From: John B. on
On Feb 11, 12:01 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> In article <42a424ca-1e20-4a2a-a820-59dbf5910fd5
> @a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 12:50 am, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote:
> > > On  9-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > So you're certain beyond any doubt that government intervention in the
> > > > economy has had nothing to do with the growth in GDP in Q3 and Q4 of
> > > > 2009 or with the drop in unemployment in January 2010?
>
> > > Why do you ask such juvenile questions? This is not a court of law, so I
> > > don't need to be certain beyond any doubt. :-P However it is safe to say
> > > that w/o the Stimulus and the car bailouts we would be better off today. The
> > > net effect of these steps (along with cash for clunkers and the housing tax
> > > credit) is uncertanity. Couple this with all the veiled and not so veiled
> > > threats from the political class towards businessmen and you get a climate
> > > where no one wants to hire or invest in new capital projects.
>
> > > --
> > > bill-o
>
> > I don't read democratic propaganda, I read history. And I don't get it
> > from blogs, as you seem to.
>
> Who wrote the history?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Historians.
From: John B. on
On Feb 11, 12:50 am, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote:
> On  9-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So you're certain beyond any doubt that government intervention in the
> > economy has had nothing to do with the growth in GDP in Q3 and Q4 of
> > 2009 or with the drop in unemployment in January 2010?
>
> Why do you ask such juvenile questions?

---Obviously because I'm not as smart as you are. I thought this was a
golf newsgroup and here I find it's actually a forum for Nobel
laureate economists.


This is not a court of law, so I
> don't need to be certain beyond any doubt. :-P However it is safe to say
> that w/o the Stimulus and the car bailouts we would be better off today. The
> net effect of these steps (along with cash for clunkers and the housing tax
> credit) is uncertanity.

---It is equally safe to say that we would be worse off. There is
always uncertainty.

Couple this with all the veiled and not so veiled
> threats from the political class towards businessmen and you get a climate
> where no one wants to hire or invest in new capital projects.

---What threats?

>
> --
> bill-o

From: BAR on
In article <7b31d73d-9e04-4bbd-864e-b24579926f60
@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says...
>
> On Feb 11, 12:01�pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> > In article <42a424ca-1e20-4a2a-a820-59dbf5910fd5
> > @a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 11, 12:50�am, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote:
> > > > On �9-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > So you're certain beyond any doubt that government intervention in the
> > > > > economy has had nothing to do with the growth in GDP in Q3 and Q4 of
> > > > > 2009 or with the drop in unemployment in January 2010?
> >
> > > > Why do you ask such juvenile questions? This is not a court of law, so I
> > > > don't need to be certain beyond any doubt. :-P However it is safe to say
> > > > that w/o the Stimulus and the car bailouts we would be better off today. The
> > > > net effect of these steps (along with cash for clunkers and the housing tax
> > > > credit) is uncertanity. Couple this with all the veiled and not so veiled
> > > > threats from the political class towards businessmen and you get a climate
> > > > where no one wants to hire or invest in new capital projects.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > bill-o
> >
> > > I don't read democratic propaganda, I read history. And I don't get it
> > > from blogs, as you seem to.
> >
> > Who wrote the history?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Historians.

And, everyone knows that historians have no biases.


From: bknight on
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:51:42 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com>
wrote:

>
><bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:eni8n5d2ni49tgp0j8pd0dc4p0jroki97j(a)4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:58:12 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

>>>> Enough so that the Senators don't want to be embarrassed too. They
>>>> won't subject themselves to such a drubbing.
>>>
>>>In your dreams only.
>>>
>>>
>> Bert! This has been widely publicized. He offered to meet with them
>> and they said no, not as a large group, just with a few of the
>> leaders. They obviously don't want a repeat of the representatives'
>> poor showing.
>>
>> BK
>
>And the only people saying it was a "drubbing" are left wing blogs. The
>meeting they want to have on the 25th is just as bogus. Obama has stated he
>has no plans on starting over on healthcare. So whatever proposals are
>presented by the Repubs, they will be rejected. The people want a "do-over"
>on this and so do most Repubs. Obama will not allow that so basically it
>comes down to nothing more than more Obama Kabuki theater.
>
I don't post a left wing blog and I followed the whole thing. Obama
won this face-to-face outright...and as I said without using a
TelePrompTer. He's asked for any suggestions from the Repubs and you
can't say they have been rejected because they haven't been
forthcoming. Its really easy to sit back and criticize, but where are
their ideas? Lets see some facts about "Obama will not allow"
anything. Mike, all of this is just projection from the right,
without facts.

The senators just don't want to have this meeting because they don't
have answers either.

BK
From: MNMikeW on

<bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
news:oml8n5541jt9svnpqvoq2h1qak68svifd1(a)4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:51:42 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
>>news:eni8n5d2ni49tgp0j8pd0dc4p0jroki97j(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:58:12 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Enough so that the Senators don't want to be embarrassed too. They
>>>>> won't subject themselves to such a drubbing.
>>>>
>>>>In your dreams only.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Bert! This has been widely publicized. He offered to meet with them
>>> and they said no, not as a large group, just with a few of the
>>> leaders. They obviously don't want a repeat of the representatives'
>>> poor showing.
>>>
>>> BK
>>
>>And the only people saying it was a "drubbing" are left wing blogs. The
>>meeting they want to have on the 25th is just as bogus. Obama has stated
>>he
>>has no plans on starting over on healthcare. So whatever proposals are
>>presented by the Repubs, they will be rejected. The people want a
>>"do-over"
>>on this and so do most Repubs. Obama will not allow that so basically it
>>comes down to nothing more than more Obama Kabuki theater.
>>
> I don't post a left wing blog and I followed the whole thing. Obama
> won this face-to-face outright...and as I said without using a
> TelePrompTer. He's asked for any suggestions from the Repubs and you
> can't say they have been rejected because they haven't been
> forthcoming. Its really easy to sit back and criticize, but where are
> their ideas? Lets see some facts about "Obama will not allow"
> anything. Mike, all of this is just projection from the right,
> without facts.
>
> The senators just don't want to have this meeting because they don't
> have answers either.
>
They do actually. But as long as Obama is sticking to the reconciled
house/senate version, what good are these suggestions anyway?