Senator John McCain is the treasonous ******* who co-sponsored the
disasterous "Immigration Reform Act" along with Ted Kennedy. If he
shows any potential for gaining the GOP nomination he will be
"swiftboated" by those fellow prisoners that did not
enjoy his special privledges.

http://www.mccainalert.com/

greg

Ahh DONT WORRY ABOUT IT!


NO REPUBLICAN will be electable this tme thanks to GWB, moron in white
house!

Espically not a war supporter!

greg3347 wrote:

Senator John McCain is the treasonous ******* who co-sponsored the
disasterous "Immigration Reform Act" along with Ted Kennedy. If he
shows any potential for gaining the GOP nomination he will be
"swiftboated" by those fellow prisoners that did not
enjoy his special privledges.

I don't like John McCain, even though he's one of my senators, and I'm
not a Republican, but don't call him a traitor because he's the
farthest thing from one. He volunteered for Vietnam combat duty,
endured more time in solitary confinement in North Vietnam than any
other American POW did -- all while his arm bones remained broken,
including one that stuck through his skin. And because his father was
a big admiral at the time, the Communists tried to use him for
propaganda purposes and allowed him to leave unconditionally. His
response to that offer was that he'd be willing to leave only after
all his fellow POWs were freed first.

IOW John McCain wasn't a coward like George W. Bush or a traitor.
McCain is an American hero.

On Oct 27, 1:42?am, never@million wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:41:07 -0700, larry moe 'n curly

wrote:
I don't like John McCain, even though he's one of my senators, and I'm
not a Republican, but don't call him a traitor because he's the
farthest thing from one. He volunteered for Vietnam combat duty,
endured more time in solitary confinement in North Vietnam than any
other American POW did -- all while his arm bones remained broken,
including one that stuck through his skin. And because his father was
a big admiral at the time, the Communists tried to use him for
propaganda purposes and allowed him to leave unconditionally. His
response to that offer was that he'd be willing to leave only after
all his fellow POWs were freed first.

IOW John McCain wasn't a coward like George W. Bush or a traitor.
McCain is an American hero.

Good post.

DCI

TODAY john Mc Cain is a coward! For keeping his mouth shut while bush
attacked the wrong country with a poor plan and too few resources.

It was Mc cains duty to properly manage the president rather than tow
the party line.

As such he doesnt deserve to be president or even in congress anymore.

Its past time he be retired, as he has lost it

Sad end for a one time hero!

greg3347 wrote:
Senator John McCain is the treasonous ******* who co-sponsored the
disasterous "Immigration Reform Act" along with Ted Kennedy. If he
shows any potential for gaining the GOP nomination he will be
"swiftboated" by those fellow prisoners that did not
enjoy his special privledges.

http://www.mccainalert.com/

greg

McCain is a genuine war hero but never stood a chance of getting the
Republican nomination due to things like the campaign financing bill and
the immigration bill fiasco.

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:09:04 -0400, Frank
frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote Re McCain Alert:

greg3347 wrote:
Senator John McCain is the treasonous ******* who co-sponsored the
disasterous "Immigration Reform Act" along with Ted Kennedy. If he
shows any potential for gaining the GOP nomination he will be
"swiftboated" by those fellow prisoners that did not
enjoy his special privledges.

http://www.mccainalert.com/

greg

McCain is a genuine war hero but never stood a chance of getting the
Republican nomination due to things like the campaign financing bill and

Are you referring to that McCain–Feingold Act that makes it illegal
for anyone other than the news media to mention candidates/issues
within 30 (or 60) days before an election?

the immigration bill fiasco.

Is that the one where he wanted to make all the Mexican illegals (but
not others) citizens?

wrote:
McCain is on the same page with Hillary Clinton, Edwards and every
other Republican candidate except Ron Paul.
The Lieberman wing of the Democratic party is as big a bunch of war
hawks as the republicans. That is most of the North East and left
coast delegation. They like to bitch about the way Bush is running the
war but they still want the war.
If you want out, you need to vote for Obama or Ron Paul.

Makes sense, but why would anybody want out?

