TR>> I'm beginning to think the people all over the country
TR>> don't really understand the sort of trouble our nation is
TR>> in right now. Nor do they realize that this president and
TR>> his cadre of leftist idiots are destroying us day by day.

BK>>Austerity is killing countries in Europe bit by bit, and your
BK>>side wants to put it in here.

 TR> I think you're either confusing the word `austerity' with
 TR> some other concept, or you are being willfully ignorant.

 No, I am not, and you are.

 TR> I'm going to make an attempt to show you a bit of reason
 TR> here, but I don't expect you will take the point.

 If you have one.

 TR> The politicians in our national government have spent us
 TR> into the poor house. We are in debt up to our ears and
 TR> beyond to one of our worst enemies in the entire world
 TR> (communist China) among others, and the debt we have on our
 TR> shoulders will probably last for the next two or three
 TR> generations, given that the United States even lasts that
 TR> long (and at the rate we're going it won't).

 We are in debt up to our ears because of free trade, wars for
 profit, and tax cuts for the rich. Obama has presided over the
 fastest fall in deficits in decades, since before Reagan at
 least.

 The deficit peaked under Bush in Fiscal Year 2009, and went down
 every year since.

 See www.cbo.gov/publication/44172

 TR> As anyone with half a brain knows (or soon learns by
 TR> difficult experience), you cannot *spend* your way out of
 TR> debt. It doesn't work.

 Other than the fact that there is absolutely no proof to back
 that up, and we are talking about a government, not a family or
 small business. In the real world, debt can become a smaller
 burden when the govt spends more money. That is backed up by
 proof.

 Even in business, it is sometimes necessary to spend your way to
 success. Many businesses are in trouble because they have
 obsolete equipment, don't train their people, or don't have
 enough people to do the job. In any of those cases, they have to
 spend money to bring the business up to profitability.

 I've been seeing that in management publications for decades,
 and I have seen it in person. I've seen managers who cut
 spending to meet budget projections by not buying parts or
 giving needed training. Short term gain, long term disaster.

 TR> The only way to prosperity is to
 TR> live within your means. If you have *X* income, but every
 TR> year you spend *XX*, it isn't many years before your
 TR> outflow of *XX* exceeds your *X* income. Then you are faced

 The other way to prosperity is to increase your means. The best
 way for that matter.

 TR> with a situation that is unsustainable; i.e., paying out
 TR> more than you take in.

 If you cut your income deliberately you will sink no matter
 what. If you give your jobs away to foreign countries you are
 rapidly going down the drain. If you stop spending on education
 you slowly spiral down the drain.

 Even with todays high cost of education, with massive student
 debts, it's not the borrowing that is the problem, but the bad
 economy which means there are no jobs for the graduates. If they
 don't go to school, the only way they come out ahead is if the
 economy never recoves. If the economy does recover, then they
 miss out on the benefits of the education they didn't get.

 Even the student loan crisis is really a crisis of cuts in
 government spending. Public colleges exist to educate those who
 cannot afford private colleges. Running up the costs to levels
 that inflict debt on the students defeats that purpose.

 Education has been a government responsibility since the
 earliest days, back to colonial times.

 Those rules apply to corporations as much as to people.

 Hell, you see that all the time with private corporations. Even
 the management publications have recognized that for decades.
 Companies stop training their employees, then wonder why they
 can't keep the machines running. Companies cut costs then wonder
 why they can't sell their now shoddy products, or can't even
 make them because they haven't maintained the factories.

 I have seen that myself.

 TR> We (America) have reach and surpassed that point, thanks to
 TR> our politicians who run our country. No matter the party
 TR> they belong to, they have spent us into a debt you and I
 TR> will never see paid off in our lifetime, and I suspect far
 TR> past our grandchildrens' life times.

 I suspect never, just like no past administration ever paid off
 the debt. Many have paid it down, but never paid it off. What
 makes you think this will be different, or should be?

 Do you actually know anything about the history of the federal
 debt? Anything at all? Why has it not been paid off one single
 year since 1791, the earlies stats I can find? Why has it gone
 down to levels as low as $38,000 in 1835, or 2.5% of GDP in
 1916, then shot back up? Don't blame that on liberal policies,
 this country wasn't noted for liberal economics back then, they
 pretty much didn't even recognize such a thing.

 That is reality, not your smoke and mirrors economics.

 Unfortunately, out of the last 4 preceeding administrations,
 only one tried to bring the deficits under control, Bill
 Clinton. All three preceeding republican administrations just
 ran up the deficits.

