Repubs won't fund health care changes if they take over
in [Golf]
|
From: John B. on 5 Aug 2010 21:51 On Aug 5, 8:35 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <clark-421D0C.11032505082...(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > > > > In article <9kel56d7p4qpc893l5io5lp8bnr5e9j...(a)4ax.com>, > > bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: > > > > On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 07:35:01 -0400, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > >In article <7ubk565pp7jg48au57m3p0b23t4pl7a...(a)4ax.com>, > > > >bkni...(a)conramp.net says... > > > > >> Actually, what we see is a usual silly, non sequitur, post from Bert > > > >> the Shallow. Good thinking you kept it so short. Its hard to > > > >> misspell simple words. > > > > >I used Gravity's spell checker, sometimes I don't remember to use it.. > > > >But, they haven't come out with a grammar checker yet. > > > > Sure they have, its called high school English class. > > > > BK > > > Yes, well he missed that part. > > I already told you I suffered the beginning of outcome based education > in high school. They didn't care whether you learned anything at all > just that you felt good about yourself. Except for Mrs. Brown's typing > class. That lady was a mean SOB. The only good thing was I got to sit > next to Karen Williams the whole year. But you never nailed her, did you?
From: dsc-ky on 5 Aug 2010 22:25 > His war policy got Republican support, but what else could he do to > "bring both sides together"? Wasn't the health care bill an opportunity? But instead he sent dems behind closed doors to write it... He didn't want their input.
From: BAR on 5 Aug 2010 22:26 In article <orgm5695mkfbdpmo3fedk7dtfctn25lb9j(a)4ax.com>, bknight(a)conramp.net says... > > On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:43:49 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > >In article <a816adec-ed6b-496b-915b-5f8a95ebecc4 > >@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > ********************************************************* > > >> 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. > > Holy cow! How about the ramifications to the millions of families > that would be negatively affected for years? What happens is a company of 50,000 goes bankrupt? Sometimes the best thing is to let the failure occur. Chrysler should have been allowed to go bankrupt in 1980 or whatever year it was. GM is a company that needs to go bankrupt so that the reorganizaiton can occur, otherwise GM will continue to be a dismal failure for decades to come. > Are you aware of how foolish this is? Sometimes you have to know when to let something die. > I'm sure that you would've backed Obama had he let them fail, > especially with the resulting soaring unemployment numbers. > Needless to say that you would damn him either way. The resulting reorganizations would have take care of the unemployment issue. Those re-employed would not have been union employees due to the new plants being built in right to work states. Again, having companies that are no longer responsive to their customers needs and unable to respond fast enough to the changing markets are doomed to fail. If the companies cannot change then the only solution is to go out of business or be purchased by someone else.
From: dsc-ky on 5 Aug 2010 22:28 On Aug 5, 9:04 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article <MPG.26c52913d4694a1198a...(a)news.giganews.com>, > > > > > > BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > In article <4f6eb382-c0d8-4c9d-bb67- > > 9d83421d1...(a)q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > On Aug 5, 6:43 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > In article <a816adec-ed6b-496b-915b-5f8a95ebecc4 > > > > @x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(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. > > > > The ramifications would have been to the country, not to any political > > > ideology. > > > You missed that point. Obama saved GM and Chrysler to pay back the > > unions for their support in the election and due to the fact that the > > unions believe in socialism just like Obama. > > > Companies fail all of the time. Sometimes they are "good" companies and > > sometimes they are "bad" companies. You might not like it and you don't > > have to like it but, it is just a natural cycle of business. > > Sorry, but while I agree that for the most part companies should be > allowed to succeed or fail on their own merits, the failure of GM and > Chrysler *at that particular time* was clearly something that the > government couldn't allow to happen; any government. > > -- > Alan Baker > Vancouver, British Columbia > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> If by fail you mean gone forever... I'd probably agree with you. If fail means bankruptcy and coming out the other side leaner and meaner... I'm not so sure?
From: dsc-ky on 5 Aug 2010 22:28
> His war policy got Republican support, but what else could he do to > "bring both sides together"? Wasn't the health care bill an opportunity? But instead he sent dems behind closed doors to write it... He didn't want their input. |