On Oct 27, 4:01?pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
McCain is on the same page with Hillary Clinton, Edwards and every
other Republican candidate except Ron Paul.
The Lieberman wing of the Democratic party is as big a bunch of war
hawks as the republicans. That is most of the North East and left
coast delegation. They like to bitch about the way Bush is running the
war but they still want the war.
If you want out, you need to vote for Obama or Ron Paul.

Makes sense, but why would anybody want out?

the war is lost despite the improved conditions today.

we cant remain forever costs will bankrupt us, and our presence
prevents a political solution.

I think O Bama should come out promising to withdraw all troops within
90 days of being sworn in as president.

this would get him tons of votes and put the heat on the seats of
iraquis to settle the mess we created.

Caesar Romano wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:09:04 -0400, Frank
frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote Re McCain Alert:

greg3347 wrote:
Senator John McCain is the treasonous ******* who co-sponsored the
disasterous "Immigration Reform Act" along with Ted Kennedy. If he
shows any potential for gaining the GOP nomination he will be
"swiftboated" by those fellow prisoners that did not
enjoy his special privledges.

http://www.mccainalert.com/

greg

McCain is a genuine war hero but never stood a chance of getting the
Republican nomination due to things like the campaign financing bill and

Are you referring to that McCain–Feingold Act that makes it illegal
for anyone other than the news media to mention candidates/issues
within 30 (or 60) days before an election?

the immigration bill fiasco.

Is that the one where he wanted to make all the Mexican illegals (but
not others) citizens?

Yes.

On Oct 28, 6:10 am, Frank frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote:
Caesar Romano wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:09:04 -0400, Frank
frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote Re McCain Alert:

greg3347 wrote:
Senator John McCain is the treasonous ******* who co-sponsored the
disasterous "Immigration Reform Act" along with Ted Kennedy. If he
shows any potential for gaining the GOP nomination he will be
"swiftboated" by those fellow prisoners that did not
enjoy his special privledges.

http://www.mccainalert.com/

greg

McCain is a genuine war hero but never stood a chance of getting the
Republican nomination due to things like the campaign financing bill and

Are you referring to that McCain-Feingold Act that makes it illegal
for anyone other than the news media to mention candidates/issues
within 30 (or 60) days before an election?

the immigration bill fiasco.

Is that the one where he wanted to make all the Mexican illegals (but
not others) citizens?

Yes.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

without the illegals our economy will tank...........

I agree with mc cain and futher we should welcome everyone, and
rebuild our economy!

Get rid of the IRS, go to national sales tax, that way everyone pays,
create opportunity zones with sub minimum wages, for new arrivals and
start exporting to china!

welcome anyone under 30 EXCEPT terrorists!

This would fix social security future bankruptcy, infusing young
workers into the system

On Oct 27, 1:42 am, never@million wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:41:07 -0700, larry moe 'n curly

wrote:
I don't like John McCain, even though he's one of my senators, and I'm
not a Republican, but don't call him a traitor because he's the
farthest thing from one. He volunteered for Vietnam combat duty,
endured more time in solitary confinement in North Vietnam than any
other American POW did -- all while his arm bones remained broken,
including one that stuck through his skin. And because his father was
a big admiral at the time, the Communists tried to use him for
propaganda purposes and allowed him to leave unconditionally. His
response to that offer was that he'd be willing to leave only after
all his fellow POWs were freed first.

IOW John McCain wasn't a coward like George W. Bush or a traitor.
McCain is an American hero.

Good post.

I used to have a high opinion of McCain on account of his service and
POW history, etc, etc. But that was before I learned more about
this scumbag. Just like his old man (learn about his role in
the notorious, but little publicized, Israeli attack on the USS
Liberty, in 1967), he is a traitor and a puppet for the Zionists
and he jumps whenever he even thinks they're gonna say 'frog.'

Bush is off the dial when it comes to worst disappointment in U.S.
Presidential history.

wrote:

I used to have a high opinion of McCain on account of his service and
POW history, etc, etc. But that was before I learned more about
this scumbag. Just like his old man (learn about his role in
the notorious, but little publicized, Israeli attack on the USS
Liberty, in 1967), he is a traitor and a puppet for the Zionists
and he jumps whenever he even thinks they're gonna say 'frog.'