 TR> That should concern you. It doesn't seem to...but it should.

 Your ignorance concerns me. I have posted, over and over, my
 report on the growth of the debt, and I have pointed the finger
 at the proven culprits, Reagan/Bush I/Bush II. Yet you still
 persist in the old "Everybody's to blame" game, when that's not
 true.

 TR> What's the solutiuon? Well, for one thing they can JUST
 TR> STOP SPENDING!

 All that will accomplish is to send this country deeper into
 another Great Depression. Your analysis is shallower than a
 puddle. You have never once looked at the long term numbers for
 yourself, have you? Have you ever looked at any numbers from any
 source than the right wing press? Ever once looked at the
 official numbers, which you can get from administrations going
 back pretty much as far back as you want to go?

 Or is this all a vast conspiracy going back to the founding
 fathers?

TR>> Krugman was out there the other day saying that the GOP
TR>> don't really understand Obamacare.

BK>>On that Krugman is wrong. They know it damn well, it was their
BK>>plan.

 TR> Ah...I see you've gotten `the memo' from the democrat
 TR> powers-that-be! Now that Obamacare is being revealed as the
 TR> `bomb' it was from the very beginning.. .which no

 Republican Romneycare enacted under Obama has turned out to work
 quite well, as far as it has been implemented. The ACA has not
 proven to be a bomb, what has been done so far has worked pretty
 well. Remember, the computer problems are not legal problems,
 but private sector business problems.

 TR> republicans voted for, by the way... and its about to fall
 TR> flat on its face, suddenly the democrats are going to try

 If it was going to fail the republicans would be cheering. They
 are crowing, but not cheering. That's because they know the
 problem is mostly on the states that don't start up their
 insurance exchanges. The ones that did tend to have working
 systems. That plus, it was the private sector that setup the
 websites, not the government.

 Actually, I should be specific, the Tea Baggers would cheer. Way
 more republicans in congress are not Tea Baggers, and really
 don't want AFA to fail, or don't really care. They either just
 want to smear Obama, or they want to change the law just enough
 that they can claim credit for it's success.

 The way things are going, democrats voted for the ACA because
 they believe in it, republicans voted against it because they
 eithers want to hit at Obama, or they are bought and paid for,
 or they are afraid of losing elections to Tea Party funded
 candidates. The Tea Party has few votes to offer, but one hell
 of a lot of money behind them.

 TR> to blame the whole thing on the republicans. But thats
 TR> gonna be a little hard, because a lot of the democrats are
 TR> on record as having signed into law a behemoth of a piece
 TR> of legislation most (if not all) hadn't even read before
 TR> putting their signatures to it.

 Nine hundred and six give or take pages is not that large. And
 they debated it for a year.

BK>>They are afraid it will work, then they will have that
BK>>much more egg on their faces.

 TR> Question:

 TR> If its gonna `work' so well...and its gonna be so good for
 TR> all of us...how come the entire Congress (plus their
 TR> staffs) AND the guy who's name heads it, the POTUS, get an
 TR> `exemption' from the law?

  Your Fox News inspired ignorance is showing. Congress and their
  staff not only are not exempted, but they have the strictest
  rules under the ACA of anybody in this country.

 When you were not on Medicare, did you ever get insurance from
 your employer? No other Americans are *REQUIRED* to use the
 health exchanges, they can get insurance through their
 employers, all they have to do is get a job that provides
 insurance. Before the ACA all federal employees got insurance
 through the federal government, just like most major companies
 provide.

 The ACA ended that, and required federal employees to go through
 the healh insurance exchanges. No other employer in the country
 has that requirement. Further, before the ACA federal employees,
 including congressmen and their staffs, paid just under 30% of
 the cost of their insurance, which happens to be very close to
 what private sector employees pay.

 The ACA forced federal employees into the exchanges, and allowed
 them to keep paying just under 30% of the cost of the insurance,
 *EXCEPT* for congressmen and staffs. For elected officials and
 their subordinates the ACA did not say one way or the other. So
 the big *EXEMPTION* the right wing spews about constantly is
 nothing more than an administrative ruling that congressmen and
 the people they hire for their staffs are covered by the same
 rules as all other government employees.

 My health insurance when I was working was about what congress
 and staffers get. Maybe just a bit better.

 The POTUS gets govt provided healh care directly, because he has
 to have care available on a moment's notice, with no time to run
 him to a hospital. That's just a matter of practicality.

BK>>William Kristol once objected to extending the CHIP program,
BK>>because, when it *DOES* work it will lead to further programs.

