OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
#152
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
CharlesTheCurmudgeon wrote:
> And Gordon McScrew hasn't noticed I don't even bother to reply to his
> liberal rantings. If Gordon McScrew and JoeNoBedroom are indicative of
> what the average American are thinking, then as a country, we're done for.
> And I'm finding more and more 'common' people are thinking like them.
Unlike intellectually superior people like yourself who still live
with Mom?
#153
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
CharlesTheCurmudgeon wrote:
>
> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
> news:6biekjF39rbb2U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:34:51 -0500, "CharlesTheCurmudgeon"
>>> <CharlesTheCurmudgeon@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:f2e654lbbfmbuqd2hgjgscml4jm0gfmt1e@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:59:34 GMT, still just me
>>>>> <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:22:08 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've fallen for the big con.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The cut of the top rate from 70% down to 28%, by Reagan, did
>>>>>>> stimulate
>>>>>>> the economy, but it was too far of a cut and Reagan eventually
>>>>>>> raised
>>>>>>> taxes, as did Bush Sr, and Clinton. The result was an eventual
>>>>>>> balancing
>>>>>>> of the budget during the Clinton administration. Bush Sr. can
>>>>>>> blame his
>>>>>>> very minor tax increase on his loss in 1992.
>>>>>>> Just how low do you think taxes should be cut? Do you believe
>>>>>>> that there
>>>>>>> a lower limit where they no longer produce any stimulus? Or do you
>>>>>>> believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the country
>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>> massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take.
>>>>>> Silly boy. Don't you know that Reagan and Bush II were _forced_ into
>>>>>> the massive, record setting, deficit spending by the Democrats? Just
>>>>>> check the RNC blogs and talk shows - it's all there.
>>>>> There was a time when they could have convinced the general public of
>>>>> this, but people seem to be waking up. Nothing like $4 gas and the
>>>>> prospect of job and healthcare loss coming on the same day to clear
>>>>> the mind.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suggest you read _THE BIG CON_ The True Story of How Washington
>>>>>>> Got
>>>>>>> Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics, by Jonathan Chait.
>>>>>> I'd disagree that it's "crackpot economics" but the "con" is massive.
>>>>>> There's a clear group of powerful neo-cons at/influencing the
>>>>>> RNC/party who clearly know there's nothing to their alleged economic
>>>>>> "theories". They're smart people, they can read statistics. But, they
>>>>>> put hold up a good front and have the most remarkable marketing and
>>>>>> sales team ever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Their only goal is to put more money in their already fat
>>>>>> robber-baron
>>>>>> like pockets through massive government spending economically
>>>>>> directed
>>>>>> to them and through tax and regulatory policies designed to put
>>>>>> billions into their pockets (not ours). They don't give two hoots
>>>>>> about the USA and will sell the country out in a NY second if it
>>>>>> benefits them personally (examples available).
>>>>> Watch for them to flee the country with their money as soon as they
>>>>> think taxes might rise for them.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, their marketeers and sales staff cleverly sell these tax
>>>>>> cuts as benefitting the small guy (they do, but in a very small
>>>>>> relative way). They also sell to various other causes & crowds
>>>>>> through
>>>>>> alleged social and patriotic goals, none of which are really
>>>>>> important
>>>>>> to them as long as they can fill their pockets fuller. Note how they
>>>>>> are willing to sell out any principle (patriotism, liberty,
>>>>>> conservatism, loyalty, honesty, etc, etc) if it will make more money
>>>>> >from them.
>>>>>
>>>>> One sign that you are being lied to is when the rationale changes but
>>>>> the proposed action doesn't. When Bush ran for President, he favored
>>>>> a big tax cut because the budget was running a surplus and it was only
>>>>> fair to give the money back (never mind the huge Republican debt.)
>>>>> When the economy weakened and the surplus vanished, we had to have a
>>>>> big tax cut to stimulate the economy. Even though the tax cut was
>>>>> long term and the economists (with conservative blessing) had long
>>>>> disparaged use of fiscal policy to regulate the economy.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But, unfortunately most people don't read and certainly aren't clever
>>>>>> enough to read between the lines. Not to mention, the Democrats are
>>>>>> hardly a viable alternative to the neo-consfor most folks - being
>>>>>> beleaguered by well meaning, but often mis-guided, ideological goals
>>>>>> at the expense of pragmatism (at least they're sincere though :-)
>>>>> I am a firm proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is
>>>>> less evil.
