"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
Some for sure... can't be helped really. Not nearly as much as Bush wasted
in his administration.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Youe opinion. But all Obama's spending has not turned around the recession.
Percentage of unemployment still rising, and that excludes those that have
given up on getting a job. The stock market is mostly a bubble driven by
all the money given to "too big to fail" financial houses. Which have now
decided to give billions of bonus money, even though they have not really
made any money, just a huge infusion of taxpayers $$$$$$$$. We have the
next wave of mortages going to fail. The not subprime ones. The bailout
was to supposed to buy toxic mortgages. None bought, so what did the banks
do with the money. Gold broke $1100. Most of the rise is the falling
dollar. What happens when China wants to cash in all that debt we owe them.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:09:51 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:16:05 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:44:40 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:55:57 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news:njfff59qq8ngiskkbtv3qja8df9lv7c9e3 @4ax.com...
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:07:50 -0700, Canuck57

wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
Tonight at 11:15 pm EST, by a 220 to 215 vote, the House
passed
their
version of Health Care Reform.

Among the most meaningful pieces of legislation in history
making
it
through one body of congress is a big deal. There's lots of
work
left
but I'm damned happy a major bridge has been crossed.

All you folks who hate your fellow Americans and don't think
it's
worth the investment have my sympathy.


One lone Republican voted for it. 39 Democrats opposed. That
****es me
off.
Well, it's on to the Senate. I'm sure they'll do something by
2015.

Lets hope they bog it down and 2010 becomes an election issue on
the
very point. A decision this big needs direct voting on the
issue.
Hell, if the majority wants government to nationalize health
care,
so be
it. But I suspect when people take the time to read, this is a
hidden
tax grab. Get the cash flow to the government and then turn
down
survice levels while they skim the moneys.

The polls are very clear in that Americans want health care
reform.

Haley Barbour was on Meet the Press today insisting the majority
of
Americans don't want health care reform. I don't know of a
single
poll, apart from heavy Republican districts, who are against
health
care reform.

Lying straight faced is Republican strong suit.

Yes, the people are for health care reform. Or really cheaper
healthcare.
But do they want the government telling them what services they
can
have?

Oy. Doesn't that happen right now? What makes you think the
government is going to deny any more procedures or care than the
profit making health care business?

The government has never run anything cheaper than private
industry.

Oh boy, here we go. Isn't most medicare administration done by
private industry?

And
ramming through a "healthcare reform" bill in a short time in the
back
room
and then voting on it less than 3 days later, leads to those
****ED
UP
laws
that the unintended consequences are worse than the cure. The
Feds
should
be working on creating sustainable jobs, cutting spending and
curing
a
depression first.

Don't you think keeping people solvent who might otherwise be
swamped
by medical costs is a good investment?

Perhaps it's not the first consideration in getting us back on our
economic feet but it's up there.

Did President Bush focus only on invading Iraq or was he also
working
on making the Chinese-funded tax cuts for US rich permanent?

jps, you seem to be a one trick pony. Everything is fubar because
Bush
invaded the Middle East. Ain't so, and until you can come up with
resonable debates: kiss my ass!

I find it difficult to find one thing that Bush did with actual
compassionate results. Perhaps the Africa AIDS program, but even
that
was messed up.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I stated that jps believes all the crap is Bush's fault. Everything
was
perfect before Bush 2. Except We are still spending money in Bosnia,
look what a fine place Clinton left Somalia. Bush was not the one
who
signed the bill to let banks be brokerage houses. Something that had
worked well after the 1929 crash. I hope you did better reading on
your
patent searches.

Somalia? That's pretty insignificant in the scheme of things.
Bosnia...
we
did a lot of good there. Do you deny that?

It's not all Bush's fault. He just was a significant contributor ...
more
than anyone else.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Bush just added to the Clusterf*&k. Somalia, killed a lot of our men
for
nothing. Bosnia was not our problem, we had no right to interfere. And
Albanians and Serbs have been killing each other for 600 years. Let
Europe
take care of the problem if needed, was their playground. How many
billions
we waste there? And we are still there.

Please tell us how many billions we've wasted in Bosnia.

Then tell us how many billions it takes to make a trillion x 3. Can
you say several orders of magnitude?

A billion hear a billion there, and you are talking real money. How many
billions has Obama overspent in the last 10 months?

