On 10-20-13, BOB KLAHN said to TIM RICHARDSON:   
      
      
   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.   
      
      
   I think you're either confusing the word `austerity' with some other concept,   
   or you are being willfully ignorant.   
      
      
   I'm going to make an attempt to show you a bit of reason here, but I don't   
   expect you will take the point.   
      
      
   The politicians in our national government have spent us into the poor house.   
   We are in debt up to our ears and beyond to one of our worst enemies in the   
   entire world (communist China) among others, and the debt we have on our   
   shoulders will probably last for the next two or three generations, given that   
   the United States even lasts that long (and at the rate we're going it won't).   
      
      
   As anyone with half a brain knows (or soon learns by difficult experience),   
   you cannot *spend* your way out of debt. It doesn't work. The only way to   
   prosperity is to live within your means. If you have *X* income, but every   
   year you spend *XX*, it isn't many years before your outflow of *XX* exceeds   
   your *X* income. Then you are faced with a situation that is unsustainable;   
   i.e., paying out more than you take in.   
      
      
   We (America) have reach and surpassed that point, thanks to our politicians   
   who run our country. No matter the party they belong to, they have spent us   
   into a debt you and I will never see paid off in our lifetime, and I suspect   
   far past our grandchildrens' life times.   
      
      
   That should concern you. It doesn't seem to...but it should.   
      
      
   What's the solutiuon? Well, for one thing they can JUST STOP SPENDING!   
      
      
   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.   
      
      
   Ah...I see you've gotten `the memo' from the democrat powers-that-be! Now that   
   Obamacare is being revealed as the `bomb' it was from the very beginning..   
   .which no republicans voted for, by the way... and its about to fall flat on   
   its face, suddenly the democrats are going to try to blame the whole thing on   
   the republicans. But thats gonna be a little hard, because a lot of the   
   democrats are on record as having signed into law a behemoth of a piece of   
   legislation most (if not all) hadn't even read before putting their signatures   
   to it.   
      
      
   BK>They are afraid it will work, then they will have that   
   BK>much more egg on their faces.   
      
      
   Question:   
      
      
   If its gonna `work' so well...and its gonna be so good for all of us...how   
   come the entire Congress (plus their staffs) AND the guy who's name heads it,   
   the POTUS, get an `exemption' from the law?   
      
      
      
   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.   
      
      
   The `10,000' was either a mistake on my part, or something `you're' tossing in   
   there to confuse the issue. I just checked and the bill in its entirety is   
   about 2700 pages or more long.   
      
      
   But...don't take *my* word for it. Here's a few `quotes' on the subject from   
   others....   
      
   Republicans asked (almost begged) the democrats who were pushing so strongly   
   for passage of the bill, that they actually `read' it before signing it.   
      
      
   John Conyers is on record (and I myself saw the video footage of him making   
   this statement at the time he said it) `Read it? Why should I read it?'   
      
      
   Conyers at a National Press Club luncheon sometime in July of 2009:   
      
      
   "I love these members, they get up and say, `read the bill'..."   
      
   "What good is reading the bill if its 1000 pages and you don't have two days   
   and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?" ...John   
   Conyers   
      
      
   Now, understand that Conyers is himself an attorney. Attorney's will be the   
   first ones to tell a client not to sign anything they haven't read thoroughly   
   and understand completely. Yet...he comes right out and admits he signed onto   
   a law that he hadn't even read in its entirety, and had little or no   
   understanding of. That should bother even you.   
      
      
   Oh and...during oral arguments? Here's what Justice Breyer said at one point:   
      
      
   "I haven't read every word of that, I promise. So, what do you propose we do   
   other than spend a year reading all this?" ...Justice Steven Breyer   
      
      
   Or...   
      
      
   "What happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these   
   2700 pages?" (The Eighth Amendment pertains to `cruel and unusual punishment'   
   by the way) "And do you really expect the court to do that?" ...Justice   
   Anthony Scalia   
      
      
   And even Pelosi was at a loss to answer a simple question from a reporter back   
   when this first got signed into law. She was asked `where, specifically, in   
   the Constitution was it granted to Congress the authority to enact an   
   individual health insurance mandate'...she could only look at the reporter   
   with a sort of confused, dumb-founded expression in her eyes and ask: `... are   
   you serious?....are you serious..." ...Nancy Pelosi   
      
      
   Its interesting that...although no republicans voted for this, the democrats   
   are now trying to make this a `republican' bill all along! Hilarious!   
      
      
   ---   
   *Durango b301 #PE*    
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)