>>>> And I'm a proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is
>>>> still EVIL. Bill Clinton was the most morally deficient president
>>>> we've had in my lifetime. As I often said, the best president
>>>> Chinese money could buy. The only reason he actually was able to
>>>> pay down the debt was the Republican-controlled Congress finally
>>>> refused to spend money on entitlement programs without limit.
>>>
>>> You really don't know WTF you are talking about. Entitlement
>>> programs, by definition, are immune to the whims of the Congressional
>>> appropriation process. These include Social Security and Medicare.
>>> The only significant change to these benefits in recent years was the
>>> Republican directed Medicare Drug Plan which provides meager and
>>> confusing benefits at outrageous cost to the taxpayer and obscene
>>> profits to the drug companies. Even the Republicans wouldn't have
>>> voted for this if the Bust Administration hadn't lied about the cost
>>> and twisted their arms to the breaking point.
>>>
>>>> (Thanks, LBJ for bankrupting the country financially and morally.
>>>> The SECOND worst president in my lifetime.) The US Government is
>>>> not supposed to be a sow with 250 million teats. Please reread the
>>>> Preamble. Provide for the COMMON defense, promote the GENERAL welfare.
>>>
>>> If everyone in America is a piglet by your analogy, then it sounds
>>> like the GENERAL welfare is being promoted.
>>
>> No - only that of those sucking on the teats and not those going out
>> and working for what they get. The term "welfare" has a bastardized
>> meaning today due to gubmint programs. Originally it simply meant
>> wellbeing - not programs of handouts.
>>
>> Bill Putney
>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>> address with the letter 'x')
>
> And Gordon McScrew hasn't noticed I don't even bother to reply to his
> liberal rantings. If Gordon McScrew and JoeNoBedroom are indicative of
> what the average American are thinking, then as a country, we're done
> for. And I'm finding more and more 'common' people are thinking like them.
>
> Charles the Curmudgeon.
I fear that you are right about that. We will know if Obama gets
elected. The fact that it's a toss up at this point that he might may
have the same implication. And in what ways will McCain be much better
in certain categories?
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
>
> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
> news:6biekjF39rbb2U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:34:51 -0500, "CharlesTheCurmudgeon"
>>> <CharlesTheCurmudgeon@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:f2e654lbbfmbuqd2hgjgscml4jm0gfmt1e@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:59:34 GMT, still just me
>>>>> <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:22:08 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've fallen for the big con.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The cut of the top rate from 70% down to 28%, by Reagan, did
>>>>>>> stimulate
>>>>>>> the economy, but it was too far of a cut and Reagan eventually
>>>>>>> raised
>>>>>>> taxes, as did Bush Sr, and Clinton. The result was an eventual
>>>>>>> balancing
>>>>>>> of the budget during the Clinton administration. Bush Sr. can
>>>>>>> blame his
>>>>>>> very minor tax increase on his loss in 1992.
>>>>>>> Just how low do you think taxes should be cut? Do you believe
>>>>>>> that there
>>>>>>> a lower limit where they no longer produce any stimulus? Or do you
>>>>>>> believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the country
>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>> massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take.
>>>>>> Silly boy. Don't you know that Reagan and Bush II were _forced_ into
>>>>>> the massive, record setting, deficit spending by the Democrats? Just
>>>>>> check the RNC blogs and talk shows - it's all there.
>>>>> There was a time when they could have convinced the general public of
>>>>> this, but people seem to be waking up. Nothing like $4 gas and the
>>>>> prospect of job and healthcare loss coming on the same day to clear
>>>>> the mind.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suggest you read _THE BIG CON_ The True Story of How Washington
>>>>>>> Got
>>>>>>> Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics, by Jonathan Chait.
>>>>>> I'd disagree that it's "crackpot economics" but the "con" is massive.
>>>>>> There's a clear group of powerful neo-cons at/influencing the
>>>>>> RNC/party who clearly know there's nothing to their alleged economic
>>>>>> "theories". They're smart people, they can read statistics. But, they
>>>>>> put hold up a good front and have the most remarkable marketing and
>>>>>> sales team ever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Their only goal is to put more money in their already fat
>>>>>> robber-baron
>>>>>> like pockets through massive government spending economically
>>>>>> directed
>>>>>> to them and through tax and regulatory policies designed to put
>>>>>> billions into their pockets (not ours). They don't give two hoots
>>>>>> about the USA and will sell the country out in a NY second if it
>>>>>> benefits them personally (examples available).
