"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


By that logic, an airliner that crashed when it came in for landing
had a pretty good flight considering that nothing went wrong until
right at the end.

It was a good flight until the terrorists burst into the cockpit and drove
the plane into the ditch. And yeah, I'd give the keys to the plane back to
the proven pilots - but I'd strengthen the cockpit door.

Except there were no terrorists on this flight, there was an executive with
a rubber-stamp Congress that did what it was told, and a Veep who said to
the Treasury Sec. that Reagan had proved deficits don't matter (so doubling
the federal debt wasn't going to be a problem). Maybe one day some
apologist for the Repubs will explain why deficits under a Republican admin
don't matter but the ones the Dems are in charge of are horrific, not to
mention how the invasion of Iraq will pay for itself, and where those pesky
WMDs got to and so on.

Geez I hope you goofs choose Palin for the 2012 ticket, top or bottom, she's
too funny not to watch try it again, you betchya!

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...


"Fred" wrote in message
...

Good point. During the first six years of the Bush administration
unemployment averaged 5%, the stock market topped 14,000, there were
24 consecutive months of economic growth. All this in spite of two
wars, Katrina, and 9/11.

By that logic, an airliner that crashed when it came in for landing had
a pretty good flight considering that nothing went wrong until right at
the end.

when the shoe shine boy took over the captains seat.

It's nice when genetic bottlenecks like you announce themselves in plain
language, usually you cross-burner types try to conceal your true nature
if you can.

He's a Squidbilly.

Jim

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...

I'm not sure which planet you inhabit. But, where I am, the Dems have
spent several trillion dollars, and enacted all manner of legislation
that really killed the economy.


The federal debt doubled under Bush 43, the CBO said a couple of years ago
that the cost of the war in Iraq would be well over two trillion once the
interest on that debt was paid. Can you quote yourself vigorously
protesting that deficit spending at the time?

Oh, and in case you missed it, the economy crashed when that Bush fella was
still in charge, and the signs of what was coming had been apparent (at
least to some people) for quite some time. Your depiction that it all
happened only when the Dems took over is delusion.

HeyBub wrote:


He actually did quite well. For the first six years we had
unemployment below 5%, the DJIA above 14,000, almost no inflation, 25
consecutive quarters of economic growth, and so on. All this in spite
of two wars, Katrina, and 9/11.


Don't forget the lowest job growth since WW II.

HeyBub wrote:
Bob F wrote:
Steve B wrote:

Wrong, moron. Congress does Barry's bidding, and the Supreme Court
appointees back it up legislating from the bench, even though that's
not their branch of government.

Supreme court legislating from the bench? Do you mean the right wing
supreme court? The one that took a simple case and turned it into the
biggest threat to democracy in our history by giving corporations and
billionaires the right to buy our elections?

Leaving the constitutional arguments aside, the answer to political
speech is more political speech, not less. And to the degree that
removing restrictions enlarges the dialog, the better.


I hope you enjoy Repulicorp. Corporate rule will be the obvvious result. That or
revolution.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


Obama doesn't make the law, Congress does. And in case it's escaped
your eagle eye, in Congress the Republicans have done about
everything they can to delay, disrupt and simply stop the Dems from
doing almost anything. Lone Republican legislators have used every
trick in the book to hold up federal appointments, but we're supposed
to believe the party as a whole would have cooperated if Obama had
asked them to? What color is the sky on your planet?

I agree Congress makes the laws. For example, they passed new health care
legislation. But this new law is known as "Obamacare," not "Congresscare."
We won't know whether the tax law situation would be different today if
the president had pushed for action. But he should have.

It's called Obamacare by people who think in terms of bumper-stickers,
although The Bush Recession does have a nice ring to it.

It is hilarious to claim that although the Repubs fought everything the Dems
have wanted to do tooth and nail, they would have cooperated on this issue
if only they'd have been asked nicely.

As for Republicans stopping the Dems, that's what they were born to do.
It's what they were trained to do. It's what they need to do. For honor's
sake. For duty's sake. For glory's sake. [to paraphrase a movie
voice-over]

No, just for the sake of lusting after power, of winning the next election
without regard for the harm they cause in the process. And if there never
were any Death Panels, well it sure made a good bumper-sticker.

Regarding the holding up appointments, sigh, if only. Look at Obama's
cabinet: almost all come from government or academia. Very few (like two -
Treasury and AG) have any recent experience in the private sector.

Yeah, that guy who runs the Veteran's Administration, who told Obama that
mutt knew anything about dealing with military people? Although I do seem
to recall he once told Congress that the proposed occupation force for Iraq
was far too small and many tens of thousands more troops would be needed to
secure the country--after which the Bush administration heaped scorn on him
and cut him out of the loop until he retired. Yup, pretty sure it's the
same guy. Imagine, putting a former soldier in charge of the VA, like the
Chief of Staff of the Army has any administrative experience--what a rookie
move.

"The private sector"--LOL, like those geniuses on Wall St. And only in
right-wingnutville would a successful Sec. Def. from a Republican
administration be dismissed as a "holdover". The Bush system--like putting
a former mining industry lobbyist in charge of the National Parks--is of
course preferable to Republicans. No need to have some fuzzy-thinking
scientist or whatever in a job which clearly calls for someone who puts
corporate profits ahead of crap like preservation.

