From: Jack Hollis on 3 Mar 2010 20:47
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:31:31 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote:
>He's traded on the
>Bush name frome day one.
If you think that anyone other than W was in charge, you're clueless.
And he wasn't the first president who came from a rich family. Do you
think that people from rich families shouldn't be president. If that
were true then the US would have to do without FDR and JFK. Wait a
minute, maybe you're right.
From: Jack Hollis on 3 Mar 2010 20:53
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 14:09:36 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr
>On Mar 3, 5:00=A0pm, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 4:15=A0pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:04:35 -0600, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote:
>> > >>Businessmen are smarter than politicians. =A0
>> > >George Bush was a businessman.
>> > True, but he was smart enough to get himself elected president twice.
>> > He was also smart enough to know that it's businessmen who made the US
>> > the richest and most powerful nation on earth and it's best to leave
>> > them alone.
>> If we had left "businessmen" alone, we would not have clean air to
>> breathe, clean water to drink, safe cars to drive, safe food to eat,
>> safe working conditions, building codes, truth in advertising, anti-
>> trust protection, equal opportunity in employment and housing....jeez,
>> I could go on all day.
>That is simply not true. Mining companies I know of have, on their
>own, reclaimed the land after they left. Some leave a scarred earth,
>some don't. To say that all businessmen are bad like that is akin to
>saying all politicians are corrupt.
I have to admit that John has a point here. We can all thank Nixon
for starting up the EPA. However, in some cases the EPA can go too
far. Same is true for the Endangered Species Act.
From: bknight on 3 Mar 2010 21:10
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 20:47:48 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com>
>On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:31:31 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote:
>>He's traded on the
>>Bush name frome day one.
>If you think that anyone other than W was in charge, you're clueless.
>And he wasn't the first president who came from a rich family. Do you
>think that people from rich families shouldn't be president. If that
>were true then the US would have to do without FDR and JFK. Wait a
>minute, maybe you're right.
Boy does everything fly over your head?
He definitely was NO in charge. Cheney was the POTUS.
I don't have any problem with moneyed people becoming president unless
they have nothing to offer. Bush fits that perfectly. He is, and
was, an empty suit.
From: John B. on 3 Mar 2010 21:16
On Mar 3, 7:54 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> In article <4b8ef9bf$0$4856$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> > On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 06:48:51 -0500, BAR wrote:
> > > In article <4b8dbc18$0$4858$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> > >> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:36:47 -0800, dene wrote:
> > >>> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com>> wrote in message
> > >>> news:2a75a43d-ed86-4ff6-bb4a-
> > >>> eb741ca85...(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> > >>>> On Mar 2, 12:09 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com>> wrote:
> > >>>>> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com>> wrote in message
> > >>>>>> There are also plenty of people out there who CAN'T afford health
> > >>>>>> insurance. But according to you and Bert, et al, they're all the
> > >>>>>> victims of their own "bad choices," right?
> > >>>>> Cite where I said that, John. I specifically defined those who are
> > >>>>> stealing. In your mind, is there any distinctions between a
> > >>>>> slacker, an illegal, and the unemployed or are all the ininsured
> > >>>>> "victims"?
> > >>>> Of course there's a difference. But I don't know what the ratio is
> > >>>> of "slackers" to people who genuinely can't afford health insurance
> > >>>> and neither do you. There are those in your camp who claim there is
> > >>>> NO ONE who can't afford health insurance. I wonder what world they
> > >>>> live in.
> > >>> I'm glad you are acknowledging there are slackers out there.
> > >>> Now....just what do you propose should be done with them to include
> > >>> them among the insured pool?
> > >> Of course there are slackers. But there are also millions of families
> > >> suffering because of the current system. Some just can't afford
> > >> insurance. Some lose their jobs and can't afford Cobra. Some face
> > >> skyrocketing premiums if they develop potentially expensive
> > >> illnesses, and some are simply dropped altogether. It goes on and on..
> > >> People want change, and I hope they get it. This is a travesty.
> > > Life is not fair now, nor has it ever been fair.
> > > 75% of the people don't want the change currently on the table.
> > So say you lose your job and can't find another, your wife leaves you,
> > your dog dies, etc. Would you still have the same charming fuckya
> > philosophy of life if you were one of the less fortunate?
> Do you know what integrity and principles are, some of us have them.
> It was late October 1980. My boss at the USDA said that if you wanted to
> keep your job you know who to vote for for president. I pulled the lever
> for Ronald Wilson Reagan. I voted for the guy who said that he was going
> to reduce the federal workforce.
Lucky for you he didn't.
From: Jack Hollis on 3 Mar 2010 21:30
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:01:16 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net>
>On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:15:38 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com>
>>True, but he was smart enough to get himself elected president twice.
>>He was also smart enough to know that it's businessmen who made the US
>>the richest and most powerful nation on earth and it's best to leave
>It's small business that is hurting, why did he bail out the big guys?
>And expand the deficit (which is a huge tax)?
>Sure, we didn't get any change with Obama, but that doesn't make Bush
TARP was signed into law by Bush and it had broad support from the
Democrats including Obama. I have no idea what would have happened if
Bush was still president, but as far as I know, no "troubled" assets
were ever bought with the money.
In any case, as much as it goes against my grain, I think that letting
the banks fail would have been the wrong thing to do. Banking and
finance are central to the economy. So something had to be done.
As it turned out, no toxic assets were ever purchased. They're all
still out there. I heard someone call them financial dark matter. It
ended up with the government giving the banks huge amounts of money.
It certainly stabilized the financial markets but the banks would be
in much better shape if all that bad paper were removed from the
The auto industry bailout was totally unnecessary.
The stimulus package was also a huge mistake.
Bush was a big spender who signed lots of pork laden bills with lots
of money for earmarks. Of course, in those days, the Republicans were
the majority party so they go 60% of the money. Now the Democrats get
Bush took the deficits to unheard of levels. At least unheard of
until Obama came along and upped Bush's numbers by a factor of 3 or 4.
Bush spending was bad. I never denied that. Obama is worse.
"Before Bush took office, there were only 15 years in which the U.S.
federal budget deficit had reached $100 billion. Our deficit had never
topped $300 billion - not once.
In the eight years that Bush signed the congressional budget into law,
our deficits broke the $300 billion barrier five times. In two of
those five years, they also broke $400 billion. And in one (2009), his
share of the deficit topped $700 billion.
Bush thus became the first president to eclipse the $300-, $400-,
$500-, $600- and $700-billion deficit-spending marks.
In his first two years of proposing the budget, President Obama has
broken the $1.2 trillion barrier both times. In one of those years, he
broke the $1.5 trillion barrier.
So, Obama has now become the first president to eclipse the $800
billion, $900 billion and $1-, $1.1-, $1.2-, $1.3-, $1.4- and
$1.5-trillion deficit-spending marks. And that's not counting his
spending in 2009, which took place outside the normal budget cycle.
In all, if Congress approves his current budget, Obama's deficit
spending will total $3.5 trillion for the first half of his first
term. President Bush's deficit spending totaled $2.9 trillion. In
other words, Obama's deficit spending for his first two years in
office will exceed Bush's deficit spending for his entire eight-year