On May 28, 7:06*am, Country wrote:
On May 28, 7:58*am, "
wrote:









On May 27, 9:59*pm, SMS wrote:

*When Reagan took office the economy was in shambles.
Perhaps you missed the era of stagflation, ie high inflation, high
unemployment and low economic growth. *There is no doubt in any
reasonable persons mind that cutting taxes created an unprecedented
economic boom. *That in turn lead to a 40% increase in federal
revenue and a revitalization of the American economy. *Had taxes
been left at 70%, you would have had 8 years of low economic
growth, high unemployment, and far less tax revenue.

The same thing happened in the early 60's when JFK cut taxes.
Back then there were reasonable Democrats who understood
economics. *Sadly, today that is long gone. *Today, like you,
they believe in a static model, where if a tax at a rate of 35%
brings in X revenue, then raising it to 70% will bring in 2X.
That fallacy has been demonstrated time and time again
by states raising a variety of taxes, whether on income or
cigarettes, etc, *and NOT getting the revenue expected.

OK, so Regan cut taxes and ran the country into the highest debt than
ever before and is worshiped like a God by conservatives.

Obama does the same and is treated like a pariah by the same people.

Aren't you a little confused? Obama??? It was BUSH who took the
Clinton surplus he inherited and "ran it into the highest debt than
ever before...and is worshipped like a God by "Conservatives" -- who
are actually what used to be called "Reactionaries" -- descriptive
term that has unfortunately fallen into desuetude.
HB

TJ wrote:
wrote in message
...
On May 28, 12:29 pm, "TJ" wrote:
wrote in message



The best the libs can do is bitch on about the "Reagan deficits".
Forgetting to tell everyone that it was Democrats that controlled
the House during all of the Reagan years. Compared to the
above and winning the Cold War, the modest deficits, which
pale compared to the current ones are insignificant. It's like
finding gold bars buried in your backyard and bitching because
they are tarnished.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm an independent. I find it quite
humorous running across those who worshipped Reagan and deny facts.


This trader4 guy thinks anybody who doesn't agree with him is a lib.
Makes life real easy when you think like that.
Don't have to think, don't have to listen.
Just whine, and call everybody who doesn't follow the narrow track
you're on a lib.
Easy.

The largest deficts historically were always under republican control,
till obama inherited the WORST RECESSION since the great depression/

Having got Bil Laden, and no doubt taking out Kadaffi sooner
hopefully, and with paul ryans help just few even want to run against
obama, he has already been re elected

Paul Ryantrying to disassemble medicare while cutting taxes for the
super wealthy...... geez the guy must be using recreational drugs his
idea is DOA

On May 28, 6:30*pm, "TJ" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On May 28, 12:29 pm, "TJ" wrote:

wrote in message
The point is that the deficit was about the same percent of GDP when
Reagan left as it was when he entered office. * And that Obama is
running deficits of 2 or 3X of any that Reagan ran.

Good grief, he was handed it, and you want him to wave a magic wand. *Are
you really that silly?

It's now two years and 4 months since Obama took office. And
more than 2 years since his economic stimulus was passed.
So, that story has just about run out.

Reagan faced conditions that were pretty damn bad too.
Double digit inflation, interest rates at 18% on US bonds
and mortgages.
At a similar time after his stimulus was passed, unemployment
had begun a sharp decling that continued until he left
office. Obama's recovery, we're still waiting....

Also, Reagan didn't sit around bitching about what a
mess Carter left him. He had a sound plan and just
moved forward.






Now let's look at the current situation. In 2009, the budget deficit
was
10% of GDP. In 2010, 9%. And for 2011 it's estimated to be 11%.
In other words, Obama is running deficits of 2 or 3 times those of
Reagan. And under Reagan, we saw the economy surge and boom.
Under Obama and the Dems, we're still waiting.....

Ok, again, what's your point? The deficit (budget) for 2009, was approved
in under the previous administration. So you're saying O is doing a
better
job.
BTW, which party controlled the House for the entire Reagan
presidency? *Where do spending bills originate?

And who signs them? LMAO! *I always love how a far right will flip flop
from POTUS to representatives. *You'll also want to read my reply further
down, I'm sure you'll walk away babbling.



Good, then you acknowledge that deficits under Reagan were
not due to just Reagan and that the Democrats share a large
portion of the responsibility because they controlled the House
the entire time and the Senate a good portion of those 8 years.







Here we go with Reagan again. Reagan took office with a 7.5%
unemployment,
by November 1982 he had a whopping 10.8% unemployment rate. After 2
years,
it was 10.4%. January of 1985, it was at 7.3%. Not really anything to be
chest thumping about.

The buzz would "surge", backfires within the first 4 years.
LOL. *What a hack job. * Maybe you missed it, but Reagan left office
in
Jan 1989 with an unemployement rate of 5.5%. * And unemployment
isn't the only economic indicator. *While achieving 5.5% unemployment
interest rates were cut in half, and so inflation was stopped dead in
it's tracks. * Maybe you forgot what a mess this country was thanks
to Jimmy Carter and the Dems. but some of us haven't. *And yes
that indeed is worthy of chest pumping.

Yep, LMAO @ you. So, you want to side step the issue Reagan had the highest
unemployment in decades.

What do you think happens when you have inflation in double digits,
interest rates in double digits? How do you think you break that
without increasing unemployment? Hmmm? And if people
were sooo unemployed and it was Reagan's fault, why
exactly is it that he was re-elected in one of the largest landslides
in history?


That's your choice, doesn't change the facts of
what the UI was in the _facts_ I stated. I'd post the link for you, but
you're gonna have to do your own homework. *I always love how a Reagan
worshipper attacks the messenger. Calling me a hack for bringing the facts
to the table, shows your colors. Gotta love it!!

Unemployment was 5.5% when Reagan left office.
Inflation was cut in half. Interest rates were cut in
half so people could afford a mortgage. The US
economy was the miracle of the world. Job well done!





Here's some more facts for ya:

For the first six years of the Reagan presidency (1981-87) The Republicans
controlled the Senate, and the Democrats the House of Representatives

*In 1986, the Democrats recaptured the Senate (while retaining the House)
and thereafter remained in control of both chamber until losing both in
1994.

Now, what about those final years UI got back into check????? UI was high
under Reagan. It wasn't until both houses were controlled by Democrats,
when UI got into check.

Of course that's a lie . Even a child can look at a chart
of unemployment. It peaked early in the Reagan years as Volcker,
with Reagan's support tackled inflation. It then began a sharp
decline,
decreasing each year until it was at 5.5% when he left office.
Also, kindly point us to exactly what those Dems did that had
anything to do with reducing unemployment even in those
final years. Be specific. I can. They passed Reagan's tax
cuts in Aug 1981.

When you leave people with more of their own
money it actually does stimulate the economy. That's
why his recovery worked. Obama's recovery is based
on the govt spending the money for you, creating more
govt programs. That's why, despite all the extraordinary
spending, it's had little success.



The best the libs can do is bitch on about the "Reagan deficits".
Forgetting to tell everyone that it was Democrats that controlled
the House during all of the Reagan years. * Compared to the
above and winning the Cold War, the modest deficits, which
pale compared to the current ones are insignificant. *It's like
finding gold bars buried in your backyard and bitching because
they are tarnished.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm an independent. I find it quite
humorous running across those who worshipped Reagan and deny facts.

I don't care what you call yourself. Long live the truth!



Reagan's trickle down theory has long been debunked. Your tantrum isn't
going to change the facts. You're free to honor the guy known for wearing
diapers, that's what is great about America.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And their you have it folks. An unbelievable smear. You can't win
on
the facts, so you resort to cheap shots against an honerable
American who happened to
succumb to alzheimers. I find that personally offensive as all
victims
of that disease, their families and decent Americans should.

On May 28, 7:17*pm, bob haller wrote:
The largest deficts historically were always under republican control,
till obama inherited the WORST RECESSION since the great depression/

Having got Bil Laden

Yeah, using info obtained from enhanced interrogation
obtained under Bush. Info that would not have been
obtained had Obama been in charge. And info that
the next president, who will be arriving in 2013
won't have the luxury of having. Thank you Obama...



, and no doubt taking out Kadaffi sooner
hopefully,

A little soon to be taking that victory lap, no?


and with paul ryans help just few even want to run against
obama, he has already been re elected

Keep thinking that.




Paul Ryantrying to disassemble medicare

At least Paul Ryan had a plan. Even Bill Clinton said
a few days ago that he hopes the Democrats won't
use the victory in NY as an excuse to do nothing
about Medicare. And that's exactly what their
position has been so far. Attack the Republicans
and offer no plan of their own.

On May 28, 9:15*pm, "
wrote:
On May 28, 7:17*pm, bob haller wrote:

The largest deficts historically were always under republican control,
till obama inherited the WORST RECESSION since the great depression/

Having got Bil Laden

Yeah, using info obtained from enhanced interrogation
obtained under Bush. *Info that would not have been
obtained had Obama been in charge. *And info that
the next president, who will be arriving in 2013
won't have the luxury of having. *Thank you Obama...

, and no doubt taking out Kadaffi sooner
hopefully,

A little soon to be taking that victory lap, no?

and with paul ryans help just few even want to run against

obama, he has already been re elected

Keep thinking that.



Paul Ryantrying to disassemble medicare

At least Paul Ryan had a plan. *Even Bill Clinton said
a few days ago that he hopes the Democrats won't
use the victory in NY as an excuse to do nothing
about Medicare. * And that's exactly what their
position has been so far. * Attack the Republicans
and offer no plan of their own.

Well obama also saved the car manufacturers, they were on the edge of
extinction in the US, at least GM and chrysler were

Chrysler paid back their loan and are now making a profit

GM has paid back a lot of the loan, and are adding manufacturing jobs
in detroit, the chevy volt sales are better than expected

Fairtax would save everyone lots of bucks a national sales tax....your
paycheck would be yours, no deductions

obama has done pretty well considering what he started with. true
obama hasnt walked on water yet but one never knows

wrote in message
...


And their you have it folks. An unbelievable smear. You can't win
on
the facts, so you resort to cheap shots against an honerable
American who happened to
succumb to alzheimers. I find that personally offensive as all
victims
of that disease, their families and decent Americans should.