You crack me up, you really do.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...



Much of the time, the Dems had a fillibuster proof majority in the
Senate. The problems they had governing were ALL related to THEIR
recalcitrant members. Never have been able to figure out why a lack of
discipline within the Dems is somehow the fault of the GOP.

That's a good point, it is true that the Dems don't seem to be able to set
up rubber-stamp Congresses like the Repubs can.

On the other hand, Republican proposals for for health care legislation,
which when adopted by the Dems are instantly rejected and are opposed by the
Republicans--that would seem to be the fault of the GOP. If Romney runs
again in 2012 it will be interesting to see how he doubles-back on this
issue, how mandated insurance was good when he signed-off on it, bad when
Obama did the same.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/pos...hting_for.html

Why Democrats are fighting for a Republican health plan

Here is the ultimate paradox of the Great Health Care Showdown: Congress
will divide along partisan lines to pass a Republican version of health care
reform, and Republicans will vote against it.

Yes, Democrats have rallied behind a bill that Republicans -- or at least
large numbers of them -- should love. It is built on a series of principles
that Republicans espoused for years.

Republicans have said that they do not want to destroy the private insurance
market. This bill not only preserves that market but strengthens it by
bringing in millions of new customers. The plan before Congress does not
call for a government “takeover” of health care. It provides subsidies so
more people can buy private insurance.

Republicans always say they are against “socialized medicine.” Not only is
this bill nothing like a “single-payer” health system along Canadian or
British lines. It doesn’t even include the “public option” that would have
allowed people voluntarily to buy their insurance from the government. The
single-payer idea fell by the wayside long ago, and supporters of the public
option -- sadly, from my point of view -- lost out last December.

They’ll be back, of course. The newly pragmatic Rep. Dennis Kucinich
(D-Ohio) was right to say that this is just the first step in a long
process. We will see if this market-based system works. If it doesn’t,
single-payer plans and public options will look more attractive.

Republican reform advocates have long called for a better insurance market.
Our current system provides individuals with little market power in the
purchase of health insurance. As a result, they typically pay exorbitant
premiums. The new insurance exchanges will pool individuals together and
give them a fighting chance at a fair shake.

Republicans now say they hate the mandate that requires everyone to buy
insurance. But an individual mandate was hailed as a form of “personal
responsibility” by no less a conservative Republican than Mitt Romney. He
was proud of the mandate, and also proud of the insurance exchange idea,
known in Massachusetts as “The Health Connector” (the idea itself came from
the conservative Heritage Foundation). Romney had a right to be proud. As
governor of Massachusetts in 2006, he signed a bill that is the closest
thing there is to a model for what the Democrats are proposing.


Don’t believe me on this? On The Wall Street Journal’s opinion page earlier
this week, Grace-Marie Turner -- criticizing Romney from the right, it
should be said -- noted the startling similarities between the plan he
approved and the one President Obama is fighting for.

“Both have an individual mandate requiring most residents to have health
insurance or pay a penalty,” she wrote. “Most businesses are required to
participate or pay a fine. Both rely on government-designed purchasing
exchanges that also provide a platform to control private health insurance.
Many of the uninsured are covered through Medicaid expansion and others
receive subsidies for highly prescriptive policies. And the apparatus
requires a plethora of new government boards and agencies.”

She added: “While it's true that the liberal Massachusetts Legislature did
turn Mr. Romney's plan to the left, his claims that his plan is ‘entirely
different’ will not stand up to the intense scrutiny of a presidential
campaign, especially a primary challenge.”

What does it tell us that Republicans are now opposing a bill rooted in so
many of their own principles? Why has it fallen to Democrats to push the
thing through?

The obvious lesson is that the balance of opinion in the Republican Party
has swung far to the right of where it used to be. Republicans once believed
in market-based government solutions. Now they are suspicious of government
solutions altogether. That’s true even in an area such as health care where
government, through Medicare and Medicaid, already plays a necessarily large
role.

As for the Democrats, they have been both pragmatic and moderate, despite
all the claims that this plan is “left wing” or “socialist.” It is neither.

You could argue that Democrats have learned from Republicans. Some might say
that Democrats have been less than true to their principles.

But there is a simpler conclusion: Democrats, including President Obama, are
so anxious to get everyone health insurance that they are more than willing
to try a market-based system and hope it works. It’s a shame the Republicans
can no longer take “yes” for an answer.

"Steve B" wrote in message ...


Wrong, moron. Congress does Barry's bidding, and the Supreme Court
appointees back it up legislating from the bench, even though that's not
their branch of government.

Steve

You're not getting any smarter, are you.

Explain something, Einstein--if Congress does what the President wants, what
happened to the Public Option in the health care bill that finally passed?
Obama campaigned on that and pushed for it through much of the legislative
debate, so how come Congress said no?

Don't bother, anything you post will just be another bumper-sticker slogan
from the right-wingnut-o-sphere, that seems to be all you're capable of.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...

I don't believe that for a second. The Dems (such as Clinton and his
"worked harder than he has for anything ever but can't giv you a tax
cut) are the party of raised taxes.