We can't afford to insult the Israelis.

The IDF (Israeli Defense Force) can field 18 divisions of infantry and
armor. That's 50% bigger than the authorized strength of the US military (10
Army and 2 Marine divisions). The IDF has almost 700 first-strike aircraft,
30% more than the US Air Force (add in the US Navy and the US has more).

The IDF can put 640,000 soldiers deployed in combat on three fronts within
72 hours, with the first quarter million coming on line in one day.


Bush is off the dial when it comes to worst disappointment in U.S.
Presidential history.

Hmmm.

Job creation continues, with 110,000 last month, which is the longest
continuous record of job expansion in our nation's history.

Inflation is below 2%

Productivity is at an average of 2.5%, which is more than the '70s, '80s, or
'90s.

Wages have grown an average of 12% since Bush took office.

Tax revenues are up 37% since the Bush tax cuts took effect.

The current deficit is about 1.5% of the budget. That's lower than the '70s,
'80s, and most of the '90s.

49 straight months of job growth and six years of uninterrupted GDP growth.

But most importantly, Bush has lead the killing of as much as a hundred
thousand goblins. He's single-handedly turned both Louisiana and Iraq into
Republican strongholds.

Good job, I'd say.

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:59:23 -0500, "HeyBub"
mumbled:

wrote:

I used to have a high opinion of McCain on account of his service and
POW history, etc, etc. But that was before I learned more about
this scumbag. Just like his old man (learn about his role in
the notorious, but little publicized, Israeli attack on the USS
Liberty, in 1967), he is a traitor and a puppet for the Zionists
and he jumps whenever he even thinks they're gonna say 'frog.'

We can't afford to insult the Israelis.

The IDF (Israeli Defense Force) can field 18 divisions of infantry and
armor. That's 50% bigger than the authorized strength of the US military (10
Army and 2 Marine divisions). The IDF has almost 700 first-strike aircraft,
30% more than the US Air Force (add in the US Navy and the US has more).

The IDF can put 640,000 soldiers deployed in combat on three fronts within
72 hours, with the first quarter million coming on line in one day.


Bush is off the dial when it comes to worst disappointment in U.S.
Presidential history.

Hmmm.

Job creation continues, with 110,000 last month, which is the longest
continuous record of job expansion in our nation's history.

Inflation is below 2%

Productivity is at an average of 2.5%, which is more than the '70s, '80s, or
'90s.

Wages have grown an average of 12% since Bush took office.

Tax revenues are up 37% since the Bush tax cuts took effect.

The current deficit is about 1.5% of the budget. That's lower than the '70s,
'80s, and most of the '90s.

49 straight months of job growth and six years of uninterrupted GDP growth.

But most importantly, Bush has lead the killing of as much as a hundred
thousand goblins. He's single-handedly turned both Louisiana and Iraq into
Republican strongholds.

Good job, I'd say.


Rock on!

In article , HeyBub wrote in part:
wrote

Bush is off the dial when it comes to worst disappointment in U.S.
Presidential history.

Hmmm.

Job creation continues, with 110,000 last month, which is the longest
continuous record of job expansion in our nation's history.

What about that recession we had after Bush took office? Back then,
rightwingers liked to talk about Reagan setting a record for length of an
economic expansion, though that record was broken by one that Clinton
presided over.

Inflation is below 2%

I am hearing mostly mid-upper 2's for the past year. A bit better than
before, but more than offset by slowdown in growth in median income.

Productivity is at an average of 2.5%, which is more than the '70s, '80s, or
'90s.

You could not even say that this is an annual growth rate, right? Now,
what was it in the 1990's again?

1993-1994, 2.3%,
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/H...d2.030895.news

1995-1996, 1.0%,
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/H...d2.031197.news

1997-1998, 2.4%,
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/H...d2.030999.news

1999-2000, 4.2%,
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/H....03062001.news

Average of these 8 Clinton years: 2.475%

Note things got better with gridlocked rather than unified government!

Now, same figures for Bush years:

2001-2002: 4.8%,
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/H....03062003.news

(During a recession the rightwingers liked to blame on Clinton!)