Calling it as everyone sees it.

Not even going into Reagan's Iran-Contra deal, or going into the bill he
signed giving 2.7 illegal aliens amnesty. I won't even go into depth about
giving gave Saddam WMD's.

Here's some facts you won't hear on Hannity, read em & weep.


*The Federal Government expanded greatly during his administration. The
number of workers in the government rose by 61,000. Under President
Clinton, for example, the number fell by 373,000. The Department of
Veterans Affairs, one of the largest federal agencies, was his creation.

*He more than tripled the national debt.

*He compromised on arms controls with the Soviets and, at one point, came
within a whisker of agreeing with Gorbachev to scrapping all of boths sides
nuclear arsenals (Reagan had a strong belief that nuclear weapons should be
abolished). The only thing that kept this from happening was Reagan's
hard-headed refusal to drop "Star Wars" (his ill-fated missile defensive
initiative).
Reagan condemned an Israeli preventive strike against an Iraqi nuclear
reactor in 1981.

*Yes, he cut taxes heavily at the beginning of his first term. What isn't
often brought up is that he then raised taxes after that (in 1982, 1983,
1984 & 1986) in a bid to make up for the record deficits he created and the
negative impact it had on the nation. This is, by the way, a positive mark
on his tenure. Seeing that the estimates of 1981 were way off the mark he
altered his plans.

*The Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 950.68 when he took office. A year
later, after his massive tax cuts, the Dow was at 845.89 (down 12%). He
started raising taxes and, as he continued, the Dow climbed to over 2,200.
Does this sound at all the way Sean Hannity describes the Reagan plan? He
tells listeners that Reagan cut everyone's taxes and the greatest era of
American prosperity resulted. Uh huh. Tax cuts had nothing to do with it.
An August 1983 Congressional Budget Office report stated, "Lower interest
rates after mid-1982 permitted the recovery to begin."

*Unemployment rose steadily during his first term and saw a peak of 10.8%
during 1982-83 which is the highest it has been since. It was 7.2% when he
took over. It didn't get back to that number until June of 1984 (It bounced
around after that until July of 1986 when it finally stayed below 7.2% for
the duration).

*Mortgage rates were lousy under Reagan. The best you could do during all 8
years he was in office, for a 30-year mortgage, was 9.11%. For much of his
term the rate was in the 13% range. Can you imagine the outcry today if
that was the best you could do?


*More government officials (appointed by Reagan) were indicted and
convicted (over 100) than under any other President. To this day I have a
hard time thinking of any period during his tenure when indictments weren't
dominating the news.
Reagan gave Saddam WMD's. In 2002 conservative Robert Novak wrote: "An
eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous
materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985
to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war."

*Reagan totally ignored, at its most critical period, the outbreak of AIDS.
Remember, the first cases came to light in 1981. Reagan's own
Communications Director, Pat Buchanan (yes, that Pat Buchanan) said that
AIDS is "nature's revenge on gay men." Reagan only mentioned AIDS in
mid-1987. By that time 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed and 20,849 had
died. The disease had reached 113 countries counting more than 50,000
cases. Imagine the hate and ignorance that leads people to believe that a
virus is only transmitted between gay men.

*Wall Street collapsed in 1987 dropping 1,000 points (remember it was only
at 2,700 at the time), a huge 37% drop.
His tenure left successor George H.W. Bush with an economy so impacted that
he faced two recessions and a deficit so crushing that Bush had to go back
on his own famous promise, "Read my lips. No new taxes." The reversal cost
Bush the Presidency but also helped to right the economy after he left.

*His out-of-the-gate policies were so "popular" and "successful" at the
time that Republicans lost 26 seats in the 1982 Congressional election
(even with the help of Anne Burford).

*In January, 1981, Reagan claimed the federal budget was "out of control".
At the time the deficit was almost $74 billion while the federal debt
reached $930 billion. By 1983 the deficit reached $208 billion. When he
left office the national debt reached $2.6 trillion.

*In his eight years in office the United States moved from being the
world's largest international creditor to become its largest debtor nation.
Reagan removed restrictions that prevented mortgage companies from lending
to homeowners without them putting down a significant amount first. This
led directly to the subprime mortgage fiasco.
Reagan deregulated the financial sector allowing them free reign to gamble
with our money. This allowed the savings and loan scandal of the late 80's,
the hedge fund troubles and today's financial meltdown as only these
changes allowed for the creation of credit default swaps, etc.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
SMS wrote:

On 5/28/2011 7:06 AM, Country wrote:

OK, so Regan cut taxes and ran the country into the highest debt than
ever before and is worshiped like a God by conservatives.

It was a great party while it lasted.

George H.W. Bush inherited a mess, just like Obama inherited a mess. He
raised taxes to try to reduce the deficit as well as to pay for the S&L
crisis caused by Reagan's deregulation. He acted responsibly. You saw
what happened to him.
Yeah he got mugged by the Dems. The Budget "Summit" would only be
attended by the Dems if GHW put tax increases on the table along with
spending cuts in a "bipartisan" manner. The increases the Dems insisted
on were passed (the cuts somehow never materialized) and the Dems then
proceeded to beat GHW about the face and head after he signed
essentially their tax increase.

Some lawyers would simply say he got "out-lawyered." You're describing a
process that has happened throughout our history - a lack of follow-through.
It's woven through our daily lives. Evil-doers receive a noisy and public
tough sentence. Three years later, their case is overturned on appeal.
It's the same with lawmaking. Seem tough, ask for the tough medicine along
with the chocolate cake, forget the tough medicine after eating the cake.
Looking at recent "bipartisan" legislation, it seem more a pork-trading
session than lawmaking.

I think this goes along way toward to explaining GW's distrust of
the theory of "bipartisanship."

One of only many examples. How can you tell when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.

Obama is headed to a one-term presidency. He just upset a key large
block of voters in Florida, a swing state that he can't afford to lose.
As long as the Republican presidential candidate is not someone who
signed onto the Paul Ryan Medicare fiasco, and not one of the lunatics
like Palin, Bachmann, or Gingrich, Obama will have a tough time.

A couple big "ifs" there (g)

The lack of a charismatic candidate to emerge by now represents a serious
problem for the Republicans. I think Trump will re-emerge and is just
waiting for his birther fiasco to die down. A late entry also means less
digging around by reporters. It's a smart move. His Q value isn't likely
to fall off the earth in the meantime, which is already happening to the few
Republican candidates who have declined.

Every one of the remaining candidates has his own special version of
Kryptonite waiting in the wings. The worst part will come when the
remaining viable candidates go negative and give independents good reason to
avoid the whole lot of them. And if that's not enough, there's the Tea
Party 3rd party curse waiting to siphon off the radicals of the party and
split the Republican vote. Some say that happened in NY26, but I have my
doubts. I think, as you said, it was the Medicare "scare" and other,
personal factors that decided that race.

--
Bobby G.

"bob haller" wrote in message
...


Well obama also saved the car manufacturers, they were on the edge of
extinction in the US, at least GM and chrysler were

Chrysler paid back their loan and are now making a profit

GM has paid back a lot of the loan, and are adding manufacturing jobs
in detroit, the chevy volt sales are better than expected


obama has done pretty well considering what he started with. true
obama hasnt walked on water yet but one never knows

I had a hard time when O made these _loans_ for automakers. Torn between if
it was the right thing to do or not. The thing I saw as a positive, was
these were _LOANS_, not _GIFTS_ like the previous administration gave out.
Considering the outcome of the automakers, O did the right thing, and the
taxpayer made interest on the _LOANS_ to boot!

I agree, a job well done!

"TJ" wrote in message ...
Not even going into Reagan's Iran-Contra deal, or going into the bill he
signed giving 2.7 illegal aliens amnesty. I won't even go into depth
about giving gave Saddam WMD's.

2.7 million illegal aliens amnesty.

wrote in message
...


And their you have it folks. An unbelievable smear. You can't win
on
the facts, so you resort to cheap shots against an honerable
American who happened to
succumb to alzheimers. I find that personally offensive as all
victims
of that disease, their families and decent Americans should.

Anyone who believes the sitting POTUS should stay in office, because they
have Alzheimer's, is a fool. The man should've been removed by his cohorts,
and saved him some dignity.

I provided plenty of facts, it's time for you to run away.

"TJ" wrote in message ...

crocodile tears and other stuff snipped

Anyone who believes the sitting POTUS should stay in office, because they
have Alzheimer's, is a fool. The man should've been removed by his
cohorts,
and saved him some dignity.

I provided plenty of facts, it's time for you to run away.

I too am a little sick of those who treat a B movie actor turned pol as some
sort of God. If Don Regan's 1988 book is correct:

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jun...l/me-regan11/2

Regan used his 1988 book, "For the Record: From Wall Street to
Washington," to set a new "tell all" tone in White House memoirs -- and to
try to have the last word. In a revelation that stirred derision, he
revealed that Nancy Reagan frequently consulted with an astrologer (later
identified as Joan Quigley of San Francisco) and that key events -- such as
treaty signings and other public appearances by the president -- were
rescheduled to accommodate the stars. He also said she had sought to dismiss
CIA Director William Casey while he was recovering from brain surgery.

Treaty signing based on astrology. This is the Great Republican God? I
recall one other 20th century leader who was overly reliant on astrology. A
former painter turned politician. A German. As for respecting illness her
treatment of Casey pretty much indicates those who give no respect get none.

If Leslie Stahl is to be believed, by the time Ronald was non compos mentis
the First Lady was running the country based on the advice of her
astrologer. People had noticed his illness as early as 1986:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/2...ly-unfit-1986/

CBS' Leslie Stahl recalled in her 2000 book, "Reporting Live," that she
was instructed not to ask then-President Reagan any questions during a 1986
meeting. "Reagan didn't seem to know who I was. He gave me a distant look
with those milky eyes and shook my hand weakly," she wrote. "Oh, my, he's
gonzo, I thought. I have to go out on the lawn tonight and tell my
countrymen that the president of the United States is a doddering space
cadet. My heart began to hammer with the import...I was aware of the
delicacy with which I would have to write my script. But I was quite sure of
my diagnosis."