Would that be the Clinton who delivered a balanced budget, who actually had
an $86 billion surplus his last year in office, that Clinton? And what
happened after that, oh yeah, spending skyrocketed and taxes were cut,
leaving us with a federal debt that doubled under the Bush administration.

See any problems in your theory of economics there sparky?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


So long as the law allows corporations to pour billions into "campaign
donations" it will never change, not much. When corporate lobbyists
write the laws supposed to ensure oversight of the industries that
hire those lobbyists, well what should we expect to happen?

Heh! Until this year, corporations COULDN'T make independent expenditures
on behalf of a federal candidate. Now they can.

But they could give truckloads of money to the *party* of choice (which for
corporations is more the Repubs) and the party can do as it pleases with
that money. Isn't it funny how someone that money always finds its way to
where the donors wanted it to go? Mr. Abramoff certainly knew how to make
that happen, although sadly he and a whole string of Republicans he was
helping ended up in jail, so sad.

Lobbyists are the experts on pending legislation. They know how a new law
might affect their industry. Congress and regulators need expert input.

Lovely, so the Repubs passed a prescription drug benefits bill that was
written by drug company lobbyists, with the result that Medicare was
prohibited from negotiating lower drugs prices with those companies the way
the VA does. One small problem, they forgot to work out funding, so the
legislation added umpteen billions to the federal debt--but the drug
companies get paid, oh you can count on that. Say, that's some dandy expert
input for sure.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

Who figured the feds shouldn't need a court order to listen to your
phone calls or read your e-mails?

Governments have been monitoring enemy electronic communications since the
Recent Unplesantness when both Union and Confederate forces tapped the
telegraph lines of their opposition. Early on, we broke the Japanese
"Purple Code," and the British did the same with the "Enigma" project on
German codes.

Those who dismiss this project harken back to the day when the Secretary
of State said: "Gentelmen do not read each others mail" as he closed the
State Department's codebreaking office.

What part of the difference between "enemy" and "American citizen" is too
complicated for you?

The way it used to work was if the cops wanted to tap your phone or read
your mail they had to convince a judge to sign off on it. There was even a
special court where they could go if it was a national security issue that
couldn't be discussed in open court. Now, they just send your ISP a
Security Letter and the ISP rolls over, no need to wake up a judge and
explain why they want to spy on a citizen on his native soil. And you
figure that's a good thing?

To his discredit, Obama opposed this while running for office and said he
would end the practice. Not only has he not done so, he apparently proposed
to expand the practice--just one of many reasons I am disappointed in the
the Obama administration.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...

Who took the cop off the beat on Wall St.?

Both parties.

In large part true, but the legislation was crafted by Repubs, although Bill
Clinton signed it with glee and defends doing so still.

Who doubled the federal debt in large part due to an unjustified war,
which
according to the CBO will end up costing well over two trillion dollars
(much of it borrowed from our dear friend China)?

Which had what to do with the collapse?

According to the Repubs currently running for office, deficits are the
worst, most horrible thing imaginable and are directly responsible for
everything from unemployment to bad breath. Except when *they* run
deficits, then, according to former VP Cheney, they don't matter. So
*logically* if huge deficits are so bad for the economy, Bush's huge
deficits must have been bad too.

Who decided torturing prisoners was a good way to go?

Which had what to do with the collapse?

Didn't say it did, I was making a list.

Who figured the feds shouldn't need a court order to listen to your phone
calls or read your e-mails?


Which had what to do with the collapse.

Full marks for determination, but Thread Drift is a law of nature, sorry
about that.

Who was President when TARP was signed into law, who bailed out GM and
Chrysler and AIG?

After the election, Bush did nothing without consulting with Obama
and at the behest of a Dem-controlled Congress (which okayed it all).

And then he signed his name at the bottom. If we're going to give Clinton
discredit for signing those deregulation bills which helped turn Wall St.
into a casino run by lunatics, then Bush gets his share for signing huge
bailout legislation which today the Repubs would rather lay at the doorstep
of the Dems.

In other words, Einstein, who was in charge when all this **** hit the
fan?

So, who is in charge now that the **** storm is continuing.

Fellow named Obama, and he's paying the price. But it remains that if your
brother-in-law crashes your car, blaming the mechanic who doesn't fix it as
fast as hoped is an odd way to look at it.

I have no illusions about the Dems being incompetent and corrupt if
they're
left in office long enough, they are no different from the Repubs in that
respect. But I am astonished at how short the memories of some folks
are,
people who apparently believe that the clowns who aimed the ship at the
rocks are the ones we should now trust not to do it again.

The Dems committed the Only Unforgivable Sin in politics, they
overpromised and underdelivered.

Yup, I wonder if the Repub leadership was really, truly sorry that McCain
didn't win in 2008. I guessed then that we wouldn't see significant
economic improvement until 2011-12, and if they thought the same they might
have been pleased to know the Dems would take the hit, not the Repubs.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...

Without the Bush tax cuts, we'd have a sluggish economy like now.