>>>>> Watch for them to flee the country with their money as soon as they
>>>>> think taxes might rise for them.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, their marketeers and sales staff cleverly sell these tax
>>>>>> cuts as benefitting the small guy (they do, but in a very small
>>>>>> relative way). They also sell to various other causes & crowds
>>>>>> through
>>>>>> alleged social and patriotic goals, none of which are really
>>>>>> important
>>>>>> to them as long as they can fill their pockets fuller. Note how they
>>>>>> are willing to sell out any principle (patriotism, liberty,
>>>>>> conservatism, loyalty, honesty, etc, etc) if it will make more money
>>>>> >from them.
>>>>>
>>>>> One sign that you are being lied to is when the rationale changes but
>>>>> the proposed action doesn't. When Bush ran for President, he favored
>>>>> a big tax cut because the budget was running a surplus and it was only
>>>>> fair to give the money back (never mind the huge Republican debt.)
>>>>> When the economy weakened and the surplus vanished, we had to have a
>>>>> big tax cut to stimulate the economy. Even though the tax cut was
>>>>> long term and the economists (with conservative blessing) had long
>>>>> disparaged use of fiscal policy to regulate the economy.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But, unfortunately most people don't read and certainly aren't clever
>>>>>> enough to read between the lines. Not to mention, the Democrats are
>>>>>> hardly a viable alternative to the neo-consfor most folks - being
>>>>>> beleaguered by well meaning, but often mis-guided, ideological goals
>>>>>> at the expense of pragmatism (at least they're sincere though :-)
>>>>> I am a firm proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is
>>>>> less evil.
>>>> And I'm a proponent of the theory that the lesser of two evils is
>>>> still EVIL. Bill Clinton was the most morally deficient president
>>>> we've had in my lifetime. As I often said, the best president
>>>> Chinese money could buy. The only reason he actually was able to
>>>> pay down the debt was the Republican-controlled Congress finally
>>>> refused to spend money on entitlement programs without limit.
>>>
>>> You really don't know WTF you are talking about. Entitlement
>>> programs, by definition, are immune to the whims of the Congressional
>>> appropriation process. These include Social Security and Medicare.
>>> The only significant change to these benefits in recent years was the
>>> Republican directed Medicare Drug Plan which provides meager and
>>> confusing benefits at outrageous cost to the taxpayer and obscene
>>> profits to the drug companies. Even the Republicans wouldn't have
>>> voted for this if the Bust Administration hadn't lied about the cost
>>> and twisted their arms to the breaking point.
>>>
>>>> (Thanks, LBJ for bankrupting the country financially and morally.
>>>> The SECOND worst president in my lifetime.) The US Government is
>>>> not supposed to be a sow with 250 million teats. Please reread the
>>>> Preamble. Provide for the COMMON defense, promote the GENERAL welfare.
>>>
>>> If everyone in America is a piglet by your analogy, then it sounds
>>> like the GENERAL welfare is being promoted.
>>
>> No - only that of those sucking on the teats and not those going out
>> and working for what they get. The term "welfare" has a bastardized
>> meaning today due to gubmint programs. Originally it simply meant
>> wellbeing - not programs of handouts.
>>
>> Bill Putney
>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>> address with the letter 'x')
>
> And Gordon McScrew hasn't noticed I don't even bother to reply to his
> liberal rantings. If Gordon McScrew and JoeNoBedroom are indicative of
> what the average American are thinking, then as a country, we're done
> for. And I'm finding more and more 'common' people are thinking like them.
>
> Charles the Curmudgeon.
I fear that you are right about that. We will know if Obama gets
elected. The fact that it's a toss up at this point that he might may
have the same implication. And in what ways will McCain be much better
in certain categories?
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
#154
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:44:50 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:47:13 -0400, David Starr
>>> <davestarr@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:02:16 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>>>>> SMS wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...Or do you believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the
>>>>>>> country through massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take.
>>>>>> Why yes - we believe that bankrupting the country is the answer.
