Repubs won't fund health care changes if they take over
in [Golf]
|
From: Moderate on 5 Aug 2010 14:05 "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2841737e-0248-42b5-9b1c-15fcf2f1f5ce(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... On Aug 5, 9:24 am, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:52959449-caff-4a47-8bde-3619e3e5bd71(a)m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 4, 5:46 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:0bfb8dd8-47d3-4bbb-9047-ed16d676c930(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > On Aug 4, 3:52 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > > > > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > >news:alangbaker-CD69E0.11575304082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > > In article > > > > <a78ef6da-c403-4b76-8952-6a6acd495...(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > > >> I've had quite a while to think about Bummer Care. Callous or not, > > > >> that's my opinion. > > > >> Probably the majority of people in the US agree that the Bummer > > > >> Care > > > >> is a bad plan and not worth what it will cost in $. There's not > > > >> even > > > >> any conclusive proof that it will be better at saving any of those > > > >> innocent lives you are worried about. It doesn't even kick in for > > > >> 10 > > > >> years. Wanna bet that the government finds a way to raid that fund > > > >> too > > > >> (like others)... and it never actually kicks in at all? > > > > > Nope. > > > > > That's not my point. > > > > > Someone says: "This will cost lives", and your reply is: "Meh.". > > > > > Justify it to yourself any way you like. > > > > The majority of Americans didn't want Obama care. A majority of > > > Americans > > > have opposed all of Obama's major policies. The polls aren't secret. > > > It > > > isn't a surprise that Obama is polling at 41% approval if all of his > > > major > > > policies were against the wishes of the majority of Americans. > > > > It will be refreshing to have a government of the people by the people > > > for > > > the people instead of a government of the government by the government > > > for > > > the government. > > > > The saving lives line is a canard. We all die. > > > If a majority of Americans have opposed all of Obama's major policies, > > then why did a majority of Americans elect him to be president? He > > said during the campaign that he wanted to do health care, he wanted > > to do a stimulus package, he wanted to do financial services reform. > > So what happened? Did people change their minds about what they wanted? > > *********************************************************** > > > I don't know why anybody voted for Obama. I am certainly not a mind > > reader. > > I can read the polls and so can you. > > I know why people voted for him. What I don't understand is why he's > being beaten up for doing exactly what he said he would do. You got > any insight into that? > ******************************************************* > > Really? If you know why people voted for him then you have a leg up on me. > > He didn't do exactly what he said. His health care bill didn't make health > care more affordable. He money give away hasn't helped the economy. He > didn't fix immigration. He hasn't reduced corruption. He hasn't reduced > spending. You talk as though his presidency were in the past. The health care bill was not supposed to make health care more affordable the minute he signed it. You don't know that the stim. pkg., hasn't helped. Without it, the economy might be even worse than now. He hasn't gotten to immigration reform yet. He didn't say he was going to reduce spending. ********************************************************* With the amount of money spent in the stimulus plan we should be seeing better results. The government run GM is going to be a complete disaster. The GM Volt is going to make the Edsel look like a good idea. So I may sound like I am talking about the past, but I am not. Obama has gotten to Immigration reform; He stopped it. Obama most assuredly said he was going to reduce spending.