2003-2004: 4.0%,
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/H....03032005.news

2005-2006, 1.7%,
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/H....03062007.news

2007, 2.6% in first quarter, 3.5% second quarter,
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/H....08072007.news

Although Bush II has 3.46% average so far, I see when this figure made
its big gain.

Wages have grown an average of 12% since Bush took office.

12% in 6.5 years? 1.12 to the 1/6.5 power is a 1.76% average annual
raise, less than inflation.

Tax revenues are up 37% since the Bush tax cuts took effect.

And how did tax revenues go during the Clinton administration?

The current deficit is about 1.5% of the budget. That's lower than the '70s,
'80s, and most of the '90s.

The fiscal years in Clinton's second term had surpluses, at least 3 of
them. You were hoping we forgot that? One even had a surplus when
excluding the Social Security surplus.

Not that Clinton gets all the credit - much should go to nonunified
government (gridlock against spending and against tax cuts).

49 straight months of job growth and six years of uninterrupted GDP growth.

Who presided over most of a goodly 8 year stretch of GDP growth?

But most importantly, Bush has lead the killing of as much as a hundred
thousand goblins. He's single-handedly turned both Louisiana and Iraq into
Republican strongholds.

Good job, I'd say.

Louisiana statewide was Republican at least since and including the 1980
elections. I don't think Iraquis like us much better now than before
2002, and they don't vote in US elections anyway.

- Don Klipstein )

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 02:48:47 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) mumbled:

What about that recession we had after Bush took office?


The Klintoon tech wreck aftermath?

**** that, and **** you too!

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

What about that recession we had after Bush took office? Back then,
rightwingers liked to talk about Reagan setting a record for length of an
economic expansion, though that record was broken by one that Clinton
presided over.


Recessions, by definition are two or more quarters of negative GDP
growth. The recession you are talking about, according to the people who
track such things, started in March 2001, his first quarter in office.
It started during Clinton's presidency. Of course, that is based on a
rather fallacious assumption that ANY president has an impact on the
business cycle.




2001-2002: 4.8%,
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/H....03062003.news

(During a recession the rightwingers liked to blame on Clinton!)

And left wingers like to blame on Bush. See above for the idiocy of
both these statements.



The current deficit is about 1.5% of the budget. That's lower than the '70s,
'80s, and most of the '90s.

The fiscal years in Clinton's second term had surpluses, at least 3 of
them. You were hoping we forgot that? One even had a surplus when
excluding the Social Security surplus.

But not the Medicare part of the surplus. Of course, you can't hold
Clinton accountable for taking advantage of an accounting fraud in place
since the early 80s.


Who presided over most of a goodly 8 year stretch of GDP growth?

See above. This is the G&G expansion anyway. Brought about by
Greenspan by his money supply growth and low interest rate policies at
the fed and Bill Gates as an alliterative proxy for the absolutely
unheard of increases in productivity brought about by computerization.



Louisiana statewide was Republican at least since and including the 1980
elections.
Which is why both the NOLA mayor and the Governor were Dems at
the time.

In article
,
Kurt Ullman wrote:



The fiscal years in Clinton's second term had surpluses, at least 3 of
them. You were hoping we forgot that? One even had a surplus when
excluding the Social Security surplus.

But not the Medicare part of the surplus. Of course, you can't hold
Clinton accountable for taking advantage of an accounting fraud in place
since the early 80s.


One other thing I forgot to mention. During the one of year of "real
surplus" increased spending (from Congress, another indication of the
actual impact of ANY president on this situation) was higher than the
three years before. This was an indication of one brief, shining moment
when the US economy was so breathtakingly overheated that money came in
faster than even the combined best efforts of BOTH parties could spend
it. Did not last all that long.

HeyBub wrote:

We can't afford to insult the Israelis.

The IDF (Israeli Defense Force) can field 18 divisions of infantry and
armor. That's 50% bigger than the authorized strength of the US military (10
Army and 2 Marine divisions). The IDF has almost 700 first-strike aircraft,
30% more than the US Air Force (add in the US Navy and the US has more).

The IDF can put 640,000 soldiers deployed in combat on three fronts within
72 hours, with the first quarter million coming on line in one day.


Then why the propaganda about the US having to somehow be involved with
protecting their asses?