His wife Nancy became more and more protective of him, denying access to
anyone she thought would "spill the beans" about her husband's more and more
frequent memory lapses.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...967410,00.html

Quigley told TIME that she was first introduced to Nancy Reagan by TV Talk
Show Host Merv Griffin in the early 1970s, and has provided the Reagans with
suggestions about the timing of various political events ever since. "I
advise them when to be careful," she says. "I don't make decisions for
them." It was on the basis of her readings, claims Quigley, that Reagan
chose January 1984 as the time to announce his bid for re-election.

I guess Quigley didn't see John Hinkley coming, despite all her skills.

--
Bobby G.

On 5/28/2011 10:22 PM, TJ wrote:
wrote in message
...


And their you have it folks. An unbelievable smear. You can't win
on
the facts, so you resort to cheap shots against an honerable
American who happened to
succumb to alzheimers. I find that personally offensive as all
victims
of that disease, their families and decent Americans should.

Anyone who believes the sitting POTUS should stay in office, because they
have Alzheimer's, is a fool. The man should've been removed by his cohorts,
and saved him some dignity.

I provided plenty of facts, it's time for you to run away.



I always wondered who was actually running things most of the second
term, after RR started having obvious problems. Nancy? I actually felt
sorry for the guy after seeing him blue-screen when his teleprompter
went out during some televised appearance or other. He was lost, and
looked scared. Gotta give him credit, though- the early show-biz
experience gave him great speaking presence, almost up until the end, as
long as the machine kept feeding him his lines.

But I agree- once the diagnosis was made, he should have left office. No
dishonor in retiring for medical reasons. That is why the framers built
a spare, AKA the VP, into the system. The public announcement a few
years later came as no surprise to most people.

--
aem sends...

"TJ" wrote in message ...

"bob haller" wrote in message
...


Well obama also saved the car manufacturers, they were on the edge of
extinction in the US, at least GM and chrysler were

Chrysler paid back their loan and are now making a profit

GM has paid back a lot of the loan, and are adding manufacturing jobs
in detroit, the chevy volt sales are better than expected


obama has done pretty well considering what he started with. true
obama hasnt walked on water yet but one never knows

I had a hard time when O made these _loans_ for automakers. Torn between
if
it was the right thing to do or not. The thing I saw as a positive, was
these were _LOANS_, not _GIFTS_ like the previous administration gave out.
Considering the outcome of the automakers, O did the right thing, and the
taxpayer made interest on the _LOANS_ to boot!

I had a hard time too, but sometimes, people and companies just need a
little money to tide them over when the cash flow goes bad. It wasn't GM's
fault that Wall St. had butt-f\/cked the nation's economy. Obama correctly
realized that the damage the collapse of the US auto industry would cause
was far worse than the risk of helping them out with government loans.

I think a lot of voters are smart enough to realize that Obama was tasked
with fixing the mess that laissez-faire Bush had made of things, and will
realize he managed to get a lot done for being starting out so deep in a
hole dug by others. The dysfunctional SEC allowed Madoff and other crooks
to flourish under Bush's quite deliberate throttling of that regulatory
agency (as well as many others). Obama's success at fixing the mess will be
remembered. And the same people that voted for him before will vote for him
again.

The Republicans, who assured us that Obama would crush free enterprise,
seize all handguns and run out on our allies, are now faced with explaining
away their lies. Now it's "Obama's War" because he's stuck dealing with the
mess that Bush made and knows no matter what he does he'll be bashed by the
right for it. Leave the war, he's a coward, stay and wind it down
responsibly, and now it's all his fault. Do you detect a high level of
hypocrisy in their complaints against him? I do!

Obama, whom Dufas labels a "Commiecrat" helped our country's "free
enterprise" by lending it enough money to keep the factories out of
bankruptcy. Even die hard Republicans can appreciate the value of keeping
our manufacturing muscle strong, and MAKING MONEY doing so!

No wonder why the Republicans are spitting blood and insulting everyone they
even remotely sense has liberal feelings. They got crushed in the last
presidential election and based on who's in the field, they're going to get
re-crushed in 2012. I would be wailing like a baby, too, if my political
beliefs were so thoroughly repudiated. It's so damn ironic that after
campaigning for years to end the "endangered species" list, they're now on
it. There IS justice in the world.

I agree, a job well done!

Catching Osama, getting a new universal health care law in place, saving the
car industry, maybe even winding the wars in AfRaq down. He's looking
pretty strong coming into 2012. Now all we need is the Republicans to keep
touching the Medicare third rail while they force another government
shutdown to seal the deal. They never miss an opportunity to miss an
opportunity.

I mostly just ignore the Republican die-hards here and let them rant and
rave and get all their weeping done. They need the catharsis, and will need
it even more in November of 2012. After all, if they were so smart and had
all the right answers, why did Obama win by an impressive margin?

If you ask them, I'm sure they'll tell you in their-friend winning ways
"It's because they're all idiots." You just got to laugh. At a time when
they need every vote they can lay their hands on, they're driving
independents away by their continual condescension and determined derision
for all things not like them. How can a whole group of people be so
misguided to not realize they need every friend (and vote) they can get?

I actually welcome the insults because they indicate how totally afraid they
are that they'll lose the next Presidential election, too. The more they
insult, the more fearful they are and judging from what I see lately,
they're mighty afraid. (-:

My former boss, an 80 year-old US Army Colonel and die-hard Republican put
it best: "The Republicans are making it awful hard for anyone to like
them." As I see it, they've evolved (devolved?) into the Far Right and the
EXTREMELY Far Right.

I see Sarah Palin getting bounced by the Republican party at convention time
and then running as the officialTea Party candidate, joining Nader and Perot
in the history books as she splits the conservative vote and gives Obama a
landslide. Plenty of evangelical Christians won't be able to hold their
noses long enough to vote for a Mormon president and they will vote Palin.
Boy is the GOP in some deep kimshi. Their stars are definitely NOT in
alignment. When Trump can go from 18th place to 1st place to zero in a
month, you know they are casting about for someone who could beat Obama.
And looking under every rock.

--
Bobby G.

On Sat, 28 May 2011 15:45:02 -0700 (PDT), Higgs Boson
wrote:

On May 27, 9:49*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 06:30:57 -0400, "Robert Green"

wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message
...
Republicans are going to REFUSE to raise our countries debt limit.
[...]

Almost all oil "subsidies" are nothing more than deductions for costs
incurred, just like any other business.

(Falls down laughing hysterically. 1984 has come, but not gone.
Let's hear it for NewSpeak and GroupThink...)

I wouldn't expect you to have a any clue about reality.

"TJ" wrote in message ...

stuff snipped

Calling it as everyone sees it.

As someone who's already going through the unpleasant experience of bouts of
serious memory loss, I don't consider it much of a smear to state the
obvious. Reagan was clearly starting to drift. That's how it is with memory
loss. Stress often intensifies such mental difficulties. That could
imperil the entire nation if the President can't react quickly and
decisively *every* time he's needed.

If a person is "losing it" they should NOT remain as POTUS. But people are
human and admitting to weakness is a hard thing to do. I hate having to
acknowledge it, I hate experiencing its effects. I also know enough history
to know that time and again, Republican or Democrat, their have been serious
cover-ups regarding the true state of the President's health. Health issues
dog Presidents long before they get to the Oval Office. Cain lost a lot of
votes because people knew of his bouts of cancer and worried about his
health. It's a very legitimate issue.

There's another reason to discuss it: Congress has left the Presidental
Succession Act (Oops. PresidentIal) in a serious case of "probable
unconstitutionality."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside...Succession_Act

is alleged to have some very serious limitations that have not been
addressed by lawmakers. Aside from the times where those close to the
President have chosen to be less than forthcoming about his capacity, the
law itself has weaknesses some describe as time bombs:

There are concerns regarding the constitutionality of having members of
Congress in the line of succession. Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the
Constitution specifies that only an "Officer" of the United States may be
designated as a Presidential successor. Constitutional scholars from James
Madison to the present day have argued that the term "Officer" excludes
members of Congress . . .

The Act is also controversial because it provides that if a cabinet officer
becomes Acting President, he serves only until a new Speaker of the House or
a new President Pro Tempore of the Senate is chosen, who would then replace
him as Acting President. This is sometimes referred to as "bumping" and
appears to contradict the text of the Constitution, which says (in Article
II, section 1, Clause 6): ...and such Officer shall act accordingly, until
the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The issue of who gets to declare the President disabled is a bit dicey, even
without accounting for guys like "I am in charge" Al Haig. Section 4 is the
only part of the 25th amendment that has never been invoked. Buckle your
seat belts: It allows for a sneaky Vice-President, like Joe "The
Plagiarist" Biden, to conspire with either a majority of "the principal
officers of the executive departments" or "such other body as Congress may
by law provide" to declare the President disabled. They just have to write
a letter to the President pro tempore and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives to get Biden a bump to top dog.

--
Bobby G.

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
The largest deficts historically were always under republican control,
till obama inherited the WORST RECESSION since the great depression/

According to the posts I've read, die hard Republicans, while basking in the
glow of long dead Reagan, act as if spendthrift Bush somehow never existed
or doesn't count. You've got to admire the way they always counter any
mention of Bush with "he not President anymore" as if the two wars he ginned
up and their consequences magically stopped the day he left the Oval Office.

When Obama took office the sky was falling and no one was quite sure how bad
it would get or where it would end. As hateful as I found many of the
things he and the Congress did, I don't think they had much of a choice.
The people at the top know how panic can overwhelm almost any human system.
They had to make sure that people still maintained some confidence in the
financial system.

With the DJIA back up, I'd say they were successful in pulling things back
together. This "humongous deficit" game is a strategy that one side or
another has used ever since the deficit limit required approval. It's more
political theater at its best and political blackmail at its worst.