From: John B. on 5 Aug 2010 16:57 On Aug 5, 2:05 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:2841737e-0248-42b5-9b1c-15fcf2f1f5ce(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 5, 9:24 am, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:52959449-caff-4a47-8bde-3619e3e5bd71(a)m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com... > > On Aug 4, 5:46 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > > > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:0bfb8dd8-47d3-4bbb-9047-ed16d676c930(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Aug 4, 3:52 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > > > > > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > > >news:alangbaker-CD69E0.11575304082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > > > In article > > > > > <a78ef6da-c403-4b76-8952-6a6acd495...(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > >> I've had quite a while to think about Bummer Care. Callous or not, > > > > >> that's my opinion. > > > > >> Probably the majority of people in the US agree that the Bummer > > > > >> Care > > > > >> is a bad plan and not worth what it will cost in $. There's not > > > > >> even > > > > >> any conclusive proof that it will be better at saving any of those > > > > >> innocent lives you are worried about. It doesn't even kick in for > > > > >> 10 > > > > >> years. Wanna bet that the government finds a way to raid that fund > > > > >> too > > > > >> (like others)... and it never actually kicks in at all? > > > > > > Nope. > > > > > > That's not my point. > > > > > > Someone says: "This will cost lives", and your reply is: "Meh.". > > > > > > Justify it to yourself any way you like. > > > > > The majority of Americans didn't want Obama care. A majority of > > > > Americans > > > > have opposed all of Obama's major policies. The polls aren't secret.. > > > > It > > > > isn't a surprise that Obama is polling at 41% approval if all of his > > > > major > > > > policies were against the wishes of the majority of Americans. > > > > > It will be refreshing to have a government of the people by the people > > > > for > > > > the people instead of a government of the government by the government > > > > for > > > > the government. > > > > > The saving lives line is a canard. We all die. > > > > If a majority of Americans have opposed all of Obama's major policies, > > > then why did a majority of Americans elect him to be president? He > > > said during the campaign that he wanted to do health care, he wanted > > > to do a stimulus package, he wanted to do financial services reform. > > > So what happened? Did people change their minds about what they wanted? > > > *********************************************************** > > > > I don't know why anybody voted for Obama. I am certainly not a mind > > > reader. > > > I can read the polls and so can you. > > > I know why people voted for him. What I don't understand is why he's > > being beaten up for doing exactly what he said he would do. You got > > any insight into that? > > ******************************************************* > > > Really? If you know why people voted for him then you have a leg up on me. > > > He didn't do exactly what he said. His health care bill didn't make health > > care more affordable. He money give away hasn't helped the economy. He > > didn't fix immigration. He hasn't reduced corruption. He hasn't reduced > > spending. > > You talk as though his presidency were in the past. The health care > bill was not supposed to make health care more affordable the minute > he signed it. You don't know that the stim. pkg., hasn't helped. > Without it, the economy might be even worse than now. He hasn't gotten > to immigration reform yet. He didn't say he was going to reduce > spending. > ********************************************************* > > With the amount of money spent in the stimulus plan we should be seeing > better results. The government run GM is going to be a complete disaster. > The GM Volt is going to make the Edsel look like a good idea. So I may > sound like I am talking about the past, but I am not. > > Obama has gotten to Immigration reform; He stopped it. > > Obama most assuredly said he was going to reduce spending. GM and Chrysler are in operating in the black and paying back the $60 billion in bail-out money they got. If they had gone out of business, the effect on the economy would have been catastrophic -- millions of people out of work. It could have sent us into a depression.
From: Moderate on 5 Aug 2010 17:02 "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 5, 2:05 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: >> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:2841737e-0248-42b5-9b1c-15fcf2f1f5ce(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> On Aug 5, 9:24 am, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >>> news:52959449-caff-4a47-8bde-3619e3e5bd71(a)m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com... >>> On Aug 4, 5:46 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: >> >>>> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >>>> news:0bfb8dd8-47d3-4bbb-9047-ed16d676c930(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >>>> On Aug 4, 3:52 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message >> >>>>> news:alangbaker-CD69E0.11575304082010(a)news.shawcable.com... >> >>>>>> In article >>>>>> <a78ef6da-c403-4b76-8952-6a6acd495...