>>>>> Please vote for more Republicans if you like uncontrolled spending
>>>>> without the revenue to fund it.
>>>> Or vote for the Democrats for uncontrolled spending AND taxation.
>>> At least it is more fiscally responsible and you get some benefit from
>>> it.
>> The benefit is...?
>
> Hopefully universal healthcare, although it will probably take ten or
> twenty years to full institute.
That is not a benefit IMO. I know we have problems (in healthcare), but
gubmint-run universal healthcare is not the answer. It will be worse
than what we have now. There are programs in place now to cover the
otherwise uninsured.
What else?
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:44:50 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:47:13 -0400, David Starr
>>> <davestarr@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:02:16 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>>>>> SMS wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...Or do you believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the
>>>>>>> country through massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take.
>>>>>> Why yes - we believe that bankrupting the country is the answer.
>>>>> Please vote for more Republicans if you like uncontrolled spending
>>>>> without the revenue to fund it.
>>>> Or vote for the Democrats for uncontrolled spending AND taxation.
>>> At least it is more fiscally responsible and you get some benefit from
>>> it.
>> The benefit is...?
>
> Hopefully universal healthcare, although it will probably take ten or
> twenty years to full institute.
That is not a benefit IMO. I know we have problems (in healthcare), but
gubmint-run universal healthcare is not the answer. It will be worse
than what we have now. There are programs in place now to cover the
otherwise uninsured.
What else?
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
#155
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Jeff wrote:
>
>
> Thank him for what? Bush vetoed 10 bills, including two stem cell
> research bills, two children's health insurance bills, a US Farm bill
> (2008), an appropriations bills for NIH, the DOE and related programs, a
> water resources bill and the rest were related to the Defense Department
> or Intelligence activities. Two of the vetos (water-resources bill and
> Farm bill) were overridden by Congress.
They were the only two worth reconsideration. The rest were just crap
spending without merit.
>
>
> Thank him for what? Bush vetoed 10 bills, including two stem cell
> research bills, two children's health insurance bills, a US Farm bill
> (2008), an appropriations bills for NIH, the DOE and related programs, a
> water resources bill and the rest were related to the Defense Department
> or Intelligence activities. Two of the vetos (water-resources bill and
> Farm bill) were overridden by Congress.
They were the only two worth reconsideration. The rest were just crap
spending without merit.
#156
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:15:14 -0500, Peaceful Bill
<snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thank him for what? Bush vetoed 10 bills, including two stem cell
>> research bills, two children's health insurance bills, a US Farm bill
>> (2008), an appropriations bills for NIH, the DOE and related programs, a
>> water resources bill and the rest were related to the Defense Department
>> or Intelligence activities. Two of the vetos (water-resources bill and
>> Farm bill) were overridden by Congress.
>
>They were the only two worth reconsideration. The rest were just crap
>spending without merit.
Really? Which do you object to, stem cell research on unfertilized
eggs or insurance for children?
<snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thank him for what? Bush vetoed 10 bills, including two stem cell
>> research bills, two children's health insurance bills, a US Farm bill
>> (2008), an appropriations bills for NIH, the DOE and related programs, a
>> water resources bill and the rest were related to the Defense Department
>> or Intelligence activities. Two of the vetos (water-resources bill and
>> Farm bill) were overridden by Congress.
>
>They were the only two worth reconsideration. The rest were just crap
>spending without merit.
Really? Which do you object to, stem cell research on unfertilized
eggs or insurance for children?
#157
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:09:31 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
wrote:
>That is not a benefit IMO. I know we have problems (in healthcare), but
>gubmint-run universal healthcare is not the answer. It will be worse
>than what we have now.
But what we have now needs serious reform. Healthcare is a service
system, not an insurance system, yet we have insurance companies
taking a major chuck out of the middle and limiting needed care based
on purely monetary motives. We can't fix that when the people in power
are in the pocket of the insurance companies.
>There are programs in place now to cover the
>otherwise uninsured.
You are sadly misinformed.
There are few programs for the uninsured. The only "programs" in most
states are the fact that if you show up in an emergency room they are
obligated to treat you.
wrote:
>That is not a benefit IMO. I know we have problems (in healthcare), but
>gubmint-run universal healthcare is not the answer. It will be worse
>than what we have now.
