From: Bill Graham on

"Stuffed Crust" <pizza(a)> wrote in message
> In Bill Graham <weg9(a)> wrote:
>> pre-schoolers, and was single. She was a competent short order cook. The
>> state of California was giving her $350 a month for her rent, and a
>> couple
>> of hundred for her food, and if she had taken a short order cooking job,
>> (and there were plenty available then) she would have lost all that, and
>> had
>> to pay for child care for her kids, and would have ended up worse off
>> than
>> she was. So, she stayed home and did nothing. I thought there should be
>> some
>> sort of sliding scale payments for her that would have encouraged her to
>> work, but what do I know?
> It seems foolish to blame her for that, when it's actually a smart
> decision on her part. Maximal financial gain for least effort, with e
> unfortunate situation where working full time (if that is even
> possible..) she still probably wouldn't earn enough to make up the
> difference. To say nothing if she ever got sick.
> I've always felt that if the government is going to be in the welfare
> (or medical care businesss) then *everyone* should get the same
> benefits, instead of the current situation which actually gives the
> "disadvantaged" cheaper (and arguably better!) health care than I can
> possibly afford on the private market.
> - Solomon
I am not blaming her.....There is only one thing to blame, and that is the
god damned liberal democrats, who are really socialists in sheep's clothing.
they are the Robin Hooders who want to take the personal responsibility away
from the people and turn them into a bunch of welfare puppies....The Barney
Franks, Chris Dodd's, and Nancy Pelosi's that I have hated all of my adult
life.....People like Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. They don't even
answer my letters....Try emailing Nancy Pelosi sometime, if you want an
exercise in futility.....We don't have a representative any more in this
country. We are being run by a bunch of fellow travelers who make separate
laws for us to follow, and won't even talk to us........This country is
heading for a revolution....I only wish I could be around to see it (and
help it) happen.

From: Bill Graham on

"Stuffed Crust" <pizza(a)> wrote in message
> In Neil Harrington <never(a)> wrote:
>> That whole process started in the early '90s with Clinton and his
>> aggressive
>> expansion of CRA. It just went on and on, became more and more risky, and
>> the potential for disaster became greater and greater as it continued.
> Wait, you mean expansions of the CRA that a republican congress sent
> to Clinton's desk to sign? (And incidentally, it was the latter '90s,
> not the early '90s, with aforementioned republican congress, that
> loosened the "compliance burden" that you're blaming here)
>> A group of senators including John McCain (but not a single Democrat)
>> tried
>> to get better regulation enacted in 2003, but didn't get anywhere. And
>> Barney Frank was still defending NINJA loans and all the rest of the mess
>> right up until it all came crashing down -- he insisted Republicans were
>> "making a mountain out of a molehill."
> You know, given that the republicans controlled both houses of congress
> and the executive branch from '01-07, I fail to see how this failure can
> be blamed on the democrats. Granted, they didn't have a
> filibuster-proof majority in the senate, but that didn't stop them from
> passing a whole lot of legistlation in the mean time. And if you're
> gnig to blame Clinton (ie the executive branch) for the CRA's faults
> earlier, then it becomes Bush's responsibility as the new executive to
> fix it later.
> You can't have it both ways; is it congress's fault, or the executive's?

It would be both, if the President did not ask congress to fix the problem,
but if he did, and they refused, or didn't bring a bill to his desk for
signature, then it is their fault. I seem to remember Bush making a speech
at some Rotary club or other where he warned of the real estate bubble
bursting, but I don't know if he specifically asked congress to institute
laws preventing it.

From: Bill Graham on

"Stuffed Crust" <pizza(a)> wrote in message
> In Neil Harrington <never(a)> wrote:
>> Obama has given us nothing but misrepresentations, outright lies, broken
>> promises, huge increases in the national debt with more of the same to
>> come,
>> more bald-faced lies, more abandoned pledges, enormous tax increases down
> Hmm, as of this writing, Obama's at 108 promises kept and 19 broken,
> 34 compromises and another 350ish at various states of [in]completion.
> (via
> It's worth repeating that many of his promises boil down to proposing
> legislation, after which it's up to congress to hand back something for
> him to actually sign into law.
>> shove a monstrous health care "reform" that most Americans clearly want
>> no
>> part of, down their throats.
> I really dislike people who claim to know what "most Americans clearly
> want" because they're usually just projecting.
Put me down for not wanting it....I have bought and paid for my own health
care all of my working life, while my contemporaries have spent their excess
money on fast cars and women. Now they can die on the street for all I
care.....How about them apples?

From: tony cooper on
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:27:18 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)>

>It IS ridiculous, and it's unfortunate if such a term found its way into

Terms do not wander into Taber's. Taber's, like all dictionaries,
seek them out. They look for words that are in common use and add
them to the dictionary. The added words are in use before they are
added to the dictionary.

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Wilba on
David Ruether wrote:
> Wilba wrote:

>> What's the pay-off for having that distinction?
> Oh, "Wilba", your questions are just too logical for those
> without much empathy... ;-)

Um, that's a compliment, right? Thanks! :-D