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)