Having got Bil Laden, and no doubt taking out Kadaffi sooner
hopefully, and with paul ryans help just few even want to run against
obama, he has already been re elected

Paul Ryan trying to disassemble medicare while cutting taxes for the
super wealthy...... geez the guy must be using recreational drugs his
idea is DOA

People are slowly but surely getting the picture that Ryan wants to balance
the gifts given to the rich off the poorest people in society. Let some of
those hedge fund millionaires give back a little to the country and the
economic system whose reputation and stability gave them the opportunity to
make those millions. So what if the rate is confiscatory? If these folks
are using predatory practices to amass their fortunes, a high tax rate would
give them an incentive to stop raiding pensions funds and people's
retirement savings.

It's a miracle people still invest in the stock market with the recent rash
of frauds and crimes like Madoff and Raj Rajaratnam the foundering founder
of the hedge fund, the Galleon Group, whose fortunes are sinking like its
namesake's did, loaded with gold in a hurricane:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...246641834.html

NEW YORK-Raj Rajaratnam, a billionaire hedge-fund impresario who built his
fortune in the relentless cultivation of corporate contacts, was convicted
Wednesday on all 14 counts of securities fraud and conspiracy against him in
the biggest insider-trading case ever, likely accelerating an unprecedented
wave of prosecutions rocking Wall Street . . . the founder of Galleon Group
trafficked in insider tips provided by a web of contacts at the top tier of
American business . . . Never before have there been so many major,
unrelated insider-trading cases brought by authorities. In the past 18
months alone, the U.S. has criminally charged 47 hedge-fund managers and
others with insider trading; 36 now have been convicted or pleaded guilty .
.. . The counts Mr. Rajaratnam was convicted of carry a total of up to 205
years in prison time, but under federal sentencing guidelines, he is likely
to receive 15 ½ to 19 ½ years, according to prosecutors.

So Obama IS going after the people that engaged in at least some of the
fraud plaguing our economic system. But I have to give Bush 2 some credit
because he did sign the Sarbanes-Oxley Law which held corporate CEOs
criminally responsible for filing false accounting reports. That's
apparently what it takes to get an honest financial report out of some
companies.

--
Bobby G.

bob haller wrote:

Well obama also saved the car manufacturers, they were on the edge of
extinction in the US, at least GM and chrysler were

Chrysler paid back their loan and are now making a profit

GM has paid back a lot of the loan, and are adding manufacturing jobs
in detroit, the chevy volt sales are better than expected

Better than expected? At less than 300 per month (a total of 1500 since last
year)? Compare that to better than 150,000 per month for a Ford F150.

In article , "TJ" wrote:

I had a hard time when O made these _loans_ for automakers. Torn between if
it was the right thing to do or not. The thing I saw as a positive, was
these were _LOANS_, not _GIFTS_ like the previous administration gave out.
Considering the outcome of the automakers, O did the right thing, and the
taxpayer made interest on the _LOANS_ to boot!

Nonsense, the bankruptcy was a gift to the unions who came out
owning the single biggest part of the automakers. I have some trouble
with general idea (although I don't think there was much of a choice for
the government being the arm for debtor-in-possession financing). It was
the end run around traditional bankruptcy law that I was completely
against.


I agree, a job well done!
I agree with a "so far". We aren;t out yet.

--
"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 , "TJ" wrote:

"TJ" wrote in message ...
Not even going into Reagan's Iran-Contra deal, or going into the bill he
signed giving 2.7 illegal aliens amnesty. I won't even go into depth
about giving gave Saddam WMD's.

2.7 million illegal aliens amnesty.

That was with the idea that this would be absolutely last one ever,
cross my heart, and we will REALLY, REALLY this time close the borders
and we will REALLY, REALLY this time toss 'em back as we find them.
We don't tend to learn from our earlier mistakes.

--
"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 May 28, 9:42*pm, "TJ" wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message

...

Well obama also saved the car manufacturers, they were on the edge of
extinction in the US, at least GM and chrysler were
Chrysler paid back their loan and are now making a profit
GM has paid back a lot of the loan, and are adding *manufacturing jobs
in detroit, the chevy volt sales are better than expected

You forgot that it was Bush who made that decision in Dec 2008.
He provided the first bailout money, Obama continued it.



obama has done pretty well considering what he started with. true
obama hasnt walked on water yet but one never knows

I had a hard time when O made these _loans_ for automakers. Torn between if
it was the right thing to do or not. The thing I saw as a positive, was
these were _LOANS_, not _GIFTS_ like the previous administration gave out..

Which of course is untrue. The bailout money given to the various
companies from auto manfacturers, to banks and wall street was
all handled the same way as loans or equity positions, etc. None
of it that I'm aware of was given away and according the Treasury
and CBO, of more that $700bil, only about $50bil remains at risk
today. For money that ws given away you need to look
at Obama's stimulus of $850B, all of which was indeed money
just given out, never to be repaid.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



Some lawyers would simply say he got "out-lawyered." You're describing a
process that has happened throughout our history - a lack of follow-through.
It's woven through our daily lives. Evil-doers receive a noisy and public
tough sentence. Three years later, their case is overturned on appeal.
It's the same with lawmaking. Seem tough, ask for the tough medicine along
with the chocolate cake, forget the tough medicine after eating the cake.
Looking at recent "bipartisan" legislation, it seem more a pork-trading
session than lawmaking.

It was naivete on his part, thinking that the Dems would actually
embrace his "hand across the aisle". Instead they stabbed him in the
back. The GOP seems, in one of the few times politicians learned from
their mistakes, to have taken that to heart and there still is little
trust in the Dems. Probably reciprocated by the Dems in real life.


Obama is headed to a one-term presidency. He just upset a key large
block of voters in Florida, a swing state that he can't afford to lose.
As long as the Republican presidential candidate is not someone who
signed onto the Paul Ryan Medicare fiasco, and not one of the lunatics
like Palin, Bachmann, or Gingrich, Obama will have a tough time.

A couple big "ifs" there (g)

The lack of a charismatic candidate to emerge by now represents a serious
problem for the Republicans. I think Trump will re-emerge and is just
waiting for his birther fiasco to die down. A late entry also means less
digging around by reporters. It's a smart move. His Q value isn't likely
to fall off the earth in the meantime, which is already happening to the few
Republican candidates who have declined.

Every one of the remaining candidates has his own special version of
Kryptonite waiting in the wings. The worst part will come when the
remaining viable candidates go negative and give independents good reason to
avoid the whole lot of them. And if that's not enough, there's the Tea
Party 3rd party curse waiting to siphon off the radicals of the party and
split the Republican vote. Some say that happened in NY26, but I have my
doubts. I think, as you said, it was the Medicare "scare" and other,
personal factors that decided that race.

I would tend to agree. At least I hope the dip from mid-60% wins
to 6% loss isn't entirely TP, that is a VERY scary thought.

--
"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 , "TJ" wrote:

wrote in message
...


And their you have it folks. An unbelievable smear. You can't win
on
the facts, so you resort to cheap shots against an honerable
American who happened to
succumb to alzheimers. I find that personally offensive as all
victims
of that disease, their families and decent Americans should.

Anyone who believes the sitting POTUS should stay in office, because they
have Alzheimer's, is a fool. The man should've been removed by his cohorts,
and saved him some dignity.
He was diagnosed with ALZ a full ten years after leaving office.
But if you really need to think he was demented while in office, please
feel free to be completely wrong.


I provided plenty of facts, it's time for you to run away.

--
"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 ,
aemeijers wrote:



But I agree- once the diagnosis was made, he should have left office. No
dishonor in retiring for medical reasons. That is why the framers built
a spare, AKA the VP, into the system. The public announcement a few
years later came as no surprise to most people.

He was out of office for a full ten years when diagnosed.

--
"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 May 29, 12:35*am, "Robert Green"
wrote:
"TJ" wrote in ....

"bob haller" wrote in message
....

Well obama also saved the car manufacturers, they were on the edge of
extinction in the US, at least GM and chrysler were

Chrysler paid back their loan and are now making a profit

GM has paid back a lot of the loan, and are adding *manufacturing jobs
in detroit, the chevy volt sales are better than expected

obama has done pretty well considering what he started with. true
obama hasnt walked on water yet but one never knows

I had a hard time when O made these _loans_ for automakers. Torn between
if
it was the right thing to do or not. The thing I saw as a positive, was
these were _LOANS_, not _GIFTS_ like the previous administration gave out.
Considering the outcome of the automakers, O did the right thing, and the
taxpayer made interest on the _LOANS_ to boot!

I had a hard time too, but sometimes, people and companies just need a
little money to tide them over when the cash flow goes bad. *It wasn't GM's
fault that Wall St. had butt-f\/cked the nation's economy. *Obama correctly
realized that the damage the collapse of the US auto industry would cause
was far worse than the risk of helping them out with government loans.

I think a lot of voters are smart enough to realize that Obama was tasked
with fixing the mess that laissez-faire Bush had made of things, and will
realize he managed to get a lot done for being starting out so deep in a
hole dug by others. *The dysfunctional SEC allowed Madoff and other crooks
to flourish under Bush's quite deliberate throttling of that regulatory
agency (as well as many others).

LOL. Clueless once again. Madoff's scheme extended well back into
the 90s during the Clinton years. Along the way he lined the pockets
of
politicians, including Dems like Schumer and Dodd with donations.
Not suggesting that they had any knowledge of what he was up to.
Just that as usual, being a lib loon you try to twist something into
what it's not by placing blame on Bush. The crimes Madoff committed
were crimes all along and had nothing whatever to do with any
de-regulation issues.




*Obama's success at fixing the mess will be
remembered. *And the same people that voted for him before will vote for him
again.

The Republicans, who assured us that Obama would crush free enterprise,
seize all handguns and run out on our allies, are now faced with explaining
away their lies.

I'd wait until we have some meaningful economic growth before waving
the victory flag. I'd say it's precisely his policies that are now
holding the economy back.




*Now it's "Obama's War" because he's stuck dealing with the
mess that Bush made and knows no matter what he does he'll be bashed by the
right for it. *Leave the war, he's a coward, stay and wind it down
responsibly, and now it's all his fault. Do you detect a high level of
hypocrisy in their complaints against him? *I do!

The only complaint I have regarding Obama and war is that
he told the enemy the date when we would leave Afghanistan.
But just like he reversed on Gitmo, trying terrorists in
civilian courts, trying Sheik Mohamad in NYC, keeping the
Bush tax rates intact, etc, he'll probably reverse on that
too.

