billions of bonus money, even though they have not really
made any money, just a huge infusion of taxpayers $$$$$$$$. We have the
next wave of mortages going to fail. The not subprime ones. The bailout
was to supposed to buy toxic mortgages. None bought, so what did the banks
do with the money. Gold broke $1100. Most of the rise is the falling
dollar. What happens when China wants to cash in all that debt we owe them.
jps
<bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Oh, I see. Let's just ignore relativity.
1 billion and 3,000 billion.
They're pretty much the same thing.
Gotcha.
jps
We're fucked. Aren't you glad knowing that the 1% got there's before
China cashed in their chips?
nom=de=plume
"Some politicians...." Sounds suspiciously like right-wingers. Perhaps Lou
Dobbs also.
Care to share a link to these upstanding citizens?
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
?? Did you not listen to the news? Give me a break.
Yeah, Saddam was a bad guy, but the justification to attack Iraq was not, as
you well know, his human rights abuses. It was all about non-existent WMDs.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
The former was well explained and justified. The latter was based on
fabrication. Big diff.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
Bush's tax cut for the wealthy is my opinion????
--
Nom=de=Plume