Repubs won't fund health care changes if they take over
in [Golf]
|
From: dsc-ky on 6 Aug 2010 09:03 On Aug 6, 7:21 am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <c0895796-283f-4201-a3e4- > b279728bd...(a)h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > 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? > > Nope, I was only 15 at the time!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Late bloomer... eh... :)
From: John B. on 6 Aug 2010 09:33 On Aug 5, 10:26 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <orgm5695mkfbdpmo3fedk7dtfctn25l...(a)4ax.com>, > bkni...(a)conramp.net says... > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:43:49 -0400, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > >In article <a816adec-ed6b-496b-915b-5f8a95ebecc4 > > >@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(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. This is pure conjecture. How does a company in Chapter 11 come up with billions of dollars to build new plants? And how long would it take to build them and bring them online?
From: John B. on 6 Aug 2010 09:34 On Aug 5, 10:28 pm, dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > 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? They wouldn't have come out the other side.
From: John B. on 6 Aug 2010 09:36 On Aug 6, 7:59 am, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:21322777-3357-42a6-ba60-ca220db7c494(a)t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 5, 5:02 pm, Moderate <nos...(a)nomail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "John B." <johnb...(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. > > Why didn't they do that with Enron or MCI or Lehman Bros. or Bear > Stearns? They had plenty of time to do it with GM and Chrysler before > Obama took office. > *********************************************************** > > Futures trading is not like manufacturing. They did not have near enough > time to do that with GM. You might recall several financial institutions > were bought out. All the Automakers stuck their hands out when the money > was offered, but when they heard Obama wanted to be chairman of the board, > all but GM somehow figured out a way to fix things themselves. GM and Chrysler. Only Ford declined the bail-out, because they didn't need it.
From: Bobster on 6 Aug 2010 10:29
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-C618D8.18100905082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > In article <m_OdnU9XJZs1_cbRnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, > "Bobster" <bobster(a)nospam.com> wrote: > >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message >> news:alangbaker-CD69E0.11575304082010(a)news.shawcable.com... >> > >> > 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. >> > >> >> Why don't you worry about "saving lives" in Canada? The rest of us will >> worry about saving lives in the US. > > Sorry, but this is an open forum. > Nice non-answer. |