Plus he started a new war of his own with no clear
goals or direction, in Libya.





Obama, whom Dufas labels a "Commiecrat" helped our country's "free
enterprise" by lending it enough money to keep the factories out of
bankruptcy. *Even die hard Republicans can appreciate the value of keeping
our manufacturing muscle strong, and MAKING MONEY doing so!

A program started by Bush, so feel free to give him credit too.




No wonder why the Republicans are spitting blood and insulting everyone they
even remotely sense has liberal feelings. *They got crushed in the last
presidential election and based on who's in the field, they're going to get
re-crushed in 2012. *

Who got crushed last November in the worst defeat in 75 years?



Catching Osama, getting a new universal health care law in place,

polls showed that most Americans did not want Obamacare.

saving the
car industry, maybe even winding the wars in AfRaq down. *He's looking
pretty strong coming into 2012. *Now all we need is the Republicans to keep
touching the Medicare third rail while they force another government
shutdown to seal the deal. *They never miss an opportunity to miss an
opportunity.

You should be thankful that the Republicans don't have the
street fighting, get down in the gutter will of the Democrats.



I mostly just ignore the Republican die-hards here and let them rant and
rave and get all their weeping done. *They need the catharsis, and will need
it even more in November of 2012. * After all, if they were so smart and had
all the right answers, why did Obama win by an impressive margin?

Sure you do. That's why you're making another post, right?




If you ask them, I'm sure they'll tell you in their-friend winning ways
"It's because they're all idiots." * You just got to laugh. *At a time when
they need every vote they can lay their hands on, they're driving
independents away by their continual condescension and determined derision
for all things not like them. *How can a whole group of people be so
misguided to not realize they need every friend (and vote) they can get?

How many independents did we drive away last Fall?




I actually welcome the insults because they indicate how totally afraid they
are that they'll lose the next Presidential election, too. *The more they
insult, the more fearful they are and judging from what I see lately,
they're mighty afraid. *(-:

My former boss, an 80 year-old US Army Colonel and die-hard Republican put
it best: *"The Republicans are making it awful hard for anyone to like
them." *As I see it, they've evolved (devolved?) into the Far Right and the
EXTREMELY Far Right.

The results of last Nov suggest that most voters don't view
them that way. As for being right, was it not you, who proclaimed
a few days ago, that you lean right? Not that anyone would
believe that, but it's what you said.

On May 29, 4:45*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message

...

The largest deficts historically were always under republican control,
till obama inherited the WORST RECESSION since the great depression/

According to the posts I've read, die hard Republicans, while basking in the
glow of long dead Reagan, act as if spendthrift Bush somehow never existed
or doesn't count. *

Not this Republican, nor conservative Republicans in general.
I said during the Bush years that spending was out of control.
I said it then, I say it now. I'm consistent.



You've got to admire the way they always counter any
mention of Bush with "he not President anymore" as if the two wars he ginned
up and their consequences magically stopped the day he left the Oval Office.

When Obama took office the sky was falling and no one was quite sure how bad
it would get or where it would end. *As hateful as I found many of the
things he and the Congress did, I don't think they had much of a choice.
The people at the top know how panic can overwhelm almost any human system.
They had to make sure that people still maintained some confidence in the
financial system.

With the DJIA back up, I'd say they were successful in pulling things back
together. *This "humongous deficit" game is a strategy that one side or
another has used ever since the deficit limit required approval. *It's more
political theater at its best and political blackmail at its worst.

That's how you see it? A game? I see it as a very real
danger to our national security. Bigger than Muslim terrorists.

What exactly is the Democrat plan for dealing with the
deficits? Besides just projecting them at $1tril a year
for the next decade and demagoguing when the
Republicans propose any solutions?





Having got Bil Laden, and no doubt taking out Kadaffi sooner
hopefully, and with paul ryans help just few even want to run against
obama, he has already been re elected

Paul Ryan trying to disassemble medicare while cutting taxes for the
super wealthy...... geez the guy must be using recreational drugs his
idea is DOA

People are slowly but surely getting the picture that Ryan wants to balance
the gifts given to the rich off the poorest people in society. *Let some of
those hedge fund millionaires give back a little to the country and the
economic system whose reputation and stability gave them the opportunity to
make those millions. *So what if the rate is confiscatory?

Spoken like a true commie.



*If these folks
are using predatory practices to amass their fortunes, a high tax rate would
give them an incentive to stop raiding pensions funds and people's
retirement savings.

IT would also give the worlds capital reasons to find shelter
elsewhere where it would not be confiscated. You want to
be like Cuba?




It's a miracle people still invest in the stock market with the recent rash
of frauds and crimes like Madoff and Raj Rajaratnam the foundering founder
of the hedge fund, the Galleon Group, whose fortunes are sinking like its
namesake's did, loaded with gold in a hurricane:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57631706024664...

NEW YORK-Raj Rajaratnam, a billionaire hedge-fund impresario who built his
fortune in the relentless cultivation of corporate contacts, was convicted
Wednesday on all 14 counts of securities fraud and conspiracy against him in
the biggest insider-trading case ever, likely accelerating an unprecedented
wave of prosecutions rocking Wall Street . . . the founder of Galleon Group
trafficked in insider tips provided by a web of contacts at the top tier of
American business . . . Never before have there been so many major,
unrelated insider-trading cases brought by authorities. In the past 18
months alone, the U.S. has criminally charged 47 hedge-fund managers and
others with insider trading; 36 now have been convicted or pleaded guilty

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



I think a lot of voters are smart enough to realize that Obama was tasked
with fixing the mess that laissez-faire Bush had made of things, and will
realize he managed to get a lot done for being starting out so deep in a
hole dug by others. The dysfunctional SEC allowed Madoff and other crooks
to flourish under Bush's quite deliberate throttling of that regulatory
agency (as well as many others). Obama's success at fixing the mess will be
remembered. And the same people that voted for him before will vote for him
again.

The main problem with this theory is that the SEC under Clinton also
ignored Madoff. The SEC had been a non-entity for much longer than Bush.
Of course, he had his chances, too. Also, the changes in laws that put
this motion were passed over about 15 years in multiple administrations.

The Republicans, who assured us that Obama would crush free enterprise,
seize all handguns and run out on our allies, are now faced with explaining
away their lies. Now it's "Obama's War" because he's stuck dealing with the
mess that Bush made and knows no matter what he does he'll be bashed by the
right for it. Leave the war, he's a coward, stay and wind it down
responsibly, and now it's all his fault. Do you detect a high level of
hypocrisy in their complaints against him? I do!
It is Obama's war now, because he campaigned specifically that he
would stop it. Period. It was a promise to stop it by a certain time. I
do find it refreshing though, that when he got to office and actually
have to make the decisions, he did it based on the advice of the pros.


Obama, whom Dufas labels a "Commiecrat" helped our country's "free
enterprise" by lending it enough money to keep the factories out of
bankruptcy. Even die hard Republicans can appreciate the value of keeping
our manufacturing muscle strong, and MAKING MONEY doing so!
ALthough that is leavened somewhat by the fact that the unions were the
biggest owners coming out. Seems like a payoff.


Catching Osama, getting a new universal health care law in place, saving the
car industry, maybe even winding the wars in AfRaq down. He's looking
pretty strong coming into 2012. Now all we need is the Republicans to keep
touching the Medicare third rail while they force another government
shutdown to seal the deal. They never miss an opportunity to miss an
opportunity.
Stumbling over Osama (grin). It is nice that he will be out of
office long before the health care law kicks in. Looking at MA, I am not
as sanguine as most that it will actually work long term.
For example: € 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.
€ This spells trouble for taxpayers. 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. The incentives for this are also in ObamaCare.
€ 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.
€ 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
taxpayers.

It is going to cost more than talked about. The law actually tells
the CBO how to score things. For example, the CBO and GAO have to score
the Medicare savings as actually being implemented. The interesting part
is that the law brings a large amount of the savings from slashes in
MCare payments to docs and hospitals. The REALLY interesting part is
that the law with all of these "savings" from the docs was passed two
days after the 21% cut in MCare payments to the docs was rescinded. The
reason it was so high is that it was the cumulative cuts that were
supposed to be taken since the law enacted was enacted in '96. Yet we
are supposed to think this time they really will.
Especially in the area of docs. MCare already pays about 60 cents
for every dollar the private insurance companies pay for (MCaid is even
worse). Even with the studiously ignoring of the MCare Sustainability
Act we discussed above, many docs are refusing to take new MCare
patients. That will probably get worse if the rate cuts actually kick
in.
As a possible harbinger of what is in store, a survey of ER docs
released in the last week 97% say that they are seeing MCaid patients in
their baliwick for general care because no physician would accept them.

If you ask them, I'm sure they'll tell you in their-friend winning ways
"It's because they're all idiots." You just got to laugh. At a time when
they need every vote they can lay their hands on, they're driving
independents away by their continual condescension and determined derision
for all things not like them. How can a whole group of people be so
misguided to not realize they need every friend (and vote) they can get?
Sorta like the more rabid Dems in '00 and '04 (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

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


When Obama took office the sky was falling and no one was quite sure how bad
it would get or where it would end. As hateful as I found many of the
things he and the Congress did, I don't think they had much of a choice.
The people at the top know how panic can overwhelm almost any human system.
They had to make sure that people still maintained some confidence in the
financial system.

But quite a bit of the TARP was already in place by the time Obama
took office. WHile he definitely did more than his part with GM, etc.,
much of the financial system recovery was already in place.


With the DJIA back up, I'd say they were successful in pulling things back
together. This "humongous deficit" game is a strategy that one side or
another has used ever since the deficit limit required approval. It's more
political theater at its best and political blackmail at its worst.
Of course when it was the GOP's limits that needed raised, Obama
famously called it a lack of leadership that we had come to this point.
Sorta interesting how different it looks when it is you ass (or legacy
if you prefer) on the line. But again, have to give props for facing
reality.