But what we have now needs serious reform. Healthcare is a service
system, not an insurance system, yet we have insurance companies
taking a major chuck out of the middle and limiting needed care based
on purely monetary motives. We can't fix that when the people in power
are in the pocket of the insurance companies.
>There are programs in place now to cover the
>otherwise uninsured.
You are sadly misinformed.
There are few programs for the uninsured. The only "programs" in most
states are the fact that if you show up in an emergency room they are
obligated to treat you.
#158
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
In message news:voaa549prrsn6cqrc7jd6t2of32hhjrgga@4ax.com, still just me
<wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> burned some brain cells writing:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:15:14 -0500, Peaceful Bill
><snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank him for what? Bush vetoed 10 bills, including two stem cell
>>> research bills, two children's health insurance bills, a US Farm bill
>>> (2008), an appropriations bills for NIH, the DOE and related
>>> programs, a water resources bill and the rest were related to the
>>> Defense Department or Intelligence activities. Two of the vetos
>>> (water-resources bill and Farm bill) were overridden by Congress.
>>
>>They were the only two worth reconsideration. The rest were just crap
>>spending without merit.
>
> Really? Which do you object to, stem cell research on unfertilized
> eggs or insurance for children?
Which is authorized by the Constitution? Specific Article and Section,
please.
<wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> burned some brain cells writing:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:15:14 -0500, Peaceful Bill
><snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank him for what? Bush vetoed 10 bills, including two stem cell
>>> research bills, two children's health insurance bills, a US Farm bill
>>> (2008), an appropriations bills for NIH, the DOE and related
>>> programs, a water resources bill and the rest were related to the
>>> Defense Department or Intelligence activities. Two of the vetos
>>> (water-resources bill and Farm bill) were overridden by Congress.
>>
>>They were the only two worth reconsideration. The rest were just crap
>>spending without merit.
>
> Really? Which do you object to, stem cell research on unfertilized
> eggs or insurance for children?
Which is authorized by the Constitution? Specific Article and Section,
please.
#159
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
still just me wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:15:14 -0500, Peaceful Bill
> <snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Thank him for what? Bush vetoed 10 bills, including two stem cell
>>> research bills, two children's health insurance bills, a US Farm bill
>>> (2008), an appropriations bills for NIH, the DOE and related programs, a
>>> water resources bill and the rest were related to the Defense Department
>>> or Intelligence activities. Two of the vetos (water-resources bill and
>>> Farm bill) were overridden by Congress.
>> They were the only two worth reconsideration. The rest were just crap
>> spending without merit.
>
> Really? Which do you object to, stem cell research on unfertilized
> eggs or insurance for children?
The two you mention are bogus for reasons that anyone who is the
slightest bit aware knows. I'll let you figure it out (you probably
already know the answers but pretend not to).
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:15:14 -0500, Peaceful Bill
> <snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Thank him for what? Bush vetoed 10 bills, including two stem cell
>>> research bills, two children's health insurance bills, a US Farm bill
>>> (2008), an appropriations bills for NIH, the DOE and related programs, a
>>> water resources bill and the rest were related to the Defense Department
>>> or Intelligence activities. Two of the vetos (water-resources bill and
>>> Farm bill) were overridden by Congress.
>> They were the only two worth reconsideration. The rest were just crap
>> spending without merit.
>
> Really? Which do you object to, stem cell research on unfertilized
> eggs or insurance for children?
The two you mention are bogus for reasons that anyone who is the
slightest bit aware knows. I'll let you figure it out (you probably
already know the answers but pretend not to).
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
#160
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
still just me wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:09:31 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
>> That is not a benefit IMO. I know we have problems (in healthcare), but
>> gubmint-run universal healthcare is not the answer. It will be worse
>> than what we have now.
>
> But what we have now needs serious reform. Healthcare is a service
> system, not an insurance system, yet we have insurance companies
> taking a major chuck out of the middle and limiting needed care based
> on purely monetary motives. We can't fix that when the people in power
> are in the pocket of the insurance companies.
Read what I wrote.
>> There are programs in place now to cover the
>> otherwise uninsured.
>
> You are sadly misinformed.
>
> There are few programs for the uninsured. The only "programs" in most
> states are the fact that if you show up in an emergency room they are
> obligated to treat you.