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 07:59:18 -0700, Michelle Steiner
mumbled:

In article
,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Louisiana statewide was Republican at least since and including
the 1980 elections.
Which is why both the NOLA mayor and the Governor were Dems at
the time.

"Leftist" California has a Republican governor.

RINO.

In article ,
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 05:29:00 -0700, Manster wrote:

We can't afford to insult the Israelis.

The IDF (Israeli Defense Force) can field 18 divisions of infantry and
armor. That's 50% bigger than the authorized strength of the US military
(10
Army and 2 Marine divisions). The IDF has almost 700 first-strike
aircraft,
30% more than the US Air Force (add in the US Navy and the US has more).

The IDF can put 640,000 soldiers deployed in combat on three fronts within
72 hours, with the first quarter million coming on line in one day.


Then why the propaganda about the US having to somehow be involved with
protecting their asses?

Good point, we should just come home and let them protect themselves.

Most of US's protecting of Israel takes place in equipping them.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 07:59:18 -0700, Michelle Steiner
wrote Re McCain Alert:

In article
,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Louisiana statewide was Republican at least since and including
the 1980 elections.
Which is why both the NOLA mayor and the Governor were Dems at
the time.

"Leftist" California has a Republican governor.

He's a "Rockefeller" (liberal) Republican.

In article ,
wrote:


We are in Iraq because Saddam was a danger to Israel. He was not going
to take a shot at the US and he was more than happy to sell oil to
Exxon.
Actually ELF ( a French company) had most of the concessions in
Iraq. SH wasn't going to directly attack Israel any more than he was us
for many of the same reasons.

If this was a war over oil we would be invading Nigeria too. They
export about the same amount as Iraq.



Actually if this was a war about Oil, we would have gone knocked on the
door of the government of Kuwait, noted the forces already in-country
and asked them if they wanted to be a protectorate or the 51st State.
The addded advantage about Kuwait is that their investments probably
would have paid off most of the debt after the "merger".

On Oct 27, 3:01 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
McCain is on the same page with Hillary Clinton, Edwards and every
other Republican candidate except Ron Paul.
The Lieberman wing of the Democratic party is as big a bunch of war
hawks as the republicans. That is most of the North East and left
coast delegation. They like to bitch about the way Bush is running the
war but they still want the war.
If you want out, you need to vote for Obama or Ron Paul.

Makes sense, but why would anybody want out?

Everyone outside Illinois sees Obama as some kind of Mr Clean. In
Illinois he associated himself with some mafia players, like Tony
Rezko to get himself a sweethert deal on his house and lot. He was
intrenched with all the corruption in this state as much as anybody,
but on the national front he's Mr Clean. He's was just another
influence peddler in Illinois what a joke. He also wants to bomb an
ally, Pakistan I hear.

On Oct 29, 1:58 am, Larry in AZ
wrote:
You mean the one triggered by the collapse of the dot-com scam, eight months
before Bush took office..?

That recession..?

Actually, it was the Y2K non-event that caused the recession. Once all
the Y2K stuff was fixed, and nothing happened on 1/1/2000, it all went
down the toilet.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:31:05 -0700, mumbled:

On Oct 29, 1:58 am, Larry in AZ
wrote:
You mean the one triggered by the collapse of the dot-com scam, eight months
before Bush took office..?

That recession..?

Actually, it was the Y2K non-event that caused the recession. Once all
the Y2K stuff was fixed, and nothing happened on 1/1/2000, it all went
down the toilet.


Creative read, it certainly had some impact, but not all of it.

Dr. Plonkensteen wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:31:05 -0700, mumbled:

On Oct 29, 1:58 am, Larry in AZ
wrote:
You mean the one triggered by the collapse of the dot-com scam, eight months
before Bush took office..?

That recession..?
Actually, it was the Y2K non-event that caused the recession. Once all
the Y2K stuff was fixed, and nothing happened on 1/1/2000, it all went
down the toilet.


Creative read, it certainly had some impact, but not all of it.

Go away, Spammy. Nobody responds to you (at least not after the second
time that read your alias and figure out it is you). Go haunt a group
that might appreciate you.