People are slowly but surely getting the picture that Ryan wants to balance
the gifts given to the rich off the poorest people in society. Let some of
those hedge fund millionaires give back a little to the country and the
economic system whose reputation and stability gave them the opportunity to
make those millions. So what if the rate is confiscatory? If these folks
are using predatory practices to amass their fortunes, a high tax rate would
give them an incentive to stop raiding pensions funds and people's
retirement savings.

It's a miracle people still invest in the stock market with the recent rash
of frauds and crimes like Madoff and Raj Rajaratnam the foundering founder
of the hedge fund, the Galleon Group, whose fortunes are sinking like its
namesake's did, loaded with gold in a hurricane:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...246641834.html
Ta x policy by whoever offends you. Always a good idea.



--
"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 Sun, 29 May 2011 06:48:02 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

bob haller wrote:

Well obama also saved the car manufacturers, they were on the edge of
extinction in the US, at least GM and chrysler were

Chrysler paid back their loan and are now making a profit

GM has paid back a lot of the loan, and are adding manufacturing jobs
in detroit, the chevy volt sales are better than expected

Better than expected? At less than 300 per month (a total of 1500 since last
year)? Compare that to better than 150,000 per month for a Ford F150.

Isn't 300 the number of Chevy Volts that fit in the back of an F150?

On Sun, 29 May 2011 09:56:26 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , "TJ" wrote:

wrote in message
...


And their you have it folks. An unbelievable smear. You can't win
on
the facts, so you resort to cheap shots against an honerable
American who happened to
succumb to alzheimers. I find that personally offensive as all
victims
of that disease, their families and decent Americans should.

Anyone who believes the sitting POTUS should stay in office, because they
have Alzheimer's, is a fool. The man should've been removed by his cohorts,
and saved him some dignity.
He was diagnosed with ALZ a full ten years after leaving office.
But if you really need to think he was demented while in office, please
feel free to be completely wrong.

The Reykjavik summit, the day the West won the Cold War, was in late '86.

I provided plenty of facts, it's time for you to run away.

On May 28, 9:34*pm, "TJ" wrote:
wrote in message

...

And their you have it folks. *An unbelievable smear. * You can't win
on
the facts, so you resort to cheap shots against an honerable
American *who happened to

*succumb to alzheimers. *I find that personally offensive as all

victims
of that disease, their families and decent Americans should.

Calling it as everyone sees it.


No, youre calling it as only a few would. Making
fun of someone with Alzheimers just shows everyone
the disgusting person you really are. Do you teach
your children the same level of human decency?




Not even going into Reagan's Iran-Contra deal, or going into the bill he
signed giving 2.7 illegal aliens amnesty. I won't even go into depth about
giving gave Saddam WMD's.

You won't go into giving Saddam WMDs because it never happened.



Here's some facts you won't hear on Hannity, read em & weep.

*The Federal Government expanded greatly during his administration. The
number of workers in the government rose by 61,000. Under President
Clinton, for example, the number fell by 373,000. The Department of
Veterans Affairs, one of the largest federal agencies, was his creation.

*He more than tripled the national debt.

*He compromised on arms controls with the Soviets and, at one point, came
within a whisker of agreeing with Gorbachev to scrapping all of boths sides
nuclear arsenals (Reagan had a strong belief that nuclear weapons should be
abolished). The only thing that kept this from happening was Reagan's
hard-headed refusal to drop "Star Wars" (his ill-fated missile defensive
initiative).

Geez, you can't make everyone happy, can you? The lib loons wanted
a one sided US freeze on all nuclear weapons and condemned Reagan
as a mad nuclear cowboy.
Now here you are bitching because Reagan was close to
eliminating all nuclear weapons. Of course if Obama did achieve that
next week, why it would be worthy of another Noble prize, right?




Reagan condemned an Israeli preventive strike against an Iraqi nuclear
reactor in 1981.

*Yes, he cut taxes heavily at the beginning of his first term. What isn't
often brought up is that he then raised taxes after that (in 1982, 1983,
1984 & 1986) in a bid to make up for the record deficits he created and the
negative impact it had on the nation. This is, by the way, a positive mark
on his tenure. Seeing that the estimates of 1981 were way off the mark he
altered his plans.


Oh please. When Reagan took office, the top income tax rate was 70%.
He cut it in half and it has remained very close to that level through
the
years of Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and now Obama. There may have
been small tweaks of a few percent here and there, but that's it. You
can't lie about history. And even if it were true, weren't you just
claiming
that had the rates been higher there would have been no deficit? Now
you make the silly claim that rates actually were materially higher.




*The Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 950.68 when he took office. A year
later, after his massive tax cuts, the Dow was at 845.89 (down 12%). He
started raising taxes and, as he continued, the Dow climbed to over 2,200..
Does this sound at all the way Sean Hannity describes the Reagan plan?

No, because the above is a lie.




He
tells listeners that Reagan cut everyone's taxes and the greatest era of
American prosperity resulted. Uh huh. Tax cuts had nothing to do with it.
An August 1983 Congressional Budget Office report stated, "Lower interest
rates after mid-1982 permitted the recovery to begin."

Yeah, we should listen to a Congressional agency as a source
of facts. Congresss has an approval rating of what, 15%? And the
longest peacetime expansion of the US economy occurred under
Reagan.





*Unemployment rose steadily during his first term and saw a peak of 10.8%
during 1982-83 which is the highest it has been since. It was 7.2% when he
took over. It didn't get back to that number until June of 1984 (It bounced
around after that until July of 1986 when it finally stayed below 7.2% for
the duration).

And your point is what? Unemployment peaked about a year after
Reagans tax cuts were passed. It then began a sharp decline and
decreased ever year thereafter. It was 5.5% when he left office.

As for the initial rise, it was caused by the FED cleaning up Jimmy
Carter's mess, getting inflation under control, by raising interest
rates. It's true that lowering rates also played a major part in
the recovery, but that does not in any way negate the impact
of tax cuts. It's sad. Democrats including JFK used tax cuts
to stimulate the economy. Today's Democrats won't do that.
They want to take all your tax money, then they decide where
to spend it to try to stimulate the economy.

And if interest rates are the sole determinant of unemployment
and recovery, what exactly excuse does Obama have? They
have been at historic lows now for several years, at levels half
or a third those seen during the Reagan years and the
economy is still a mess with high unemployment that isn't
coming down.



*Mortgage rates were lousy under Reagan. The best you could do during all 8
years he was in office, for a 30-year mortgage, was 9.11%. For much of his
term the rate was in the 13% range. Can you imagine the outcry today if
that was the best you could do?

More lies. They were lousy only as the FED cleaned up the mess from
the Carter era. Interest rates and inflation were already out of
control.
Reagan and Volcker fixed that. Volcker, BTW, was appointed late in
the term of Jimmy Carter.



*More government officials (appointed by Reagan) were indicted and
convicted (over 100) than under any other President. To this day I have a
hard time thinking of any period during his tenure when indictments weren't
dominating the news.

Were you even alive then? I was there and idictments were not
dominating the news.




Reagan gave Saddam WMD's. In 2002 conservative Robert Novak wrote: "An
eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous
materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985
to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war."

Provide us a link to that report.





*Reagan totally ignored, at its most critical period, the outbreak of AIDS.
Remember, the first cases came to light in 1981. Reagan's own
Communications Director, Pat Buchanan (yes, that Pat Buchanan) said that
AIDS is "nature's revenge on gay men." Reagan only mentioned AIDS in
mid-1987. By that time 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed and 20,849 had
died. The disease had reached 113 countries counting more than 50,000
cases. Imagine the hate and ignorance that leads people to believe that a
virus is only transmitted between gay men.

I can't but you, the guy who attacks Reagan, an Alzheimer's victim,
for wearing diapers, would fit right in with what you accuse
others of doing. As far as ignoring AIDS at it's
most critical period, it's not clear having done more
then would have resulted in a substantially different outcome.
AIDS was and is a worldwide problem that was being addressed
by not only the US. Yes, Reagan could have done more.




*Wall Street collapsed in 1987 dropping 1,000 points (remember it was only
at 2,700 at the time), a huge 37% drop.
His tenure left successor George H.W. Bush with an economy so impacted that
he faced two recessions and a deficit so crushing that Bush had to go back
on his own famous promise, "Read my lips. No new taxes." The reversal cost
Bush the Presidency but also helped to right the economy after he left.

More lies. Bush went back on his pledge not to raise taxes in 1990.
The
recession started in July of that very same year and was over in 8
months,
making it one of the shortest, mildest on record.

You really are totally ignorant of economics. Whether one is a
Keynsian
or Milton Friedman, there is no question that tax cuts stimulate the
economy, not the other way around. It's just that lib loons prefer
you
to send all your money to the govt, then have the govt decide what
to spend it on to try to stimulate the economy.




*His out-of-the-gate policies were so "popular" and "successful" at the
time that Republicans lost 26 seats in the 1982 Congressional election
(even with the help of Anne Burford).

It's normal to lose a small number of seats in the
off year election, as history shows.




*In January, 1981, Reagan claimed the federal budget was "out of control"..
At the time the deficit was almost $74 billion while the federal debt
reached $930 billion. By 1983 the deficit reached $208 billion. When he
left office the national debt reached $2.6 trillion.

The parts you left out are first that is not adjusted for inflation,
which was
significant during those years. Adjusted for inflation it's far less
than $2.6 tril. And second, if it's Reagan who's responsible for
our national debt, why is it that it's currently $14tril, ie 6X what
it
was when Reagan left? Hmmm? Why is it that Obama is
running a deficit of $1.7 tril, 11% of GCP this very year and is
projecting deficits of $1tril FOR THE NEXT DECADE? By
those standards, Reagan looks great.





*In his eight years in office the United States moved from being the
world's largest international creditor to become its largest debtor nation.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
aemeijers wrote:



But I agree- once the diagnosis was made, he should have left office. No
dishonor in retiring for medical reasons. That is why the framers built
a spare, AKA the VP, into the system. The public announcement a few
years later came as no surprise to most people.

He was out of office for a full ten years when diagnosed.


Actually 5 years when the media broke the news. However, Reagan's son
states he believes his father started the symptoms while still sitting in
the WH.