Conveniently ignoring that for most of Clinton's time in office the economy
was doing pretty good. Growth averaged 4%, median family income increased
$6,000, unemployment was the lowest in 30 years. How come a smart fella
like you didn't notice any of that?

Deficits are caused by liberals spending more than the revenue. Please
do not blame tax payers for deficits. Deficits are caused by spending.

What about Bush's deficits? The federal debt doubled while he was in
office, most of that time with a Repub Congress, remember? Could it just be
possible that tax cuts at a time of increased spending also produces
deficits? Or is that some kind of tricky liberal doublespeak and you know
better than to believe it even if you can't say why?

"JimT" wrote in message
net...


You are arguing economics with a guy that can't figure out how to post
properly.

Just sayin'

Jim

Or how to do much of anything else judging by most of his posts. I'm
waiting for the day when he asks for help tying his shoes.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


By that logic, an airliner that crashed when it came in for landing
had a pretty good flight considering that nothing went wrong until
right at the end.

It was a good flight until the terrorists burst into the cockpit and
drove the plane into the ditch. And yeah, I'd give the keys to the plane
back to the proven pilots - but I'd strengthen the cockpit door.

Except there were no terrorists on this flight, there was an executive
with a rubber-stamp Congress that did what it was told, and a Veep who
said to the Treasury Sec. that Reagan had proved deficits don't matter (so
doubling the federal debt wasn't going to be a problem). Maybe one day
some apologist for the Repubs will explain why deficits under a Republican
admin don't matter but the ones the Dems are in charge of are horrific,
not to mention how the invasion of Iraq will pay for itself, and where
those pesky WMDs got to and so on.



That's an interesting point about Iraq. Remember how all that oil revenue
was going to make the war as cheap as a trip to Wendy's? And the war was
going to be over in 6-8 months, according to the lunatic Rumsfeld.

On 10/28/2010 2:56 AM, DGDevin wrote:
"JimT" wrote in message
net...


You are arguing economics with a guy that can't figure out how to post
properly.

Just sayin'

Jim

Or how to do much of anything else judging by most of his posts. I'm
waiting for the day when he asks for help tying his shoes.

Oh, I agree, on both counts.

And if he hadn't started this I wouldn't be saying anything. But, I
think he deserves a bit of abuse. I'm rather tired of those on the right
that are so smug and confident that they don't realize how clueless they
are.

I note that O'Donnell has joined Palin in being so opposed to
activist Supreme Court Decisions but being unable to name a single one.
When they start this, they need to be called out.

Jeff

On 10/27/2010 9:13 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I like the "less government" plan.

Goes right along with your "less thinking" plan.

Jeff

On 10/27/2010 9:09 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I'd trade Barry for a potato chip, today.

You would say or do anything senseless. It's your thing.

Jeff

On 10/28/2010 1:36 AM, Bob F wrote:
HeyBub wrote:


He actually did quite well. For the first six years we had
unemployment below 5%, the DJIA above 14,000, almost no inflation, 25
consecutive quarters of economic growth, and so on. All this in spite
of two wars, Katrina, and 9/11.


Don't forget the lowest job growth since WW II.


They all forget that. Student coming out of college and gong right
back home. Unemployment figures never go up when there is no hope of a job.

The whole W economy was an inflated bit of nothing built on deficit
spending and an overinflated housing market set for collapse. What is
the W legacy other than gross mismanagement?

Jeff

In article ,
"CK Lumbernickle" wrote:


By Fannie & Freddie, you mean the American Dream Down Payment Act of 2003?
The previous administration pushed the envelope with their brainstorm. It
was working rather well, until American Dream Down Payment Act of 2003.
Tell us again who controlled everything then.

You mean the one that was passedby voice vote by both the House and
Senate? Hard to put that one solely on Mr. Bush when everybody agreed to
it.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

In article ,
"CK Lumbernickle" wrote:




Frank said that in Sept of 2003. Kathy Harris was the credited by Bush for
being the architect of the American Dream Down Payment in Dec 2003.

Yet Franks apparently voted for it.



It then went to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on Jul 28, 2005.
I was unable to find a vote on this. Since the final approval was
unanimous and unrecorded, this vote is usually interesting.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:


It's called Obamacare by people who think in terms of bumper-stickers,
although The Bush Recession does have a nice ring to it.

It is hilarious to claim that although the Repubs fought everything the Dems
have wanted to do tooth and nail, they would have cooperated on this issue
if only they'd have been asked nicely.

Wasn't tried, so who knows. Actually the Dems biggest problem was other
Dems. They had a filibuster proof majority for a large period of time
yet couldn't get the bill through. Then the voters of MA actually voted
in a GOP Senator (first time since the Flood, which shoulda been a clue
right there) and the Dems ended up passing a bill that was never
supposed to be anything but a vehicle to get enough votes to get
something to conference.
Although over the years, I have come to the conclusion that both
sides view bipartisanship as agreeing to everything I say, already.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