PLONK

--
*******************
Michael R. McAfee
Mesa, AZ
*******************

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:15:20 -0700, mrmcafee
mumbled:



Dr. Plonkensteen wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:31:05 -0700, mumbled:

On Oct 29, 1:58 am, Larry in AZ
wrote:
You mean the one triggered by the collapse of the dot-com scam, eight months
before Bush took office..?

That recession..?
Actually, it was the Y2K non-event that caused the recession. Once all
the Y2K stuff was fixed, and nothing happened on 1/1/2000, it all went
down the toilet.


Creative read, it certainly had some impact, but not all of it.

Go away, Spammy. Nobody responds to you

**** you Mikey, you hypocritical fake plonker.

The tech wreck had a whole ****ing lot more to do with dark fiber than
code patchers.

You despicable, stupid, lying piece of ****!

wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 05:29:00 -0700, Manster wrote:

We can't afford to insult the Israelis.

The IDF (Israeli Defense Force) can field 18 divisions of infantry and
armor. That's 50% bigger than the authorized strength of the US military (10
Army and 2 Marine divisions). The IDF has almost 700 first-strike aircraft,
30% more than the US Air Force (add in the US Navy and the US has more).

The IDF can put 640,000 soldiers deployed in combat on three fronts within
72 hours, with the first quarter million coming on line in one day.

Then why the propaganda about the US having to somehow be involved with
protecting their asses?

Good point, we should just come home and let them protect themselves.

Mustn't forget the millions of right-wing, voting, American Christians
who've been told (brainwashed) for years into believing that we have to
ally Israel at any cost because they're God's 'chosen' people.

.... That line of reasoning never really made sense to me.

What? God can't take care of them?

HeyBub wrote:
wrote:


Bush is off the dial when it comes to worst disappointment in U.S.
Presidential history.

Hmmm.

Job creation continues, with 110,000 last month, which is the longest
continuous record of job expansion in our nation's history.


What kind of jobs??? I love it when I see stats about 35K auto workers
getting put out of work when a plant closes, then they're all back off
the unemployment rolls with jobs in fast food, telemarketing, and other
stuff.

Best line I heard from a comedian in the last couple years was that the
guy thought all the new job creation was frikkin great, he had three of
them himself and still couldn't afford to pay his rent...


Inflation is below 2%


Overall.......but what about the inflation rates in healthcare, housing,
etc. Some of those costs are just now starting to gain. In 1960
healthcare was only 5.1% of GDP, in 1985 it was 10.1%, 2003 had it at
15.3%....and estimates are that by 2013 it will be at 18.4%. In the last
40 years annual per capita costs for healthcare have gone from $143 to
$5670.

Inflation would be near nothing for the 40+ million people in this
country who can't afford healthcare. Same if you don't buy a new car, or
a house........

(side note.....my health insurance premiums (which my former employer
pays NONE of) went up last year from $500 a month to $800 a month.....a
bit more than 2%)


Productivity is at an average of 2.5%, which is more than the '70s, '80s, or
'90s.

What does this do to our quality of life??? Back in those days we were
working 40 hour weeks, took vacations, etc. The norm today is much
different.

Wages have grown an average of 12% since Bush took office.

For whom??? If you're talking the salaries of CEO's...I get it. If
you're talking about rank and file workers???? And how do those
increases compare to loss of benefits, etc.??

"Workers with employer-sponsored health insurance will often experience
reductions in real (after adjusting for inflation) wages reductions (or
wage growth) in response to health care cost growth. The empirical
evidence has tended to show that health care cost increases are offset
by either direct wage reductions, increased employee cost sharing, or in
instances where wages are fixed (i.e., unionized contracts), by
increases in the number of hours worked."

- - From here - http://tinyurl.com/2tqxgx


Tax revenues are up 37% since the Bush tax cuts took effect.

I've heard this, if it's "true", why is the deficit still growing?? Must
be because the administration is spending it all....and more. And in the
meantime we've got people without healthcare, our infrastructure is
crumbling.....etc.


The current deficit is about 1.5% of the budget. That's lower than the '70s,
'80s, and most of the '90s.

You counting the $600 billion in interest we're paying on the $2.5
trillion deficit????


49 straight months of job growth and six years of uninterrupted GDP growth.