Like others on here, many people suspected it while he was in the WH.

wrote:

What exactly is the Democrat plan for dealing with the
deficits? Besides just projecting them at $1tril a year
for the next decade and demagoguing when the
Republicans propose any solutions?



The Democrats HAVE a plan, at least for Medicare. Their plan is to do
nothing and let it fail.

When Medicare fails, there will be clamoring for a fix. The Democrats will
then say "We've been promoting a fix for YEARS - it's called "Single Payer"
and the Republicans have been blocking our plan."

To repeat, the Democrats WANT Medicare (and Medicaid, etc.) to fail as a
step toward nationalizing the health care industry.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

What exactly is the Democrat plan for dealing with the
deficits? Besides just projecting them at $1tril a year
for the next decade and demagoguing when the
Republicans propose any solutions?



The Democrats HAVE a plan, at least for Medicare. Their plan is to do
nothing and let it fail.


That's why I get such a kick out of the Dem's suggesting that the GOP
wants to push granny off a cliff in her wheelchair. My bet is that she
won't be in a wheelchair because she won't be able to find a doc who
sees MCare patients to get one if the Dems make all the cuts in payments
to the docs they are talking about.

--
"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 May 29, 10:35*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

*"HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

What exactly is the Democrat plan for dealing with the
deficits? *Besides just projecting them at $1tril a year
for the next decade and demagoguing when the
Republicans propose any solutions?

The Democrats HAVE a plan, at least for Medicare. Their plan is to do
nothing and let it fail.

* *That's why I get such a kick out of the Dem's suggesting that the GOP
wants to push granny off a cliff in her wheelchair. *My bet is that she
won't be in a wheelchair because she won't be able to find a doc who
sees MCare patients to get one if the Dems make all the cuts in payments
to the docs they are talking about.

--
"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

Republicans blocked efforts for medicare to negoiate for lower drug
costs.

Republicans the party of the wealthy

On May 29, 8:07*pm, "TJ" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

m...

In article ,
aemeijers wrote:

But I agree- once the diagnosis was made, he should have left office. No
dishonor in retiring for medical reasons. That is why the framers built
a spare, AKA the VP, *into the system. The public announcement a few
years later came as no surprise to most people.

He was out of office for a full ten years when diagnosed.

Actually 5 years when the media broke the news. However, Reagan's son
states he believes his father started the symptoms while still sitting in
the WH.

Like others on here, many people suspected it while he was in the WH.

Of course, Reagan's son chose to run around spouting that
allegation on the 100th anniversary of his father's birth. Nice way
to honor him. His other son, Michael sides with the vast majority who
say it's totally false. You think just maybe that he chose to
make that accusation in a new book he's selling is a
factor?


Ron Reagan and Patty hate
their father so much, they refused to attend the home
porting of the new carrier, CVN76, named for the
former president. This is long after he'd left office.
Pretty much cements their reputation
as lib loons.

If he had evidence of Alzheimers as early as 3 years
into his first term, it would have been impossible to
hide it with all the interviews, summits, campaigning
..... everything he did day to day. Just another baseless
accusation.

On May 30, 10:40*am, "
wrote:
On May 29, 8:07*pm, "TJ" wrote:









"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

om...

In article ,
aemeijers wrote:

But I agree- once the diagnosis was made, he should have left office.. No
dishonor in retiring for medical reasons. That is why the framers built
a spare, AKA the VP, *into the system. The public announcement a few
years later came as no surprise to most people.

He was out of office for a full ten years when diagnosed.

Actually 5 years when the media broke the news. However, Reagan's son
states he believes his father started the symptoms while still sitting in
the WH.

Like others on here, many people suspected it while he was in the WH.

Of course, Reagan's son chose to run around spouting that
allegation on the 100th anniversary of his father's birth. *Nice way
to honor him. *His other son, Michael sides with the vast majority who
say it's totally false. *You think just maybe that he chose to
make that accusation in a new book he's selling is a
factor?

Ron Reagan and Patty hate
their father so much, they refused to attend the home
porting of the new carrier, CVN76, named for the
former president. *This is long after he'd left office.
*Pretty much cements their reputation
as lib loons.

If he had evidence of Alzheimers as early as 3 years
*into his first term, it would have been impossible to
hide it with all the interviews, summits, campaigning
.... everything he did day to day. *Just another baseless
accusation.


LOL, he was probably showing signs of Alzheimers years before when he
tried to join the communist party and they had the good sense to turn
him down. They knew something was wrong with him. At least they were
smarter than the Republicans.

On Thu, 26 May 2011 14:48:43 -0700 (PDT), Higgs Boson
wrote:

On May 26, 10:20*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 5/26/2011 11:40 AM, Twayne wrote:









,
The Daring *typed:
On 5/26/2011 9:48 AM, Country wrote:
On May 26, 9:37 am, Suga Moto *wrote:
Republican:
Someone who supports the rights of the unborn, but
won't fund stem cell research that could help the
millions who are already here. The first one to protest
abortion rights, and the first one willing to take a
life through capital punishment. Someone who espouses
personal freedom, and then tries to pass constitutional
amendments to restrict it. Someone threatened by
government surplus but unfazed by goverment deficits.
Someone who is pro-business but anti-citizen. Someone
who wants to take away the helping hand, after he's
made it to safety. Someone who holds a cross in one
hand and tries to burn it with the other.

You forgot that they are the party that hates Gays but
cruises for boys in Men's Restrooms at the Airport. LOL.

Could you please post a link to somewhere that lists
those assertions of yours as being part of the Republican
platform. I'm not a Republican and if you claimed the
same thing about Democrats, I'd want to see proof of that
too. I have friends in both parties and never heard any of them claim
that. :-)

TDD

Only fools ... .

So where is that site? ^_^

Pal, you want just one site that lists all the above 100% true
statements? You want somebody to do your citizen's work for you?

You need to start reading history and following the news, not just on
Fox or network stations or even most newspapers (you DO read
newspapers?) Every single statement above can be bolstered by
numerous acts of Congress, the Supreme Court, the Administration
(mostly Bush and his antecedents, with even Clinton not getting a full
pass).

Check out also our corporate masters, who pay off Congress to whore
for them. Look up the famous saying: "Apres nous, le deluge". I
think it was Louis XV who uttered it. The new far-right Republican
motto. Note: There still are a few Republicans left who espouse true
Conservative values (as opposed to the Mad Dogs who have taken over
the Party) but they are virtually powerless against the Hitlerian
machine that keeps the Party in line.

TDD

+1

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



I think a lot of voters are smart enough to realize that Obama was
tasked
with fixing the mess that laissez-faire Bush had made of things, and
will
realize he managed to get a lot done for being starting out so deep in a
hole dug by others. The dysfunctional SEC allowed Madoff and other
crooks
to flourish under Bush's quite deliberate throttling of that regulatory
agency (as well as many others). Obama's success at fixing the mess
will be
remembered. And the same people that voted for him before will vote for
him
again.

The main problem with this theory is that the SEC under Clinton also
ignored Madoff. The SEC had been a non-entity for much longer than Bush.
Of course, he had his chances, too. Also, the changes in laws that put
this motion were passed over about 15 years in multiple administrations.

I have to take issue with this. President Bush has made his feelings about
the SEC clear on a number of occasions. Whether his ill will towards them
was based on his own "near miss" at indictment for insider trading and late
filing Harken or some other incident, the SEC did not fare well on his
watch.

http://snde.rutgers.edu/Rutgers/Econ...n_detail.html:

The investigation of George Bush's crime was led by George Bush's
previous personal lawyer, James R. Doty, who had helped Bush with the Texas
Rangers deal. Like Breedon, Doty had also been with the law firm Baker
Botts. Interestingly - Doty, as the lead investigator never interviewed
any of Harken's directors. (Flocco and Ruppert 1-9-2002; Flocco 2-18-2002;
Milbank 7-4-2002; Scheer 7-9-2002) The Washington Post reported that Doty
had recused himself. (Allen and Lardner 7-14-2002)

Dost thou smelleth a rodent? (-:

Bush's dislike of the agency was palpable and he put in place an SEC chief
that slept as soundly as Brownie did at the wheel.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n28909350/ says:

a law Congress passed last year corrected that and authorized higher SEC
salaries. President Bush initially promised to include the $76 million in
his proposed fiscal 2003 budget, but when he finally announced the budget on
February 4, the additional funds weren't there.

Presidents have lots of ways to "rein in" various Federal agencies. Whether
it's failing to appoint the appropriate leadership or actively stifling
potentially embarrassing investigations, they can emasculate an agency under
their control (directly in the case of Cabinet posts, indirectly with the
FCC, SEC, etc) quite effectively. Bush worried me because of his
involvement with companies that operated in ays so similar to Enron that
they eventually drew the SEC's attention (until, allegedly, his dad, who was
then President, quietly stepped in).

Bush was intent on throttling the SEC perhaps because of both his bad
experience with them and his philosophy of a self-regulating business world.
While Bush was POTUS, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox systematically curtailed
the SEC's effectiveness by standing still while the business community grew
at a frantic pace. The agency's budget failed to keep pace with an
explosion in the size and scope of Wall Street's activities during his
tenure.

http://www.leasingnews.org/archives/...-19-08.htm#snl

said: "Cox has played a central role in starving the SEC since he took up
the chairmanship in 2005. It is not that Congress and the president have
merely refused requests for more robust funding, but Cox has not even asked
for it and has insisted before Congress that his budget requests are
perfectly adequate."

http://leasingnews.org/items/SEC_Budget2.jpg

The above chart shows how ludicrous it is to contend that the SEC was
keeping up with the phenomenal growth on Wall Street. With the explosion of
new forms of investment vehicles (especially the ones that sank the
economy!) it's unconscionable to fail to keep up - and that's exactly what
the SEC did during Bush's tenure.

If you believe some of the stories circulating on Wall St. Cox was another
"heckuva a job, Brownie" sort of appointment. Reports say that he was too
busy at a birthday party to take part in the Bear Stearns bailout
negotiations.