What's wrong, don't want to answer the question?

Facts in context reveal some nasty truths don't they?

Bosnia is a drop in the very large bucket that Bush opened up to pay
for Iraq.

If it does not matter how much Bosnia costs. then you have to ignore the
financials of Iraq. Both are wars, and both cost lots of money, and both
are places we most likely should have not gone. I realize you are blind in
your partisanship.

Oh, I see. Let's just ignore relativity.

1 billion and 3,000 billion.

They're pretty much the same thing.

Gotcha.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:15:52 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
Some for sure... can't be helped really. Not nearly as much as Bush wasted
in his administration.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Youe opinion. But all Obama's spending has not turned around the recession.
Percentage of unemployment still rising, and that excludes those that have
given up on getting a job. The stock market is mostly a bubble driven by
all the money given to "too big to fail" financial houses. Which have now
decided to give billions of bonus money, even though they have not really
made any money, just a huge infusion of taxpayers $$$$$$$$. We have the
next wave of mortages going to fail. The not subprime ones. The bailout
was to supposed to buy toxic mortgages. None bought, so what did the banks
do with the money. Gold broke $1100. Most of the rise is the falling
dollar. What happens when China wants to cash in all that debt we owe them.

We're ****ed. Aren't you glad knowing that the 1% got there's before
China cashed in their chips?

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 11/10/09 10:13 AM, Don White wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

Maybe in Maryland. Hell a majority of the babies delivered at San
Diego
hospitals are illegals kids. Los Angeles spent $50 million on
welfare
benefits, most on illegals in just one month this year.


You should be thinking of that when you're crusin' for cheap labour
in those
'shape-up lines' behind Home Depot




Illegals' kids? Ahh...but born in the USA. Legal kids.



And the kids should not be given legal status.

If they're born in the US, their citizens. Been that way a fairly long
time.

--
Nom=de=Plume


See my other reply.

Not sure who you mean by "they." It's a pretty straightforward legal
status.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_a_chi...born_in_the_US

--
Nom=de=Plume


No, even some politicians are questioning if someone here illegally can
give birth to a citizen. Needs to be adjudicated.

"Some politicians...." Sounds suspiciously like right-wingers. Perhaps Lou
Dobbs also.

Care to share a link to these upstanding citizens?

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:55:57 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news:njfff59qq8ngiskkbtv3qja8df9lv7c9e3 @4ax.com...
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:07:50 -0700, Canuck57

wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
Tonight at 11:15 pm EST, by a 220 to 215 vote, the House
passed their
version of Health Care Reform.

Among the most meaningful pieces of legislation in history
making it
through one body of congress is a big deal. There's lots of
work left
but I'm damned happy a major bridge has been crossed.

All you folks who hate your fellow Americans and don't think
it's
worth the investment have my sympathy.


One lone Republican voted for it. 39 Democrats opposed. That
****es me
off.
Well, it's on to the Senate. I'm sure they'll do something by
2015.

Lets hope they bog it down and 2010 becomes an election issue
on the
very point. A decision this big needs direct voting on the
issue.
Hell, if the majority wants government to nationalize health
care, so be
it. But I suspect when people take the time to read, this is a
hidden
tax grab. Get the cash flow to the government and then turn
down
survice levels while they skim the moneys.

The polls are very clear in that Americans want health care
reform.

Haley Barbour was on Meet the Press today insisting the
majority of
Americans don't want health care reform. I don't know of a
single
poll, apart from heavy Republican districts, who are against
health
care reform.

Lying straight faced is Republican strong suit.

Yes, the people are for health care reform. Or really cheaper
healthcare.
But do they want the government telling them what services they
can have?

Oy. Doesn't that happen right now? What makes you think the
government is going to deny any more procedures or care than the
profit making health care business?

The government has never run anything cheaper than private
industry.

Oh boy, here we go. Isn't most medicare administration done by
private industry?

And
ramming through a "healthcare reform" bill in a short time in the
back room
and then voting on it less than 3 days later, leads to those
****ED UP laws
that the unintended consequences are worse than the cure. The
Feds should
be working on creating sustainable jobs, cutting spending and
curing a
depression first.

Don't you think keeping people solvent who might otherwise be
swamped
by medical costs is a good investment?

