Obama '08?

@cicerone imposter,

That may be true, ci, but the purpose of my post was to show the spread amongst the various polls taken over the last few days. Rasmussen, regarded as having a Republican bias, has a result not dissimilar from CNN. But note how much it differs from MSNBC. I don't know how the other 3 are perceived with regards to "liberal" or "conservative."

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

What can I tell ya? I posted that I survived Betsy in 1965 and Camille in 1969.
What doesn't "Shankapotamus" not get? Now he's got me using double negatives! He lives in a parallel universe like Sarah Palin. They even believe their own lies!

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

maybe i got it wrong, maybe the liberals are evil and the conservatives are good

or maybe, and i suspect this is closer to the truth, they're both evil, they are after both organizations full of politicians

1 Reply

@djjd62,

...and lawyers. Laughing

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

isn't that interesting

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Okie said, "I have a relative involved in inspecting construction projects done by private contractors for the BIA or some federal bureaucracy doing work on indian reservations out west."

inspecting private contractors "doing work on indian reservations out west"

Wow! What a terrible conflict of interest!

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

The Bush administration is one agency that did. It also forced IRS to contract out some collection and processing work. The former cost double what having civil servants perform the work would cost, and the latter was such a disaster that many returns were found stuffed in the ceiling.

0 Replies

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

of course not, everybody knows the conservatives are evil and the liberals are good

haven't you been paying attention in these threads

You are not lying.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The polling on the health care bill is based on most people not understanding the facts of any of the legislation now being worked on. The biggest problem is the misinformation from the health insurance industry and the conservatives. It's difficult enough trying to comprehend such legislation, but the Obama administration has failed to communicate the important issues confronting UHC.

Expanding health care to 40 million more Americans are needed, but the government has not answered how stretching demand by not increasing supply will work. Nobody really knows how much this expansion is going to cost, and how it's going to be paid for.

Both Massachusetts and Germany are now both in big doodoo with their health plans, because cost overruns are bankrupting their government coffers. Congress has not explained how the increasing numbers of Medicare recipients will be taken care of when the baby-boomers become eligible for Medicare while the working class continues to shrink. When the tax base shrinks while the demand increases, I'm not sure how this or any government can fund it with everything else even by taxing the wealthy.

You keep repeating this crap, but the CBO has estimated the costs, as well as the revenue raisers in the bill. Also, you can't compare other universal plans. Each is quite different.

1 Reply

@okie,

In the case of the ACE, the Bush administration permitted the contractors to have the final say on construction standards and performance.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

The latest CBO estimate is $849 billion. Do we know how they figured out that number? I don't, and I'm skeptical.

I would like to see details on the following:
a) the increase in the number of insureds
1. the current non-insureds; middle class, poor, and those not covered by their company; how many and how much will this cost?
2. the increase in the number of Medicare beneficiaries of the
baby-boomers; how many and how much will this cost?
3. how the increase in the unemployed will be covered/paid for?
b) how the increase in taxes for the wealthy will pay for all this added cost
c) how the decrease in the tax base from the increasing number of job losses will pay for all government services
d) where and how much the government will save money in the future?
e) how will the increase in demand from all of the above be met from current capacity?

If they are unfair questions, I'd like to know why.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The latest CBO estimate is $849 billion. Do we know how they figured out that number? I don't, and I'm skeptical.

I would like to see details on the following:
a) the increase in the number of insureds

If they are unfair questions, I'd like to know why.

But you could do some checking - some rather tedious checking, admittedly. Might take a few hours or more.
a) CBO says 95% of Americans would be covered by 2019.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Those are the kinds of general statements that drives me up the wall; they are all encompassing without any details about how many, how much, and who's going to pay.

Quote:

a) CBO says 95% of Americans would be covered by 2019.

rjb, It's not possible for anybody to forecast how our economy will look like in a few years - and it's certainly in the impossible range when they start talking about ten years.

What I would like to see is how "95% of Americans would be covered by 2019?"

This great recession is like no other; most economists are saying it will be a "jobless" recovery. Many mortgage companies are still in hot water, and it seems the feds may have to pump in more billions to save Fannie May. More banks are going belly up as we speak, and the list gets longer with every month - even those that received TARP funds. It's not only the difficulty of getting credit; more industrial buildings are going empty without tenants. As more people lose their jobs, the feds will have to step in and increase their unemployment benefits; where is all this money coming from?

As thousands continue to lose their jobs, all the tax base including the federal, state, and local, continues to deteriorate. As people continue to lose their homes, property tax revenue drops.

We are in a financial crisis, and it's looking worse every month.

Gold is now selling at $1,145/ounce; I personally think that's ridiculous~!
I asked a local coffee shop owner if he would give change in US currency to anyone who walked in with one ounce of gold to buy a cup of coffee. I doubt 90% of business owners would.

Cash is scarce, and it's still king, but for how long?

2 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

I have never claimed that it is. It's just light-hearted conversation.

Fair enough.

I allowed my ire to spill over to your post. I should not have.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Lawmakers always rely on estimates, and later make adjustments when needed. Businesses do the same thing.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Once can take his gold to a dealer in precious metals and get pretty close to the going world price. I cannot imagine anyone other than you who would take it to Starbucks.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Well, let's look at the situation. Okie made a couple of statements, with one being outright false and the other something he evidently could not back up. I called him out on these, and he responded with another false statement and a personal insult. I then called him out on the last false statement and properly described him in unflattering terms. What is wrong with that?

Yes, let's look at the situation.

okie posts a comment.

Anyone and everyone should feel free to respond to that post, and thus enable okie to respond in kind.

What I find I am unable, from time to time, to restrain myself from expressing my disgust about is the habit of the usual suspects on A2K to attack a poster as a member of some sort of politically minded gang.

For example

okie (or someone else for that matter) posts a comment.

Someone else responds to that post in a highly critical manner. Sometimes the level of criticism crosses the line of rational but spirited debate, but at least that person has addressed okie.

Far too often, however a gang appears in the thread who have no desire to counter okie's arguments but are there to post gratuitous insults that they believe somehow proves their bonafides as a gang member.

Posts like:

"The trouble with okie is that he..."

"Okie is such an idiot he actually believes..."

"You can't expect to get an intelligent argument from okie..."

They're not addressed to okie (cowardly behavior) and if he responds to them he only grants them some level of credence they don't deserve.

Let me be clear, okie is merely an example because he is the Gang's target in this thread. Foxfyre and others are reliable targets of the Gang.

If you want to take okie or foxfyre or anyone else on in a straight forward way, have at it. If you're just going to address your post to the person who has the balls to confront them, and dance around and join in the insult free for all, then you are the sycophant pooch who prances around Spike in the Warner Bros cartoons.

When Spike circles around and participates in the Gang's frenzy of insults, he lowers himself to the level of the sycophants.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
I do know that Obama told "Joe the Plumber" "we should spread the wealth around."

And I'm trying to understand what's wrong with that. "Spread the wealth" means (to me) "make more people wealthy".

Nothing wrong with it unless the wealth being spread around already belongs to someone.

Capitalism spreads the wealth, but it doesn't insist that all the shares be equal, irrespective of the level of individual contribution in creating that wealth.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Yeah, tell it like it is bro, btw you still walk on water?

1 Reply

Billionaire Paulson invests big in gold. http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/18/news/companies/John_Paulson_gold_fund/index.htm

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know