On the other hand, Republican proposals for for health care legislation,
which when adopted by the Dems are instantly rejected and are opposed by the
Republicans--that would seem to be the fault of the GOP. If Romney runs
again in 2012 it will be interesting to see how he doubles-back on this
issue, how mandated insurance was good when he signed-off on it, bad when
Obama did the same.
Which was? If you are talking about MA, Romney was finding out
that it really wasn't working there.
€ High costs: On average, health insurance now costs $14,723 for a
family of four in Massachusetts, compared to $13,027 nationally. That's
nearly 12 percent higher than the national average. Reform has not made
insurance more affordable.
€ Rising costs: John Cogan of Stanford University and colleagues
found that since the state's reform initiative passed, premiums for
private employer-sponsored health insurance for individuals increased by
an additional six percent in aggregate in Massachusetts compared to the
nation as a whole. It's even worse for small-group coverage: These
health insurance costs grew 14 percent more than in the country as a
whole from 2006 to 2008, putting "a very large burden on small
businesses and their employees," the authors write.
€ Dropping insurance: As a result, some small Massachusetts
employers are dropping health insurance and sending their workers into
the taxpayer-funded health insurance pool. They say they have no choice
because of relentlessly rising costs.

(Sound familiar, only the current US plan seems to be dooming big
business insurance programs, too).

€ With more than two-thirds of the newly insured in Massachusetts
receiving taxpayer-supported coverage, it will put additional pressure
on the already stressed state budget if more employers opt to pay the
fine instead of offering coverage.
€ More ER visits: Reformers promised that covering everyone would
eliminate the problem of uninsured people going to the emergency room
and "free-riding" on paying customers. But the number of people visiting
hospital emergency rooms is increasing in Massachusetts.
€ According to new state data, emergency room visits rose by nine
percent from 2004 to 2008, to about three million visits a year. The
report from the Division of Health Care Finance and Policy found that
Romney's health reform law may have contributed to the increase.
€ One reason: More people have health insurance, but many can't find
a doctor to see them so they go to the ER. Last year only 44 percent of
internal medicine practices were accepting new patients, down from 66
percent in 2005, according to the Massachusetts Division of Health Care
Finance and Policy.
(We are seeing this already in MCare and especially MCaid with
fewer primary care, and even many specialties, not taking any more
federal patients since MCare pays only about 80% of what the Mean And
Nasty Private insurance companies pay for the same procedure. MCaid pays
even less).
€ Gaming the system: The Massachusetts Division of Insurance
reported in June that the number of people who are buying coverage for
short periods more than quadrupled in the three years since passage of
the state's reform law, driving up costs for others.
€ The incentives in Massachusetts invite this behavior: Insurance
companies are required to sell policies to anyone who applies
("guaranteed issue") at the same prices as other applicants who have
maintained coverage ("community rating"). This gives short-termers a
free ride but drives up the cost of insurance for people who maintain
continual coverage.
€ Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts reports that more
people are jumping in and out of coverage as they need medical services.
The typical monthly premium for short-term members was $400, but their
average claims exceeded $2,200 per month. Other insurers have witnessed
a similar pattern.
€ Some opt to pay the smaller penalty for not being insured rather
than pay expensive premiums to maintain coverage. The incentives for
this are even worse in the federal legislation.

Massachusetts says it has reduced the percentage of its citizens without
health insurance to about three percent (down from 9 percent percent in
2005, according to the U.S. Census Bureau), but 68 percent of the newly
insured receive coverage that is heavily or completely subsidized by



http://voices.washingtonpost.com/pos...ats_are_fighti
ng_for.html

Oh yeah, let's make sure we take a Liberal's view of what the GOP
wants and the healthcare bill is. This is just sooo weak.


Republicans now say they hate the mandate that requires everyone to buy
insurance. But an individual mandate was hailed as a form of ³personal
responsibility² by no less a conservative Republican than Mitt Romney. He
was proud of the mandate, and also proud of the insurance exchange idea,
known in Massachusetts as ³The Health Connector² (the idea itself came from
the conservative Heritage Foundation). Romney had a right to be proud. As
governor of Massachusetts in 2006, he signed a bill that is the closest
thing there is to a model for what the Democrats are proposing.

Until it actually got passed and he had to implement it.


What does it tell us that Republicans are now opposing a bill rooted in so
many of their own principles? Why has it fallen to Democrats to push the
thing through?


What does it tell us that the Democrats are deciding what are the
GOP's principles?


The obvious lesson is that the balance of opinion in the Republican Party
has swung far to the right of where it used to be. Republicans once believed
in market-based government solutions. Now they are suspicious of government
solutions altogether. That¹s true even in an area such as health care where
government, through Medicare and Medicaid, already plays a necessarily large
role.
Yeah. MCare is a good example. A program that is going bankrupt,
requires people to spend large amounts of money on supplemental
insurance (even before Part D), and pays so little (because IT sets the
rates not the marketplace) that many docs are cutting back or leaving
the program. What's not to love?


But there is a simpler conclusion: Democrats, including President Obama, are
so anxious to get everyone health insurance that they are more than willing
to try a market-based system and hope it works. It¹s a shame the Republicans
can no longer take ³yes² for an answer.
BS on this. Heck there hasn't been a market-based health care
system in the US since around late 70s. That was roughly the time where
the out-of-pocket expenses (including the o-o-p part of the premium)
fell to 20% or below. When something is subsidized to the tune of 80%
(whether it be by government or employer) you can hardly suggest free
market is involved. Over and above the problems that occur when the
people who pay for the plan are not the people who use it.
The interesting thing may be from this HC plan is that it finally
divorces entirely the health insurance from the employment and makes
everyone responsible for their own expenditures. THAT brings the free
market back into play for the first time in ages.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...