You are grossly ignorant about that which you write.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:09:31 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
>> That is not a benefit IMO. I know we have problems (in healthcare), but
>> gubmint-run universal healthcare is not the answer. It will be worse
>> than what we have now.
>
> But what we have now needs serious reform. Healthcare is a service
> system, not an insurance system, yet we have insurance companies
> taking a major chuck out of the middle and limiting needed care based
> on purely monetary motives. We can't fix that when the people in power
> are in the pocket of the insurance companies.
Read what I wrote.
>> There are programs in place now to cover the
>> otherwise uninsured.
>
> You are sadly misinformed.
>
> There are few programs for the uninsured. The only "programs" in most
> states are the fact that if you show up in an emergency room they are
> obligated to treat you.
You are grossly ignorant about that which you write.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
#161
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
still just me wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:15:14 -0500, Peaceful Bill
> <snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Thank him for what? Bush vetoed 10 bills, including two stem cell
>>> research bills, two children's health insurance bills, a US Farm bill
>>> (2008), an appropriations bills for NIH, the DOE and related programs, a
>>> water resources bill and the rest were related to the Defense Department
>>> or Intelligence activities. Two of the vetos (water-resources bill and
>>> Farm bill) were overridden by Congress.
>> They were the only two worth reconsideration. The rest were just crap
>> spending without merit.
>
> Really? Which do you object to, stem cell research on unfertilized
> eggs or insurance for children?
>
>
Children already have insurance. Why test embryonic stem cells when it
has been fact that older stem cells were capable of the same results.
And the stem cell research was to be done on EMBRYONIC stem cells, not
on unfertilized eggs.
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:15:14 -0500, Peaceful Bill
> <snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Thank him for what? Bush vetoed 10 bills, including two stem cell
>>> research bills, two children's health insurance bills, a US Farm bill
>>> (2008), an appropriations bills for NIH, the DOE and related programs, a
>>> water resources bill and the rest were related to the Defense Department
>>> or Intelligence activities. Two of the vetos (water-resources bill and
>>> Farm bill) were overridden by Congress.
>> They were the only two worth reconsideration. The rest were just crap
>> spending without merit.
>
> Really? Which do you object to, stem cell research on unfertilized
> eggs or insurance for children?
>
>
Children already have insurance. Why test embryonic stem cells when it
has been fact that older stem cells were capable of the same results.
And the stem cell research was to be done on EMBRYONIC stem cells, not
on unfertilized eggs.
#162
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
still just me wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:09:31 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
>> That is not a benefit IMO. I know we have problems (in healthcare), but
>> gubmint-run universal healthcare is not the answer. It will be worse
>> than what we have now.
>
> But what we have now needs serious reform. Healthcare is a service
> system, not an insurance system, yet we have insurance companies
> taking a major chuck out of the middle and limiting needed care based
> on purely monetary motives. We can't fix that when the people in power
> are in the pocket of the insurance companies.
>
>> There are programs in place now to cover the
>> otherwise uninsured.
>
> You are sadly misinformed.
>
> There are few programs for the uninsured. The only "programs" in most
> states are the fact that if you show up in an emergency room they are
> obligated to treat you.
What a complete imbecile.
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:09:31 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
>> That is not a benefit IMO. I know we have problems (in healthcare), but
>> gubmint-run universal healthcare is not the answer. It will be worse
>> than what we have now.
>
> But what we have now needs serious reform. Healthcare is a service
> system, not an insurance system, yet we have insurance companies
> taking a major chuck out of the middle and limiting needed care based
> on purely monetary motives. We can't fix that when the people in power
> are in the pocket of the insurance companies.
>
>> There are programs in place now to cover the
>> otherwise uninsured.
>
> You are sadly misinformed.
>
> There are few programs for the uninsured. The only "programs" in most
> states are the fact that if you show up in an emergency room they are
> obligated to treat you.
What a complete imbecile.
#163
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Peaceful Bill wrote:
> still just me wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:09:31 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That is not a benefit IMO. I know we have problems (in healthcare),
>>> but gubmint-run universal healthcare is not the answer. It will be
>>> worse than what we have now.
>>
>> But what we have now needs serious reform. Healthcare is a service
>> system, not an insurance system, yet we have insurance companies
>> taking a major chuck out of the middle and limiting needed care based
>> on purely monetary motives. We can't fix that when the people in power
>> are in the pocket of the insurance companies.