Perhaps it's not the first consideration in getting us back on
our
economic feet but it's up there.

Did President Bush focus only on invading Iraq or was he also
working
on making the Chinese-funded tax cuts for US rich permanent?

jps, you seem to be a one trick pony. Everything is fubar because
Bush invaded the Middle East. Ain't so, and until you can come up
with resonable debates: kiss my ass!

I find it difficult to find one thing that Bush did with actual
compassionate results. Perhaps the Africa AIDS program, but even
that was messed up.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I stated that jps believes all the crap is Bush's fault. Everything
was perfect before Bush 2. Except We are still spending money in
Bosnia, look what a fine place Clinton left Somalia. Bush was not
the one who signed the bill to let banks be brokerage houses.
Something that had worked well after the 1929 crash. I hope you did
better reading on your patent searches.

Somalia? That's pretty insignificant in the scheme of things.
Bosnia... we did a lot of good there. Do you deny that?

It's not all Bush's fault. He just was a significant contributor ...
more than anyone else.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Bush just added to the Clusterf*&k. Somalia, killed a lot of our men
for nothing. Bosnia was not our problem, we had no right to
interfere. And Albanians and Serbs have been killing each other for
600 years. Let Europe take care of the problem if needed, was their
playground. How many billions we waste there? And we are still there.


Bush promoted the clusterfk, but ok. Somalia was a mistake, but
thousands of our troops didn't die. "any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind").

We saved lives in Bosnia, and it was necessary to "interfere" in ethnic
cleansing. We should have intervened in Rwanda and we should intervene
in Darfur. Don't forget that WW2 started in the region.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why should we interfere in Bosnia because of ethic cleansing? Ruwanda
was a lot better place to interfere. Bosnia has had Albanians cleansing
Serbs and Serbs cleansing Albanians for centuries. But the Albanians
seem to have the upper hand in all the years. They ran death camps for
the NAZI and even some of the Germans were grossed out by the gusto that
they went about the job. Are we the police department for Europe?


Besides the second question (answer is no), I'm not sure what point
you're trying to make. We saved lives there. The intervention worked.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Did we save lives? Maybe. They are still killing Serbs now that Bosnia
is non serb. Still not our place to go in. If you argue it is because of
ethnic cleansing, then you have to say Iraq is a good war, and we should
be there. Saddam was trying to ethnic cleanse Kurds.

?? Did you not listen to the news? Give me a break.

Yeah, Saddam was a bad guy, but the justification to attack Iraq was not, as
you well know, his human rights abuses. It was all about non-existent WMDs.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:16:05 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:44:40 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:55:57 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news:njfff59qq8ngiskkbtv3qja8df9lv7c9e3 @4ax.com...
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:07:50 -0700, Canuck57

wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
Tonight at 11:15 pm EST, by a 220 to 215 vote, the House
passed
their
version of Health Care Reform.

Among the most meaningful pieces of legislation in history
making
it
through one body of congress is a big deal. There's lots of
work
left
but I'm damned happy a major bridge has been crossed.

All you folks who hate your fellow Americans and don't think
it's
worth the investment have my sympathy.


One lone Republican voted for it. 39 Democrats opposed. That
****es me
off.
Well, it's on to the Senate. I'm sure they'll do something by
2015.

Lets hope they bog it down and 2010 becomes an election issue
on
the
very point. A decision this big needs direct voting on the
issue.
Hell, if the majority wants government to nationalize health
care,
so be
it. But I suspect when people take the time to read, this is a
hidden
tax grab. Get the cash flow to the government and then turn
down
survice levels while they skim the moneys.

The polls are very clear in that Americans want health care
reform.

Haley Barbour was on Meet the Press today insisting the
majority
of
Americans don't want health care reform. I don't know of a
single
poll, apart from heavy Republican districts, who are against
health
care reform.

Lying straight faced is Republican strong suit.

Yes, the people are for health care reform. Or really cheaper
healthcare.
But do they want the government telling them what services they
can
have?

Oy. Doesn't that happen right now? What makes you think the
government is going to deny any more procedures or care than the
profit making health care business?

The government has never run anything cheaper than private
industry.

Oh boy, here we go. Isn't most medicare administration done by
private industry?