I don't believe that for a second. The Dems (such as Clinton and his
"worked harder than he has for anything ever but can't giv you a tax
cut) are the party of raised taxes.

Would that be the Clinton who delivered a balanced budget, who actually had
an $86 billion surplus his last year in office, that Clinton? And what
happened after that, oh yeah, spending skyrocketed and taxes were cut,
leaving us with a federal debt that doubled under the Bush administration.
The one whose surplus had already peaked and indeed been cut by 1/2
in one year from the best. Also, the FY 2002 would have been the first
under Bush since 2001 should have been in place by October of 2000.


See any problems in your theory of economics there sparky?
One is that a lot of this was related the fortunate timing of the
Dot Com bubble and the resultant boom). Some was related to easy money
from the Fed. Much was related to the GOP who were able to (Largely)
save him from his baser instincts and stop his big tax increase during
his first year in office. Also note that the economy REALLY took off
following his tax DECREASE in capital gains.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


So long as the law allows corporations to pour billions into "campaign
donations" it will never change, not much. When corporate lobbyists
write the laws supposed to ensure oversight of the industries that
hire those lobbyists, well what should we expect to happen?

Heh! Until this year, corporations COULDN'T make independent expenditures
on behalf of a federal candidate. Now they can.

But they could give truckloads of money to the *party* of choice (which for
corporations is more the Repubs) and the party can do as it pleases with
that money. Isn't it funny how someone that money always finds its way to
where the donors wanted it to go? Mr. Abramoff certainly knew how to make
that happen, although sadly he and a whole string of Republicans he was
helping ended up in jail, so sad.

As did Soros as did the unions.


Lovely, so the Repubs passed a prescription drug benefits bill that was
written by drug company lobbyists, with the result that Medicare was
prohibited from negotiating lower drugs prices with those companies the way
the VA does.
Of course the VA is buying for itself, just like the local hospital
chain. Out of curiosity, how would you feel if Wellpoint or Aetna
started their own pharmacies and negotiated lower prices? That is the
better analogy.
Also, studies showed that drug costs went down substantially for
Prt D participants, since the insurance companies had a new pool of
people and more clout with the sellers.


One small problem, they forgot to work out funding, so the
legislation added umpteen billions to the federal debt--but the drug
companies get paid, oh you can count on that. Say, that's some dandy expert
input for sure.
Agree with that particular part, although the AARP (which if you
look at its income statements is largely an insurance company any more
yet gets a bye) helped the insurance companies work that through for the
sake of the oldsters.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

Kurt Ullman wrote:

-snip-

What does it tell us that the Democrats are deciding what are the
GOP's principles?

I'll let Mitch McConnell speak for the GOP principles. After all he
is their leader in the senate-
Last weekend when asked what the Repubs goals were, he answered;
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President
Obama to be a one-term president,"

I give him credit for honesty.

Jim

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...

Who took the cop off the beat on Wall St.?

Both parties.

In large part true, but the legislation was crafted by Repubs, although Bill
Clinton signed it with glee and defends doing so still.
And was passed with only about 5 dissenting votes in the House (one
of whom was Barney Franks who has done so consistently over the years in
similar legislation and thus about the only leader of either party has
any right to pontificate on any of this) and was passed by a voice vote
in the Senate. Unless the GOP has some sort of mind control drug over
the Dems, they voted for it right along with GOP. They then can't say
that this is all the GOPs fault, like they could on a largely party line
vote.




Who doubled the federal debt in large part due to an unjustified war,
which
according to the CBO will end up costing well over two trillion dollars
(much of it borrowed from our dear friend China)?

Which had what to do with the collapse?

According to the Repubs currently running for office, deficits are the
worst, most horrible thing imaginable and are directly responsible for
everything from unemployment to bad breath. Except when *they* run
deficits, then, according to former VP Cheney, they don't matter. So
*logically* if huge deficits are so bad for the economy, Bush's huge
deficits must have been bad too.

You most likely know that I agree on deficits, but again, the Dems
certainly got at least their share of earmarks, etc. and thus gave up
any right to the deficit hawk mantle. Actually the main problem is that
after a few years in power, the GOP noted how much fun it was to spend
money and joined the Dems in the fun. There was NOBODY any more ever
pretending they had a hand on the spigot.
Rather interesting stat. Compared the 5 years before the GOP took
over in '94, the annual %age increase in spending went along at a pretty
consistent pace. In the next 5 years, spending still grew, but at a rate
averaging about .5% less. By '00 or so, the spending was back up to what
it was prior to the GOP takeover, and took off soon after that.


Who decided torturing prisoners was a good way to go?

Which had what to do with the collapse?

Didn't say it did, I was making a list.
Okay. But you made the biggest part of your post about the deficit
and then started your list. I was wondering if you were trying to
connect the two. ALthough it seemed strange, since there was no
transition, I wasn't sure.


