From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:j8ednTpSpe1f7S3XnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
> message
> news:2009091102101816807-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom...
>
> [ . . . ]
>>
>> Congress has not learned its lesson. Bush's approval ratings were
>> justifiably low. Congress' were even lower and they remain lower today.
>> And it isn't because they haven't passed a health care package. It is
>> because they are idiots. They haven't learned that taxpayers are tired of
>> paying for earmarks, bailouts, and gigantic government programs that
>> accomplish nothing. No wonder the public does not trust health care
>> "reform" -- not one member of Congress (or even the President) has set
>> forth even a single goal that health care reform is supposed to
>> accomplish. All we get is vague mumbling about lower costs, without
>> explaining how adding an additional layer of government bureaucrats (who
>> all must be paid and given offices in which to 'work') along with their
>> attendant consultants, contractors, endless studies, and inevitably
>> confusing rules and regulations, all of which will be the source of
>> endless litigation, will lower costs.
>>
>> Consider: for all the promise of banking "reform," which should have been
>> simpler than health care, nothing has actually changed, except that there
>> aren't as many banks.
>
> And if the health care bill gets signed into law, there probably won't be
> as many doctors.
>
> This morning's (Wednesday) Investor's Business Daily has a front-page
> headline saying:
> "45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting
> If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul.
>
> "Two of every three practicing physicians
> oppose the medical overhaul
> plan under consideration in
> Washington, and hundreds of
> thousands would think about
> shutting down their practices or
> retiring early if it were adopted, a
> new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.
>
> "The poll contradicts the claims
> of not only the White House, but
> also doctors' own lobby - the
> powerful American Medical Association
> - both of which suggest
> the medical profession is behind
> the proposed overhaul.
>
> "It also calls into question whether
> an overhaul is even doable; 72%
> of the doctors polled disagree
> with the administration's claim
> that the government can cover 47
> million more people with betterquality
> care at lower cost. [ . . . ]"
>
>> In fact, both the percentage and the total amount of risky loans in
>> banks' portfolios is actually higher now than what caused the collapse a
>> year ago. And all those perks and bonuses that the public hated so much?
>> They're bigger and better.
>>
>> Economists originally predicted that the recession would end in June or
>> July. After trillions spent on bailouts and stimulus, Congress and the
>> Administration have managed to push that back until at least October,
>> while squandering all the capital that would be needed if a real
>> emergency arose. We're broke. If a major war broke out now, we couldn't
>> afford to fight it. Another Hurricane Katrina? Forget it -- FEMA is so
>> broke that they might not be able to handle so much as a wastebasket
>> fire. If we actually got another hurricane like Katrina, Obama might have
>> the singular distinction of making the Bush Administration's response
>> look good.
>>
>> All Bush wanted to do in Afghanistan was catch a bunch of rascals who
>> were reduced to hiding in caves. Well, he could not even do that. So now
>> Obama wants to pacify the whole country, something that the Russians and
>> British and several other European countries have tried to do for
>> centuries with no success whatsoever. Even Alexander the Great couldn't
>> do it.
>>
>> Oh, and lest we forget: Obama is still tapping phones; all he has done is
>> change the way the President pretends to get permission to do it. He
>> hasn't closed Gitmo; and if he does, all he really wants to do is
>> relocate it, probably to the district of some Congressman he doesn't
>> like. All the 9/11 insecurity measures and Patriot Act are still in place
>> (unless, of course, the President wants to terrorize New York City by
>> buzzing it with Air Force One again -- heck, if I was him, I'd be doing
>> it every day). Homeland Security is still around. So, really, if you
>> hated George W. Bush, you have to completely despise Barack Obama.
>>
>> Not that Obama actually knows anything about security. His idea of
>> foreign policy appears to be allowing North Korea and Iran to continue to
>> get away with continued development of nuclear weapons and threats to
>> wipe their neighbors off the map. Draws a sharp tsk, tsk from Obama, but
>> nothing else. So now two of the most dangerous regimes in the world will
>> be armed to the teeth with nukes, convinced that the US is a paper tiger,
>> with every incentive to actually use them and little to no apparent
>> disincentive.
>
> All well and truly said.
>
Gitmo is the perfect solution to a difficult problem.....There is absolutely
no reason to shut it down. All that would do is present a bigger
problem.....It was a mistake for Obama to suggest it to begin with, and now
he has to "eat his words". (It did help him get elected, however)

From: Walter Banks on


Twibil wrote:

> On Sep 16, 3:22 am, Chris H <ch...(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:
> >
> > On the other hand for cosmetic surgery the US leads the way. Just look
> > at Michael Jackson.
>
> Can't.
>
> They buried him, you know.