Those are all in heavy manufacturing right??? And by manufacturing, I
don't mean "building" Big Macs... g


But most importantly, Bush has lead the killing of as much as a hundred
thousand goblins. He's single-handedly turned both Louisiana and Iraq into
Republican strongholds.


Yep, the dems in Louisiana had no place to live after Katrina....they
moved to other states g

Goblins??? And how many of those "goblins" would have NEVER existed if
we hadn't done the things we've done???? If the Brits and the French has
kept their promises to turn the middle east over to the Arabs and let
them have their independence at the end of WW1....how much of this ****
do you think we'd be in now? The Arabs certainly would NOT have lined up
with the Germans in WW2.

But the west stayed there controlling their governments and economies
until nearly the 1980's.


Good job, I'd say.



Hmm...

On Oct 30, 4:09 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:42:13 -0700, Manster wrote:
Overall.......but what about the inflation rates in healthcare, housing,
etc. Some of those costs are just now starting to gain. In 1960
healthcare was only 5.1% of GDP, in 1985 it was 10.1%, 2003 had it at
15.3%....and estimates are that by 2013 it will be at 18.4%. In the last
40 years annual per capita costs for healthcare have gone from $143 to
$5670.

Just imagine how expensive it will be when it is "free"

The problem is most people with great insurance today (namely big
union employees) do think health care is free. They pay their measly
$50 co-pay when they go to the doctor and they forget the rest. IOW
they never bother to ask the price when they go to the doctor or need
a procedure. When I needed a colonoscopy on my self-pay HSA I called
a few hospitals to get their prices, none of them could/would tell me
the price. Some even laughed at me and wondered why I need to know
that (because I'm paying out of pocket I exclaimed). The politicials
should COMPEL and REQUIRE hospitals to publish their prices publicly,
then we'll see real changes when people actually start asking them
what their price is and the medical community realizes it has to beat
the competition to stay in business. Right now the health care
"market" is not really a market, because real markets have open price
disclosure with customers shopping for value.

In article ,
Manster wrote:



Overall.......but what about the inflation rates in healthcare, housing,
etc. Some of those costs are just now starting to gain. In 1960
healthcare was only 5.1% of GDP, in 1985 it was 10.1%, 2003 had it at
15.3%....and estimates are that by 2013 it will be at 18.4%. In the last
40 years annual per capita costs for healthcare have gone from $143 to
$5670.
Inflation in healthcare is largely driven by the 80% subsidy of
cost, including the out-of-pocket part of the premiums) by others. Does
all sorts of nasty stuff to demand and thus costs. Especially with high
barriers to entry in the market..it takes 8-10 years to "build" a new
doctor. Also health inflation is overstated by the gross figures.



"Workers with employer-sponsored health insurance will often experience
reductions in real (after adjusting for inflation) wages reductions (or
wage growth) in response to health care cost growth. The empirical
evidence has tended to show that health care cost increases are offset
by either direct wage reductions, increased employee cost sharing, or in
instances where wages are fixed (i.e., unionized contracts), by
increases in the number of hours worked."

- - From here - http://tinyurl.com/2tqxgx

This because health insurance has ALWAYS been part of the pay package.



Tax revenues are up 37% since the Bush tax cuts took effect.

I've heard this, if it's "true", why is the deficit still growing?? Must
be because the administration is spending it all....and more. And in the
meantime we've got people without healthcare, our infrastructure is
crumbling.....etc.

Because pretty much everyone in DC is ignoring the spending side. If
rev are up, the only way the deficit can go up (and it has been
shrinking again the last couple of years) is if spending goes up more.
Inflation in US government spending has been even higher than health
inflation over the years. Don't know why so many people zero in on rev
and studiously ignore spending.. .although probably because spending is
so much more fun.

In article . com,
RickH wrote:

the competition to stay in business. Right now the health care
"market" is not really a market, because real markets have open price
disclosure with customers shopping for value.