And
ramming through a "healthcare reform" bill in a short time in the
back
room
and then voting on it less than 3 days later, leads to those
****ED
UP
laws
that the unintended consequences are worse than the cure. The
Feds
should
be working on creating sustainable jobs, cutting spending and
curing
a
depression first.

Don't you think keeping people solvent who might otherwise be
swamped
by medical costs is a good investment?

Perhaps it's not the first consideration in getting us back on
our
economic feet but it's up there.

Did President Bush focus only on invading Iraq or was he also
working
on making the Chinese-funded tax cuts for US rich permanent?

jps, you seem to be a one trick pony. Everything is fubar because
Bush
invaded the Middle East. Ain't so, and until you can come up with
resonable debates: kiss my ass!

I find it difficult to find one thing that Bush did with actual
compassionate results. Perhaps the Africa AIDS program, but even
that
was messed up.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I stated that jps believes all the crap is Bush's fault. Everything
was
perfect before Bush 2. Except We are still spending money in
Bosnia,
look what a fine place Clinton left Somalia. Bush was not the one
who
signed the bill to let banks be brokerage houses. Something that
had
worked well after the 1929 crash. I hope you did better reading on
your
patent searches.

Somalia? That's pretty insignificant in the scheme of things.
Bosnia...
we
did a lot of good there. Do you deny that?

It's not all Bush's fault. He just was a significant contributor ...
more
than anyone else.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Bush just added to the Clusterf*&k. Somalia, killed a lot of our men
for
nothing. Bosnia was not our problem, we had no right to interfere.
And
Albanians and Serbs have been killing each other for 600 years. Let
Europe
take care of the problem if needed, was their playground. How many
billions
we waste there? And we are still there.

Please tell us how many billions we've wasted in Bosnia.

Then tell us how many billions it takes to make a trillion x 3. Can
you say several orders of magnitude?

A billion hear a billion there, and you are talking real money. How many
billions has Obama overspent in the last 10 months?

What's wrong, don't want to answer the question?

Facts in context reveal some nasty truths don't they?

Bosnia is a drop in the very large bucket that Bush opened up to pay
for Iraq.

If it does not matter how much Bosnia costs. then you have to ignore the
financials of Iraq. Both are wars, and both cost lots of money, and both
are places we most likely should have not gone. I realize you are blind
in your partisanship.

The former was well explained and justified. The latter was based on
fabrication. Big diff.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
Some for sure... can't be helped really. Not nearly as much as Bush
wasted in his administration.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Youe opinion. But all Obama's spending has not turned around the
recession. Percentage of unemployment still rising, and that excludes
those that have given up on getting a job. The stock market is mostly a
bubble driven by all the money given to "too big to fail" financial
houses. Which have now decided to give billions of bonus money, even
though they have not really made any money, just a huge infusion of
taxpayers $$$$$$$$. We have the next wave of mortages going to fail. The
not subprime ones. The bailout was to supposed to buy toxic mortgages.
None bought, so what did the banks do with the money. Gold broke $1100.
Most of the rise is the falling dollar. What happens when China wants to
cash in all that debt we owe them.

Bush's tax cut for the wealthy is my opinion????

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:55:57 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news:njfff59qq8ngiskkbtv3qja8df9lv7c9e ...
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:07:50 -0700, Canuck57

wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
Tonight at 11:15 pm EST, by a 220 to 215 vote, the House
passed their
version of Health Care Reform.

Among the most meaningful pieces of legislation in history
making it
through one body of congress is a big deal. There's lots
of work left
but I'm damned happy a major bridge has been crossed.

All you folks who hate your fellow Americans and don't
think it's
worth the investment have my sympathy.


One lone Republican voted for it. 39 Democrats opposed. That
****es me
off.
Well, it's on to the Senate. I'm sure they'll do something
by 2015.

Lets hope they bog it down and 2010 becomes an election issue
on the
very point. A decision this big needs direct voting on the
issue.
Hell, if the majority wants government to nationalize health
care, so be
it. But I suspect when people take the time to read, this is
a hidden
tax grab. Get the cash flow to the government and then turn
down
survice levels while they skim the moneys.

The polls are very clear in that Americans want health care
reform.

Haley Barbour was on Meet the Press today insisting the
majority of
Americans don't want health care reform. I don't know of a
single
poll, apart from heavy Republican districts, who are against
health
care reform.