Arbusto lost money, but was still valuable as tax shelters. The Harken
Energy case and Bush's own "go rounds" with the SEC draw a picture of a man
who's not very fond of regulation:

http://snde.rutgers.edu/Rutgers/Econ...en_detail.html

That's a President's prerogative and sometimes a Congressional one. Holding
up appointments went from an infrequently exercised option to a highly
refined political horse-trading/vengeance process that both sides gleefully
take advantage of when it works for them and take umbrage with when it works
against them. Bush certainly didn't pioneer the leaderless agency
technique, I'll agree but with 8 years of his leadership we ended up in a
horrendous crash that could have been avoided if their had been some
effective regulation and transparency in the CDO markets.

Even the perpetrators like AIG *knew* they should be regulated - they just
thought they had found a legal way to evade them that they could exploit at
least until the SEC woke up. But like Madoff, despite mounting evidence
that serious trouble was afoot, the SEC was kept tightly reined in by their
lack of resources. Was that all Bush's fault? Of course not, but
organizations like the SEC are constitutionally his bailiwick although the
SEC functions as an allegedly independent agency:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indepen...s_governme nt

The reality is that a President can exert tremendous influence on nearly any
agency, even if he can't fire the heads of independent agencies. I can
certainly understand after his tangle with them that he had no love for the
SEC. I also know agency funding always lags growth in problem areas and
until 2008 no one saw a problem as everyone seemed to be making money hand
over fist. So maybe it is the entire process that's been corrupted by large
contributions from business that hate regulation the way Palestians hate the
Jews.


The Obama administration wouldn't be in a position where they can find cases
left, right and center - bringing the largest number and size of cases
against Wall St. evil-doers if the SEC had been doing its job all along.

The Republicans, who assured us that Obama would crush free enterprise,
seize all handguns and run out on our allies, are now faced with
explaining
away their lies. Now it's "Obama's War" because he's stuck dealing with
the
mess that Bush made and knows no matter what he does he'll be bashed by
the
right for it. Leave the war, he's a coward, stay and wind it down
responsibly, and now it's all his fault. Do you detect a high level of
hypocrisy in their complaints against him? I do!

It is Obama's war now, because he campaigned specifically that he
would stop it. Period. It was a promise to stop it by a certain time. I
do find it refreshing though, that when he got to office and actually
have to make the decisions, he did it based on the advice of the pros.

A candidate is usually not privy to the detailed security briefings a new
POTUS gets when stepping into the Oval Office. I assume, from the parade of
four-stars that I am sure briefed the living daylights out of him, that they
convinced him that his proposed fast-track withdrawal would lead to chaos
that he would be blamed for. I figure if he gets the troops out just in
time for 2012, he'll win make all the grumpy independents who voted for him
to end the war. As you note, people will find it refreshing that he lied.
(-: I still believe that a war belongs to the initiator, not the guy stuck
with winding it down. Vietnam, thusly, wasn't Nixon's war and AfRaq is not
Obama's.

Obama, whom Dufas labels a "Commiecrat" helped our country's "free
enterprise" by lending it enough money to keep the factories out of
bankruptcy. Even die hard Republicans can appreciate the value of
keeping
our manufacturing muscle strong, and MAKING MONEY doing so!

ALthough that is leavened somewhat by the fact that the unions were the
biggest owners coming out. Seems like a payoff.

That counts as being shrewd. Gets credit for saving GM - Wall St. likes
that, gets credit from the "leftist" unions for saving their bacon, too.
Seems like no more a payoff than "we'll cut your taxes and even SEND YOU
MONEY if you vote for us, and we'll do it without worrying about how we'll
pay for two expensive wars simmering for 10 years."

Politicians on every side, probably even before the Roman Senate was formed,
were giving away bread and circuses for votes or favorable consideration.
Bribery? Maybe, but if I had the time, I'd generate a "what's your vote
worth?" database of how much has been known to be paid for votes in various
areas based on the sporadic criminal prosecutions that have occurred. LBJ
would certainly be part of that dataset. It's probably more than
coincidental that one of the places where votes seem to be traded most
heavily is also one of the world's commodity centers: Chicago. I guess a
vote is a commodity, in the long run.
Catching Osama, getting a new universal health care law in place, saving
the
car industry, maybe even winding the wars in AfRaq down. He's looking
pretty strong coming into 2012. Now all we need is the Republicans to
keep
touching the Medicare third rail while they force another government
shutdown to seal the deal. They never miss an opportunity to miss an
opportunity.

Stumbling over Osama (grin). It is nice that he will be out of
office long before the health care law kicks in. Looking at MA, I am not
as sanguine as most that it will actually work long term.

Who knows, he could do like Bloomberg and seek to abolish Presidential term
limits. Maybe with 16 years to work with, the Republicans can find an
electable candidate. Romney has the Mass. health care albatross hanging
around his neck, growing stinkier every day. I have my doubts, too, whether
Obamacare will actually work out. But it's well known in DC that once you
get a bill like that passed, the greatest hurdle has been surmounted. From
this bi-partisan pork-laden butcher job may come a fusion of Obamacare and
MCare that appears relatively seamless to those insured.

For example: ? 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.
? This spells trouble for taxpayers. 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. The incentives for this are also in ObamaCare.
? 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.
? 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
taxpayers.

What you've written above is Mitt Romney's political suicide note. There
are always plenty of problems implementing systems at the wrong level.
Healthcare needs to be Federal to end the mishmash of state networks that
allow insurers and people to game the system, avoid paying claims, refuse
anyone likely to cost money, drift in and out of coverage, etc. A uniform
federal policy would eliminate a lot of problems that a state, with a much
smaller pool of insured, can't avoid.

It is going to cost more than talked about. The law actually tells
the CBO how to score things. For example, the CBO and GAO have to score
the Medicare savings as actually being implemented. The interesting part
is that the law brings a large amount of the savings from slashes in
MCare payments to docs and hospitals. The REALLY interesting part is
that the law with all of these "savings" from the docs was passed two
days after the 21% cut in MCare payments to the docs was rescinded. The
reason it was so high is that it was the cumulative cuts that were
supposed to be taken since the law enacted was enacted in '96. Yet we
are supposed to think this time they really will.
Especially in the area of docs. MCare already pays about 60 cents
for every dollar the private insurance companies pay for (MCaid is even
worse). Even with the studiously ignoring of the MCare Sustainability
Act we discussed above, many docs are refusing to take new MCare
patients. That will probably get worse if the rate cuts actually kick
in.

I don't doubt that. But MCare premiums are low enough that many can afford
Medigap insurance, which spreads the cost of care between the Feds and
private insurers without overhauls, vouchers or any need to touch the base
program. I keep seeing ads for a dental chain in the DC area that says,
specifically "New Medicaid Patients Welcome" - I don't know what their scam
is, but I know that some doctors MUST be taking MCare/Caid patients because
the current level of payouts (no time to look it up) is huge. They may pay
less, put they certainly pay a lot of doctors.

As a possible harbinger of what is in store, a survey of ER docs
released in the last week 97% say that they are seeing MCaid patients in
their baliwick for general care because no physician would accept them.

That's two bailiwicks in one message and both of us spelled them
incorrectly. At least spellcheck caught mine!

If you ask them, I'm sure they'll tell you in their-friend winning ways
"It's because they're all idiots." You just got to laugh. At a time
when
they need every vote they can lay their hands on, they're driving
independents away by their continual condescension and determined
derision
for all things not like them. How can a whole group of people be so
misguided to not realize they need every friend (and vote) they can get?

Sorta like the more rabid Dems in '00 and '04 (Grin).

I was just referring to some of the more mouthy Republicans here. Maybe
they're doing better at the local and national level, but when I read that
"lib loons" use profanity time after time and try to align that with the
language I see in various responses to posts, it doesn't match up. You stand
out as one of the few political pundits here that can avoid biting ears,
hitting below the belt and generally confusing criticizing ideas with
criticizing people.

There's a reason why there's a tradition in Congress of using overly ornate
salutations like "the distinguished Senator from Left Overshoe." They do it
to try to keep the discussion civil and impersonal. I find the Republicans
here far more likely to use derisive names for politicians they dislike
(Obummer, BeeHo, Comrade) as well as the intellectually bereft "you're an
idiot" retorts Maybe someday when I am bored I'll do a lexical analysis -
it's just my casual observation at this point. I do believe that when
someone has to tell you "I am not a crook" or "the other guy's are potty
mouthed" it's usually just to deflect the obvious guilt. Maybe we need to
coin a phrase for those that seek to put a 180 degree reverse spin on the
facts.

--
"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

Who stole the second U in your eucalyptus tree?

--
Bobby G.

clipped

I don't doubt that. But MCare premiums are low enough that many can afford
Medigap insurance, which spreads the cost of care between the Feds and
private insurers without overhauls, vouchers or any need to touch the base
program. I keep seeing ads for a dental chain in the DC area that says,
specifically "New Medicaid Patients Welcome" - I don't know what their scam
is, but I know that some doctors MUST be taking MCare/Caid patients because
the current level of payouts (no time to look it up) is huge. They may pay
less, put they certainly pay a lot of doctors.

As a possible harbinger of what is in store, a survey of ER docs
released in the last week 97% say that they are seeing MCaid patients in
their baliwick for general care because no physician would accept them.


I moved not long ago, so had to line up a new family doc, my least
favorite task in life. I'm a retired nurse and have never had a doc who
didn't do something goofy to me or my kids, so I'm already on the
defensive. I found a family doc who is the son of a nurse I once worked
with, figuring that if SHE brought him up he knows how to do the right
stuff ) In my inquiries, I found that he was the only doc in his
group of four taking new Medicare patients, and only if they have
supplemental insurance! Holy cow! I knew it was getting tough for
docs, but now what....with the boomers coming on and no family docs to
take them, will we go back to physicians who actually enter the
profession to serve, set up an office in their home, and actually know
their patients? I could go for that, along with only generic meds, no
transplants, no heroics and leaving my life choices up to ME.

I often wonder what "healthcare" would cost without the competitive
advertising, walnut/marble lobbies and waiting rooms, two drugstores on
every corner, and someone actually monitoring what is wasted on "home
health care". Seems like the ethics are disappearing from medicine,
nursing and life in general, in favor of making a buck any way one can.