Since the 60s the office of the actuary for Medicare has done a yearly
survey of the health accounts. They have found that since '64 or so the
out-of-pcoket expense (including OOP for premiums) of all healthcare in
the US has gone down from around 50% to around 18%. At the same time,
the % of GDP for healthcare has gone in the opposite direction.
Coincedence? I think not. (g). You subsidize 80% of anything and see
what happens to the costs.
ALso those who pay for insurance (mostly employers) are not the ones
who actually use it. If you look at from this standpoint, the price
containment actions of hte insurance companies make perfect sense since
their main customer isn't the patient, but the employer.
Generally, I point these issues out and then suggest that we might
want to actually TRY free market healthcare before we ditch the option.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:42:13 -0700, Manster wrote Re
McCain Alert:

Inflation is below 2%

If you exlude food and energy it's below 2%. If you exclude everything
else, it's 0%.

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:33:35 -0700, RickH
wrote:

When I needed a colonoscopy on my self-pay HSA I called
a few hospitals to get their prices,

To paraphrase one of the astronauts (no pun intended)
"It doesn't give you a confident feeling when the guy who has a pipe 5
feet up youir ass was the lowest bidder"

Of course you are also likely to get ripped off by the highest
bidder.

larry moe 'n curly, 10/27/2007,12:41:07 AM, wrote:

IOW John McCain wasn't a coward like George W. Bush or a traitor.
McCain is an American hero.

You're right. John McCain is not a coward like Bill Clinton who fled
to Canada to avoid duty to his nation.

--
"A zebra does not change its spots." ~ Al Gore

, 10/27/2007,4:28:45 PM, wrote:

On Oct 27, 4:01?pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
McCain is on the same page with Hillary Clinton, Edwards and every
other Republican candidate except Ron Paul.
The Lieberman wing of the Democratic party is as big a bunch of
war hawks as the republicans. That is most of the North East and
left coast delegation. They like to bitch about the way Bush is
running the war but they still want the war.
If you want out, you need to vote for Obama or Ron Paul.

Makes sense, but why would anybody want out?

the war is lost despite the improved conditions today.

we cant remain forever costs will bankrupt us, and our presence
prevents a political solution.

I think O Bama should come out promising to withdraw all troops within
90 days of being sworn in as president.

this would get him tons of votes and put the heat on the seats of
iraquis to settle the mess we created.


How much faster can you run to surrender?

--
"Defeat is worse than death because you have to live with defeat." ~
Bill Musselman

On Oct 31, 6:37 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:33:35 -0700, RickH
wrote:

When I needed a colonoscopy on my self-pay HSA I called
a few hospitals to get their prices,

To paraphrase one of the astronauts (no pun intended)
"It doesn't give you a confident feeling when the guy who has a pipe 5
feet up youir ass was the lowest bidder"

Of course you are also likely to get ripped off by the highest
bidder.

Actually I wound up going to a stand-alone gastro center, they told me
the price up front, they had a fully-staffed mini-hospital that only
does gastro scopes with several specialists on hand, nurses, emergency
capabilities, etc. I paid $650 and was done in about 3 hours time,
they treated me like a king. The hospital would have cost me close to
$3000. They even took credit cards. Health service delivery in
general needs to move to this model and out from behind the "Iron
Curtain" of hospitals who just specialize in price fixing with their
buddies in the insurance industry.

On Oct 29, 1:30 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:

Most of US's protecting of Israel takes place in equipping them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You mean, we give them money, which they spend buying armaments from
US companies, so the US government does't have to just give the money
to the companies directly which would be embarrassing.

Then they end up testing the arms for us in combat conditions. Back
when the big bad Soviet Union was equipping the Arabs with Migs etc.
it was a good system for everybody. Much better than us actually
skirmishing with the Russians directly, which could develop into
problems.

On Oct 29, 4:51 pm, wrote:

We are in Iraq because Saddam was a danger to Israel. He was not going
to take a shot at the US and he was more than happy to sell oil to
Exxon.

How the hell was saddam a danger to Israel? He wasn't even a danger to
Kuwait any more. If you would have asked any israeli in 2003, and I
did, they'd look puzzled and tell you that Iran was their biggest
danger and Syria second, and Iraq and Lybia were no longer in the
running.

On Oct 29, 2:31 pm, Caesar Romano wrote:

He's a "Rockefeller" (liberal) Republican.

You mean, he doesn't think homosexuals are the greatest threat to
America. Shocking.