Lying straight faced is Republican strong suit.

Yes, the people are for health care reform. Or really cheaper
healthcare.
But do they want the government telling them what services they
can have?

Oy. Doesn't that happen right now? What makes you think the
government is going to deny any more procedures or care than the
profit making health care business?

The government has never run anything cheaper than private
industry.

Oh boy, here we go. Isn't most medicare administration done by
private industry?

And
ramming through a "healthcare reform" bill in a short time in
the back room
and then voting on it less than 3 days later, leads to those
****ED UP laws
that the unintended consequences are worse than the cure. The
Feds should
be working on creating sustainable jobs, cutting spending and
curing a
depression first.

Don't you think keeping people solvent who might otherwise be
swamped
by medical costs is a good investment?

Perhaps it's not the first consideration in getting us back on
our
economic feet but it's up there.

Did President Bush focus only on invading Iraq or was he also
working
on making the Chinese-funded tax cuts for US rich permanent?

jps, you seem to be a one trick pony. Everything is fubar
because Bush invaded the Middle East. Ain't so, and until you
can come up with resonable debates: kiss my ass!

I find it difficult to find one thing that Bush did with actual
compassionate results. Perhaps the Africa AIDS program, but even
that was messed up.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I stated that jps believes all the crap is Bush's fault.
Everything was perfect before Bush 2. Except We are still spending
money in Bosnia, look what a fine place Clinton left Somalia. Bush
was not the one who signed the bill to let banks be brokerage
houses. Something that had worked well after the 1929 crash. I
hope you did better reading on your patent searches.

Somalia? That's pretty insignificant in the scheme of things.
Bosnia... we did a lot of good there. Do you deny that?

It's not all Bush's fault. He just was a significant contributor ...
more than anyone else.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Bush just added to the Clusterf*&k. Somalia, killed a lot of our men
for nothing. Bosnia was not our problem, we had no right to
interfere. And Albanians and Serbs have been killing each other for
600 years. Let Europe take care of the problem if needed, was their
playground. How many billions we waste there? And we are still
there.


Bush promoted the clusterfk, but ok. Somalia was a mistake, but
thousands of our troops didn't die. "any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind").

We saved lives in Bosnia, and it was necessary to "interfere" in
ethnic cleansing. We should have intervened in Rwanda and we should
intervene in Darfur. Don't forget that WW2 started in the region.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why should we interfere in Bosnia because of ethic cleansing? Ruwanda
was a lot better place to interfere. Bosnia has had Albanians
cleansing Serbs and Serbs cleansing Albanians for centuries. But the
Albanians seem to have the upper hand in all the years. They ran death
camps for the NAZI and even some of the Germans were grossed out by the
gusto that they went about the job. Are we the police department for
Europe?


Besides the second question (answer is no), I'm not sure what point
you're trying to make. We saved lives there. The intervention worked.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Did we save lives? Maybe. They are still killing Serbs now that Bosnia
is non serb. Still not our place to go in. If you argue it is because
of ethnic cleansing, then you have to say Iraq is a good war, and we
should be there. Saddam was trying to ethnic cleanse Kurds.

?? Did you not listen to the news? Give me a break.

Yeah, Saddam was a bad guy, but the justification to attack Iraq was not,
as you well know, his human rights abuses. It was all about non-existent
WMDs.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I know what the stated reasons were. But if jps is going to claim Bosnia
was a good war because it prevented ethnic cleansing, he then has to claim
Iraq is a good war. cruel isn't it.

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:16:05 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:44:40 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:55:57 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news:njfff59qq8ngiskkbtv3qja8df9lv7c9e ...
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:07:50 -0700, Canuck57

wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
Tonight at 11:15 pm EST, by a 220 to 215 vote, the House
passed
their
version of Health Care Reform.

Among the most meaningful pieces of legislation in history
making
it
through one body of congress is a big deal. There's lots
of
work
left
but I'm damned happy a major bridge has been crossed.

All you folks who hate your fellow Americans and don't
think
it's
worth the investment have my sympathy.


One lone Republican voted for it. 39 Democrats opposed. That
****es me
off.
Well, it's on to the Senate. I'm sure they'll do something
by
2015.