>>> There are programs in place now to cover the otherwise uninsured.
>>
>> You are sadly misinformed.
>> There are few programs for the uninsured. The only "programs" in most
>> states are the fact that if you show up in an emergency room they are
>> obligated to treat you.
>
> What a complete imbecile.
That's an understatement.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
> still just me wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:09:31 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That is not a benefit IMO. I know we have problems (in healthcare),
>>> but gubmint-run universal healthcare is not the answer. It will be
>>> worse than what we have now.
>>
>> But what we have now needs serious reform. Healthcare is a service
>> system, not an insurance system, yet we have insurance companies
>> taking a major chuck out of the middle and limiting needed care based
>> on purely monetary motives. We can't fix that when the people in power
>> are in the pocket of the insurance companies.
>>> There are programs in place now to cover the otherwise uninsured.
>>
>> You are sadly misinformed.
>> There are few programs for the uninsured. The only "programs" in most
>> states are the fact that if you show up in an emergency room they are
>> obligated to treat you.
>
> What a complete imbecile.
That's an understatement.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
#164
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
> There are few programs for the uninsured. The only "programs" in most
> states are the fact that if you show up in an emergency room they are
> obligated to treat you.
Which is by definition "insurance".
On Jun 15, 10:55 am, still just me <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:09:31 -0400, Bill Putney <b...@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >That is not a benefit IMO. I know we have problems (in healthcare), but
> >gubmint-run universal healthcare is not the answer. It will be worse
> >than what we have now.
>
> But what we have now needs serious reform. Healthcare is a service
> system, not an insurance system, yet we have insurance companies
> taking a major chuck out of the middle and limiting neededcarebased
> on purely monetary motives. We can't fix that when the people in power
> are in the pocket of the insurance companies.
>
> >There are programs in place now to cover the
> >otherwise uninsured.
>
> You are sadly misinformed.
>
> There are few programs for the uninsured. The only "programs" in most
> states are the fact that if you show up in an emergency room they are
> obligated to treat you.
> states are the fact that if you show up in an emergency room they are
> obligated to treat you.
Which is by definition "insurance".
On Jun 15, 10:55 am, still just me <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:09:31 -0400, Bill Putney <b...@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >That is not a benefit IMO. I know we have problems (in healthcare), but
> >gubmint-run universal healthcare is not the answer. It will be worse
> >than what we have now.
>
> But what we have now needs serious reform. Healthcare is a service
> system, not an insurance system, yet we have insurance companies
> taking a major chuck out of the middle and limiting neededcarebased
> on purely monetary motives. We can't fix that when the people in power
> are in the pocket of the insurance companies.
>
> >There are programs in place now to cover the
> >otherwise uninsured.
>
> You are sadly misinformed.
>
> There are few programs for the uninsured. The only "programs" in most
> states are the fact that if you show up in an emergency room they are
> obligated to treat you.
#165
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:42:45 -0700 (PDT), Foobar
<bamberbert@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There are few programs for the uninsured. The only "programs" in most
>> states are the fact that if you show up in an emergency room they are
>> obligated to treat you.
>
>Which is by definition "insurance".
>
They are obligated to treat the emergency. My friend just went to the
ER for a stomach ache. They decided he wasn't about to die and
proscribed Maalox and told him that it could be Gall Bladder and told
him to go to his doctor. They do not have to treat anything that is
not urgent.
Having insurance, he went to his doctor and found out that, yes
indeed, the GB must come out. But the ER isn't going to do it.
Taiwan recently instituted national healthcare, based on the best
available model, Medicare.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...wangetshealthy
If only we were advanced enough to do the same.
<bamberbert@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There are few programs for the uninsured. The only "programs" in most
>> states are the fact that if you show up in an emergency room they are
>> obligated to treat you.
>
>Which is by definition "insurance".
>
They are obligated to treat the emergency. My friend just went to the
ER for a stomach ache. They decided he wasn't about to die and
proscribed Maalox and told him that it could be Gall Bladder and told
him to go to his doctor. They do not have to treat anything that is
not urgent.
Having insurance, he went to his doctor and found out that, yes
indeed, the GB must come out. But the ER isn't going to do it.
Taiwan recently instituted national healthcare, based on the best
available model, Medicare.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...wangetshealthy
If only we were advanced enough to do the same.