Who figured the feds shouldn't need a court order to listen to your phone
calls or read your e-mails?


Which had what to do with the collapse.

Full marks for determination, but Thread Drift is a law of nature, sorry
about that.
See above.


And then he signed his name at the bottom. If we're going to give Clinton
discredit for signing those deregulation bills which helped turn Wall St.
into a casino run by lunatics, then Bush gets his share for signing huge
bailout legislation which today the Repubs would rather lay at the doorstep
of the Dems.

I agree. In fact, much of this I think is related to his
administration's throwing Lehman Brothers overboard. Until that time,
there had been problems, but they were still being managed through
shotgun marriages and other means by the Feds and Treasury, etc. We were
muddling through and there had been relatively little money actually
sent out the door.
Then, in a rather abrupt change in behavior, they took out Lehman.
The one thing the market hates more than anything is uncertainty and
Lehman brought that about in spades, freezing everything and multiplying
the problems.
Can't say that we would have survived otherwise, this was a time
where EVERYBODY was highly leveraged and no one (govt., consumer, big
and small businesses) had any extra to bring out and spend. Which
exacerbated the problems and helped (along with the Fed paying higher
interest rates for banks to park money with it than they could get
elsewhere with the associated dislocations) the resultant slow recovery.

Yup, I wonder if the Repub leadership was really, truly sorry that McCain
didn't win in 2008. I guessed then that we wouldn't see significant
economic improvement until 2011-12, and if they thought the same they might
have been pleased to know the Dems would take the hit, not the Repubs.

I retrospect, probably. At the time, I saw nothing that indicated
they were any less caught up in the "fact" that things were different
this time and we were working with a new paradigm. Always reason to my
mind to convert to cash and gold (grin).
I still think Mr. Greenspan still summed it up the best. "They
[financial crises] are all different, but they have one fundamental
source," he said. "That is the unquenchable capability of human beings
when confronted with long periods of prosperity to presume that it will
continue."

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...

Without the Bush tax cuts, we'd have a sluggish economy like now.

Conveniently ignoring that for most of Clinton's time in office the economy
was doing pretty good. Growth averaged 4%, median family income increased
$6,000, unemployment was the lowest in 30 years. How come a smart fella
like you didn't notice any of that?
But the growth was faster in the second half after his tax cut.
Interesting chart, that one. (g).

What about Bush's deficits? The federal debt doubled while he was in
office, most of that time with a Repub Congress, remember? Could it just be
possible that tax cuts at a time of increased spending also produces
deficits? Or is that some kind of tricky liberal doublespeak and you know
better than to believe it even if you can't say why?
Increased spending being the operative variable though. Don't know
if it would still work, but a bunch of studies in the 80s noted that if
we just kept Fed spending increases to the amount of inflation, the
budget would balance itself in 6-10 years (depending on the
assumptions).

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

In article ,
Jeff Thies wrote:


I note that O'Donnell has joined Palin in being so opposed to
activist Supreme Court Decisions but being unable to name a single one.
When they start this, they need to be called out.

Interesting since the poster child for that one is probably Roe V Wade.
If you actually read the opinion, you will note that much of that is
based on a woman's right to privacy, which even the majority notes
doesn't exactly exist in the Consitution though they were able to fin
dthe penumbra (a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication in
a civil constitution) of a right to privacy.
However, having noted that, I also note that activist decisions are
only invoked by either philosophy when the Courts find against the
speakers ideals.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

In article ,
Jim Elbrecht wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

-snip-

What does it tell us that the Democrats are deciding what are the
GOP's principles?

I'll let Mitch McConnell speak for the GOP principles. After all he
is their leader in the senate-
Last weekend when asked what the Repubs goals were, he answered;
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President
Obama to be a one-term president,"

I give him credit for honesty.


WHich is pretty much the other party's mantra from dog catcher
upwards. You saying the Dems did not say more or less the same thing
during the Bush years (either one), or Reagan, or Nixon? Well maybe not
Eisenhower (grin).

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

Well it will be a new game in town, a week from now republicans will
be back in charge.... and ending stimulus,cutting spending, etc etc
etc.

i doubt anything will help, the unbridled housing run up killed our
economy when it went bust. driven by pure greed.

since the feds already own 60% or so of the US mortage debt what
should happen is this.

to provide a home price floor and stop the drop

Feds should offer everyone a 1% fixed rate loan, wether underwater or
not, federally guaranteed serviced by current banks....

if bush hadnt been a total moron he should of offered a lifesaver to
the sub primers when the mess began and we wouldnt of collapsed the
worlds economy.

and feds should limit by law credit card debt to a % of income. so the
working poor making 15 grand a year dont end up owing 25 grand in
credit card debt. thats not good for anyone

clipped

and feds should limit by law credit card debt to a % of income. so the
working poor making 15 grand a year dont end up owing 25 grand in
credit card debt. thats not good for anyone

Is that Socialist or common sense? It's all so confusing )

Jeff Thies wrote:
On 10/28/2010 1:36 AM, Bob F wrote:
HeyBub wrote:


He actually did quite well. For the first six years we had
unemployment below 5%, the DJIA above 14,000, almost no inflation,
25 consecutive quarters of economic growth, and so on. All this in
spite of two wars, Katrina, and 9/11.