Lets hope they bog it down and 2010 becomes an election issue
on
the
very point. A decision this big needs direct voting on the
issue.
Hell, if the majority wants government to nationalize health
care,
so be
it. But I suspect when people take the time to read, this is
a
hidden
tax grab. Get the cash flow to the government and then turn
down
survice levels while they skim the moneys.

The polls are very clear in that Americans want health care
reform.

Haley Barbour was on Meet the Press today insisting the
majority
of
Americans don't want health care reform. I don't know of a
single
poll, apart from heavy Republican districts, who are against
health
care reform.

Lying straight faced is Republican strong suit.

Yes, the people are for health care reform. Or really cheaper
healthcare.
But do they want the government telling them what services they
can
have?

Oy. Doesn't that happen right now? What makes you think the
government is going to deny any more procedures or care than the
profit making health care business?

The government has never run anything cheaper than private
industry.

Oh boy, here we go. Isn't most medicare administration done by
private industry?

And
ramming through a "healthcare reform" bill in a short time in
the
back
room
and then voting on it less than 3 days later, leads to those
****ED
UP
laws
that the unintended consequences are worse than the cure. The
Feds
should
be working on creating sustainable jobs, cutting spending and
curing
a
depression first.

Don't you think keeping people solvent who might otherwise be
swamped
by medical costs is a good investment?

Perhaps it's not the first consideration in getting us back on
our
economic feet but it's up there.

Did President Bush focus only on invading Iraq or was he also
working
on making the Chinese-funded tax cuts for US rich permanent?

jps, you seem to be a one trick pony. Everything is fubar
because
Bush
invaded the Middle East. Ain't so, and until you can come up
with
resonable debates: kiss my ass!

I find it difficult to find one thing that Bush did with actual
compassionate results. Perhaps the Africa AIDS program, but even
that
was messed up.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I stated that jps believes all the crap is Bush's fault.
Everything
was
perfect before Bush 2. Except We are still spending money in
Bosnia,
look what a fine place Clinton left Somalia. Bush was not the one
who
signed the bill to let banks be brokerage houses. Something that
had
worked well after the 1929 crash. I hope you did better reading on
your
patent searches.

Somalia? That's pretty insignificant in the scheme of things.
Bosnia...
we
did a lot of good there. Do you deny that?

It's not all Bush's fault. He just was a significant contributor ...
more
than anyone else.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Bush just added to the Clusterf*&k. Somalia, killed a lot of our men
for
nothing. Bosnia was not our problem, we had no right to interfere.
And
Albanians and Serbs have been killing each other for 600 years. Let
Europe
take care of the problem if needed, was their playground. How many
billions
we waste there? And we are still there.

Please tell us how many billions we've wasted in Bosnia.

Then tell us how many billions it takes to make a trillion x 3. Can
you say several orders of magnitude?

A billion hear a billion there, and you are talking real money. How
many
billions has Obama overspent in the last 10 months?

What's wrong, don't want to answer the question?

Facts in context reveal some nasty truths don't they?

Bosnia is a drop in the very large bucket that Bush opened up to pay
for Iraq.

If it does not matter how much Bosnia costs. then you have to ignore the
financials of Iraq. Both are wars, and both cost lots of money, and both
are places we most likely should have not gone. I realize you are blind
in your partisanship.

The former was well explained and justified. The latter was based on
fabrication. Big diff.

--
Nom=de=Plume


The former was not really justified. Better PR on it, but was not a place
we should have gone.

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:15:52 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
Some for sure... can't be helped really. Not nearly as much as Bush
wasted
in his administration.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Youe opinion. But all Obama's spending has not turned around the
recession.
Percentage of unemployment still rising, and that excludes those that have
given up on getting a job. The stock market is mostly a bubble driven by
all the money given to "too big to fail" financial houses. Which have now
decided to give billions of bonus money, even though they have not really
made any money, just a huge infusion of taxpayers $$$$$$$$. We have the
next wave of mortages going to fail. The not subprime ones. The bailout
was to supposed to buy toxic mortgages. None bought, so what did the
banks
do with the money. Gold broke $1100. Most of the rise is the falling
dollar. What happens when China wants to cash in all that debt we owe
them.

We're ****ed. Aren't you glad knowing that the 1% got there's before
China cashed in their chips?

Jealous of those who made more than you?