(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>> dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: >> >>>>>>> I've had quite a while to think about Bummer Care. Callous or > > > > > > > not, >>>>>>> that's my opinion. >>>>>>> Probably the majority of people in the US agree that the Bummer >>>>>>> Care >>>>>>> is a bad plan and not worth what it will cost in $. There's not >>>>>>> even >>>>>>> any conclusive proof that it will be better at saving any of > > > > > > > those >>>>>>> innocent lives you are worried about. It doesn't even kick in > > > > > > > for >>>>>>> 10 >>>>>>> years. Wanna bet that the government finds a way to raid that > > > > > > > fund >>>>>>> too >>>>>>> (like others)... and it never actually kicks in at all? >> >>>>>> Nope. >> >>>>>> That's not my point. >> >>>>>> Someone says: "This will cost lives", and your reply is: "Meh.". >> >>>>>> Justify it to yourself any way you like. >> >>>>> The majority of Americans didn't want Obama care. A majority of >>>>> Americans >>>>> have opposed all of Obama's major policies. The polls aren't > > > > > secret. >>>>> It >>>>> isn't a surprise that Obama is polling at 41% approval if all of > > > > > his >>>>> major >>>>> policies were against the wishes of the majority of Americans. >> >>>>> It will be refreshing to have a government of the people by the > > > > > people >>>>> for >>>>> the people instead of a government of the government by the > > > > > government >>>>> for >>>>> the government. >> >>>>> The saving lives line is a canard. We all die. >> >>>> If a majority of Americans have opposed all of Obama's major > > > > policies, >>>> then why did a majority of Americans elect him to be president? He >>>> said during the campaign that he wanted to do health care, he > > > > wanted >>>> to do a stimulus package, he wanted to do financial services > > > > reform. >>>> So what happened? Did people change their minds about what they > > > > wanted? >>>> *********************************************************** >> >>>> I don't know why anybody voted for Obama. I am certainly not a mind >>>> reader. >>>> I can read the polls and so can you. >> >>> I know why people voted for him. What I don't understand is why he's >>> being beaten up for doing exactly what he said he would do. You got >>> any insight into that? >>> ******************************************************* >> >>> Really? If you know why people voted for him then you have a leg up > > > on me. >> >>> He didn't do exactly what he said. His health care bill didn't make > > > health >>> care more affordable. He money give away hasn't helped the economy. > > > He >>> didn't fix immigration. He hasn't reduced corruption. He hasn't > > > reduced >>> spending. >> >> You talk as though his presidency were in the past. The health care >> bill was not supposed to make health care more affordable the minute >> he signed it. You don't know that the stim. pkg., hasn't helped. >> Without it, the economy might be even worse than now. He hasn't > > gotten >> to immigration reform yet. He didn't say he was going to reduce >> spending. >> ********************************************************* >> >> With the amount of money spent in the stimulus plan we should be > > seeing >> better results. The government run GM is going to be a complete > > disaster. >> The GM Volt is going to make the Edsel look like a good idea. So I > > may >> sound like I am talking about the past, but I am not. >> >> Obama has gotten to Immigration reform; He stopped it. >> >> Obama most assuredly said he was going to reduce spending. > > GM and Chrysler are in operating in the black and paying back the $60 > billion in bail-out money they got. If they had gone out of business, > the effect on the economy would have been catastrophic -- millions of > people out of work. It could have sent us into a depression. What would have happened in that private investors would have gotten pieces of it, cut the waste and started making money. Capitalism is not the boogie man.
From: Howard Brazee on 5 Aug 2010 18:34 On 05 Aug 2010 21:02:18 GMT, Moderate <nospam(a)nomail.com> wrote: >> GM and Chrysler are in operating in the black and paying back the $60 >> billion in bail-out money they got. If they had gone out of business, >> the effect on the economy would have been catastrophic -- millions of >> people out of work. It could have sent us into a depression. > >What would have happened in that private investors would have gotten >pieces of it, cut the waste and started making money. Capitalism is not >the boogie man. However, when businessmen get rewarded for bad decisions, Capitalism isn't working the way it should be. Risk-reward for business choices should correspond with risk-reward for those making the decisions. The "solution" that both parties have come up with is to bail out these companies. Greenspan said that "too big to fail is too big", but I haven't read what his solution is. What we have now is uncomfortably close to National Socialism. Maybe there is no solution that most people would like. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: BAR on 5 Aug 2010 18:43
In article <a816adec-ed6b-496b-915b-5f8a95ebecc4 @x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > ********************************************************* > > > > With the amount of money spent in the stimulus plan we should be seeing > > better results. �The government run GM is going to be a complete disaster. > > The GM Volt is going to make the Edsel look like a good idea. �So I may > > sound like I am talking about the past, but I am not. > > > > Obama has gotten to Immigration reform; He stopped it. > > > > Obama most assuredly said he was going to reduce spending. > > GM and Chrysler are in operating in the black and paying back the $60 > billion in bail-out money they got. If they had gone out of business, > the effect on the economy would have been catastrophic -- millions of > people out of work. It could have sent us into a depression. > Assumptions with no basis in fact. Do you see how that goes both ways. GM and Chrysler should have been left to their own fate in the public sector. Bad businesses should fail regardless of the ramifications to one or many political ideologies. |