Don't forget the lowest job growth since WW II.


They all forget that. Student coming out of college and gong right
back home. Unemployment figures never go up when there is no hope of
a job.
The whole W economy was an inflated bit of nothing built on deficit
spending and an overinflated housing market set for collapse. What is
the W legacy other than gross mismanagement?


Keith Olberman did a great bit on the Tea Parties Yesterday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39875964...ith_olbermann/

In article ,
Jeff Thies wrote:

What is
the W legacy other than gross mismanagement?

Jeff

Uh, I can think of a few things. Stupidest president ever, guilty of
treason, elected twice by fraud. Oh wait, those are subsets of what you
said. Never mind.

On Oct 27, 8:37*pm, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:12:49 -0400, Jay Hanig
wrote:



On 10/27/2010 7:09 AM, J Burns wrote:
On 10/26/10 9:14 PM, Bob Villa wrote:
Check this out...http://www.marke****ch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-
destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?pagenumber=2

Thanks.

"We're the party that wants to see an America in which people can still
get rich." Ronald Reagan, May 4, 1982

Yeah, I remember the Reagan years. *My car loan was 12%. *I know
*somebody* got rich.

Jay

Remember the misery index under Carter-- credit card interest at 20%
or such?

He was elected by the southern states, because, well, *it had been a
long time since a Southerner became POTUS.


Carter was elected by that time's teaparty. The teaparty of today
picks candidates that are even worse. But I guess as long as the talk
a good game and gang up on liberal women and step on her head...

In article
,
Higgs Boson wrote:

On Oct 27, 5:19*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
*"Stormin Mormon" wrote:



So, how are all you Democrats enjoying life, these days? Was this the
change you were hoping for? Anyone out there going to vote for more of
this change? I hope not.

Pretty good. Business is booming. Had my best month ever last month.
Just hired another worker. Kicked in another $100 to the Democratic
Senatorial Campaign Committee. Just spent $1200 on a couple of sticks of
antique furniture for my new office. Let's keep the recovery on track.

How much did you give to charity?

HB

$300/month, as usual. I rent a house to a single mother on disability,
for $300 less than market value, which also represents my negative cash
flow on it. I don't need some "organization" to skim the cream off my
charity and then dispense it for me.

In article
,
Smitty Two wrote:

In article ,
Jeff Thies wrote:

What is
the W legacy other than gross mismanagement?

Jeff

Uh, I can think of a few things. Stupidest president ever, guilty of
treason, elected twice by fraud.
You do of course, realize that every county where there were
problems was one where the county government (and thus the election
boards) were majority Democrat in makeup. You do, of course, realize
that the system used in 2000 was exactly the same one (right down to the
butterfly ballots) that had been used in early elections in which there
were problems? You do, of course, realize that while the gross numbers
of errors were larger in 2000 because of the greater number of people
voting, the %age of bad votes was roughly the same.
So for Fl to be fraud, the GOP would have had to sucker
Dem-majority Election Boards into adopting this system a couple
elections ahead of time. Damn those sneaky *******s.
If anything the case can be made that the Dems tried to steal the
election but screwed it up. Personally, I am willing to write it off
that in the past, it was close enough since the races weren't. This
time, the margin of error bit them.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Oct 27, 3:41*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
I'd propose a massive cut in Federal spending. Extend the Bush tax
cuts, and ashcan the Obama medical care take over. I'd propose
simplifying the tax code, and make all elected persons subject to the
same laws, entitlements, and medical care that thier constituents
have.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

And you expect Republicans to do all that? LOL!!!!!



"Bob F"
wrote in ...

And which way was it going when Bush left office? Tell us also exactly
the
policies you would propose to solve the problem in the last 2 years.
Please
remember that it was the Rupub policies that started the fall. How
many changes
have Repubs proposed in those plolicies if they take over?

"Bob F" wrote

I hope you enjoy Repulicorp. Corporate rule will be the obvvious result.
That or revolution.

As a Libertarian, I vote for revolution. Armed revolt. Ballot box
tampering already in Nevada and other states for the Dems. It's not only
time to vote the *******s out, it's time to punish them.

Steve

Heart surgery pending?
Read up and prepare.
Learn how to care for a friend.
http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

"DGDevin" wrote in message
news
"Steve B" wrote in message ...


Wrong, moron. Congress does Barry's bidding, and the Supreme Court
appointees back it up legislating from the bench, even though that's not
their branch of government.

Steve

You're not getting any smarter, are you.

Explain something, Einstein--if Congress does what the President wants,
what happened to the Public Option in the health care bill that finally
passed? Obama campaigned on that and pushed for it through much of the
legislative debate, so how come Congress said no?

Don't bother, anything you post will just be another bumper-sticker slogan
from the right-wingnut-o-sphere, that seems to be all you're capable of.

HOLY CRAP! I plonked you, and my messages dropped by half. Do you ever
have anything to say about home repair? No? sigh ...........

Bye.

Steve

Heart surgery pending?
Read up and prepare.
Learn how to care for a friend.
http://cabgbypasssurgery.com