Technically they just filed him away in a mausoleum. Drawer 4 I believe behind a marble slab in a marble wall.

:)


From: Savageduck on
On 2009-09-16 11:03:50 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> said:

> David Ruether wrote:
>
>> I think you don't understand the predominant beliefs of the US electorate
>> very well... I think few see the election of Democrats as specifically to
>> "steal rich people's money so more can be given to (poor) me", as the
>> unbelievably odd (to some of us) "bill of goods" the Republicans have sold
>> to so many for so long that "supporting the interests of the rich is
>> best for us
>> (the poor) because, well, someday we may also be rich - which is a fantasy,
>> but one that is widely held by Americans, especially now with widespread
>> popular lotteries in existence. BTW, this nonsense predates the "anything
>> socialistic is bad" myth sold also by those on the Right, who fail to mention
>> that much of what is taken for granted as basic services *is* socialistic...
>> Armed with these two myths, a disreputable bunch of rascals is often able
>> to draw roughly 50% of the electorate's votes. Pushing these myths, with
>> repeated lies and deceptions added, works for winning elections, alas...
>
> The other issue many people don't understand is how the salary
> structures have evolved in the U.S. in regards to gross pay and net
> pay. A position paying $100K where $30K is paid in a combination of all
> taxes is not going to be paying $100K if the tax burden falls to $10K.
> Even within the same corporation there are differentials based on cost
> of living of different areas of the country (and world), and these
> differentials are based on both expenses for taxes and the costs of
> goods and services.
>
> If, after the past eight years, anyone voted Republican with the idea
> that Republicans would protect their savings, investments, and job,
> then they haven't been paying attention. Yet Republicans can talk about
> tax cuts (unfunded tax cuts) and there are still some naive middle and
> lower class voters that think that they'll automatically be better off
> paying slightly lower taxes. These people are unable to look at the big
> picture of how government is funded and the effects of increasing
> deficits. It's the same people that whine about how we should have just
> let GM and Chrysler go into liquidation, without understanding that the
> cost of liquidation would be much higher.
>
> Again, Obama needs to really work on the education problem. There are
> still too many people voting against their own best interests, as well
> as the best interests of the country, because they listen to and
> believe the right wing talking heads.

Agreed.
This is the very issue I have tried to explain to many of the blind
followers of Fox and the talk show right. If they are working stiffs,
and march in lockstep behind the Faux pied pipers, they are doing so in
opposition to their best interests, not to mention the best interests
of the nation.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Savageduck on
On 2009-09-16 11:37:13 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> said:

> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>> Here's a free hint: everything you dislike isn't automatically
>> "socialist" or "communist". Those words have real definitions, and
>> using them the same way some folks yell "NAZI!" at anyone they dislike
>> only devalues the words and convinces everyone who has even a marginal
>> grip on reality that you don't.
>
> Yeah, "communist" has really been devalued.
>
> I call people that cut me off in traffic communists. Or at least
> Bolsheviks. In fact my son and I have a routine. When someone does
> something stupid while driving, i.e. running a red light, not stopping
> in the crosswalk, etc., I yell "communist!" (with my windows closed of
> course) and my son responds with "liberal!"

I have a habit of calling particularly perplexing New York Times
crosswords "communist!"


> <--------------------------------------------------->

--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Rol_Lei Nut on
Savageduck wrote:

> Agreed.
> This is the very issue I have tried to explain to many of the blind
> followers of Fox and the talk show right. If they are working stiffs,
> and march in lockstep behind the Faux pied pipers, they are doing so in
> opposition to their best interests, not to mention the best interests of
> the nation.
>

Shhh.... Speaking the truth is "communist"!!!