BK>>IOW, programs that work, and save lives, and provide treatment
BK>>for children, are considered by the right wing to be bad.

TR>> At some point, either yesterday or this morning, Henry
TR>> Waxman (who's from California) was asked by a reporter if
TR>> he'd read the 10,000-plus pages of the new so-called
TR>> affordable care act. Waxman's answer was in the form of a

BK>>The first time I looked it was less than 1000 pages.
BK>>I just downloaded copies from three different sources. With
BK>>smaller text two had 906 pages. One with larger text had 1990. I
BK>>could read any of them. It's all how you lay it out.

 TR> The `10,000' was either a mistake on my part, or something
 TR> `you're' tossing in there to confuse the issue. I just

 You put it there, check your own archives. You probably believed
 another lie from a right wing publication. It was a mistake on
 your part, probably because some right wing sites are making
 such claims.

 TR> checked and the bill in its entirety is about 2700 pages or
 TR> more long.

 It's as long as the size of the type, and the width of the
 margins makes it. I have a copy that is 906 pages. Downloaded it
 after reading your post. Now I have four copies, including the
 one I downloaded before it was passed. Do you have even one
 copy?

 TR> But...don't take *my* word for it. Here's a few `quotes' on
 TR> the subject from others....

 TR> Republicans asked (almost begged) the democrats who were
 TR> pushing so strongly for passage of the bill, that they
 TR> actually `read' it before signing it.

 Did you read even any of it?

 TR> John Conyers is on record (and I myself saw the video
 TR> footage of him making this statement at the time he said
 TR> it) `Read it? Why should I read it?'

 He was debating it at the time, wasn't he? Give a link to the
 whole discussion, not just a few words.

 TR> Conyers at a National Press Club luncheon sometime in July
 TR> of 2009:

 TR> "I love these members, they get up and say, `read the
 TR> bill'..."

 TR> "What good is reading the bill if its 1000 pages and you
 TR> don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it
 TR> means after you read the bill?" ...John Conyers

 Lawyer write the bills, but notice your quotes, supposedly from
 "others" plural, but you need to go to the same person twice.

 TR> Now, understand that Conyers is himself an attorney.

 And you still focus only on one member.

 ...

 TR> Oh and...during oral arguments? Here's what Justice Breyer
 TR> said at one point:

 TR> "I haven't read every word of that, I promise. So, what do
 TR> you propose we do other than spend a year reading all
 TR> this?" ...Justice Steven Breyer

 He isn't in congress, last I heard.

 TR> Or...

 TR> "What happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us
 TR> to go through these 2700 pages?" (The Eighth Amendment
 TR> pertains to `cruel and unusual punishment' by the way) "And
 TR> do you really expect the court to do that?" ...Justice
 TR> Anthony Scalia

 Not only is he not in congress, he is the most extreme right
 wing justice on the supreme court. And it's still 906 pages. Ok,
 maybe he got a large print version. Even the larger print
 version I downloaded was 1990 pages.

 Just to check, I opened the 906 page version. the type was
 fairly small, but readable. There were very large margins. So I
 increased the display size as far as 175% of the original, the
 text filled the screen, all if it was visible, and it was quite
 readable. And it was still 906 pages.

 ...

 TR> She was asked `where, specifically, in the Constitution was
 TR> it granted to Congress the authority to enact an individual
 TR> health insurance mandate'...she could only look at the
 TR> reporter with a sort of confused, dumb-founded expression
 TR> in her eyes and ask: `... are you serious?....are you
 TR> serious..." ...Nancy Pelosi

 I have heard that one over and over, but can't find anything but
 edited clips that don't tell the context. I can tell you, the
 question is stupid. The constitution doesn't say anything about
 most products manufactured today, or most services provided, but
 most certainly does authorize the federal government to regulate
 interstate commerce. Since health insurance is interstate
 commerce, it's covered. Other than that, details can be argued,
 but you have to have a specific question.

 Give a link to the entire interview.

 I don't support Pelosi as speaker, mostly because she isn't good
 at calling out fools.

 TR> Its interesting that...although no republicans voted for
 TR> this, the democrats are now trying to make this a
 TR> `republican' bill all along! Hilarious!

 What is hilarious is that you don't seem to know, it was created
 by the Heritage Foundation, and promoted by the republican party
 in the '90s. They oppose it because a democrat got it passed.

 The basic rule stands, the republicans had 15 years to fix the
 problem, they did nothing.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
 * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)