The Obama Deficit

[mary]

the difference in the two divided groups is simple:
1)productive persons
2)leaches

has nothing to do with race.

I'm so tired of the blatant bigotry by some people.

Why is it that anyone that thinks Sarah Palin is a stupid bitch is an extreme feminist?

Why is it that all liberals are "leaches" and all conservatives are "productive person".

I've worked my ass off my entire freaking life, you idiot.

Who the sam fu*k are you to judge people?

I'm going to put everyone in my own groups.

Morons
Non-morons.

It has nothing to do with political party, ethnicity, race, religion, or sex. What group do you want to be in?

Some days I just wish the dm.com Political forum would delete itself.

[dude1394]

Why are christians idiot "believers"?
Why are folks not in the liberal lands and flyover dumb hicks?
Why are people more stupid the farther away from washington they are?
Why are all southernors racists, redneck, hicks, stupid, trailer-trash, hillbillies, etc.

Who the sam fu*k are you to judge people?

There is lots of bigotry going on.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mary

I'm so tired of the blatant bigotry by some people.

Why is it that anyone that thinks Sarah Palin is a stupid bitch is an extreme feminist?

Why is it that all liberals are "leaches" and all conservatives are "productive person".

I've worked my ass off my entire freaking life, you idiot.

Who the sam fu*k are you to judge people?

I'm going to put everyone in my own groups.

Morons
Non-morons.

It has nothing to do with political party, ethnicity, race, religion, or sex. What group do you want to be in?

Some days I just wish the dm.com Political forum would delete itself.

and why would you accuse only one side of our great political divide of this sort of thing?

[mary]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Why are christians idiot "believers"?
Why are folks not in the liberal lands and flyover dumb hicks?
Why are people more stupid the farther away from washington they are?
Why are all southernors racists, redneck, hicks, stupid, trailer-trash, hillbillies, etc.

Who the sam fu*k are you to judge people?

There is lots of bigotry going on.

Have you got a post to reference, or are you just pulling this out of your ass?

[mary]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

and why would you accuse only one side of our great political divide of this sort of thing?

I'm not accusing a SIDE.

I singled out someone's post.

I'm 100% certain I did not say "All conservatives feel this way" and "All liberals are the best in the world".

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mary

I'm not accusing a SIDE.

All the accusations you listed were one sided.

edit to respond to your edit:
ok, then all I can say is your rant doesn't read well.
and it's weird to curse someone in order to accuse them of being judgmental.

[mary]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

All the accusations you listed were one sided.

I'm addressing wmbwin's post. Its what HE wrote. I'm not assuming he speaks for EVERYONE.

Believe me, I know there are good, smart people on both "sides". There are also alot of idiots on both sides. And I'm tired of the idiots and I'm tired of the "sides".

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

"leaches"????

apparently one of the differences in the divided groups is a good grasp of vocabulary.....

not to mention the clear fault of applying a generalization across all members of one group as if it were true.

[ruling class hero]

[mary]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

All the accusations you listed were one sided.

edit to respond to your edit:
ok, then all I can say is your rant doesn't read well.
and it's weird to curse someone in order to accuse them of being judgmental.

I'll admit I'm usually more cordial than this.

I'm going to ban myself.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mary

Have you got a post to reference, or are you just pulling this out of your ass?

I'm obviously referencing your one-sided rant. Where you are pulling stuff out of your ass.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mary

I'm going to ban myself.

That's good practice. I've done it more than a few times.
Would that half the media (1 quarter at each extreme?) would do it at times.

[mary]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I'm obviously referencing your one-sided rant. Where you are pulling stuff out of your ass.

As stated above, I was responding to wmbinn's specific statements. I even quoted part of his post.

On the other hand, you just made stuff up, because I never mentioned any of those things in your post.

[Mavdog]

rather than "the obama deficit", clearly there is a problem in our nation with "the intelligence deficit".

and as you pointed out mary, it is not limited to any party, race, religion or region.

it is very frustrating to deal with. sometimes I wish I had that horn galloway uses when he proclaims an "idiot alert".

like when you're talking to someone and they say something so completely, utterly stupid...or a post that exposes a poster....a loud horn would surely do the trick.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

like when you're talking to someone and they say something so completely, utterly stupid...or a post that exposes a poster....a loud horn would surely do the trick.

too often when you do that these days, you get carted off (don't taze me, bro!) and/or branded a gun toting terrorist by the media.

[mcsluggo]

the apparent division is people with a developed sense of humor, and people that think that schlock is funny (or insightful).

i don't think it is racist, just dull.

[aquaadverse]

This is as stupid as CNN fact checking the SNL skit. Seriously, get over yourselves.

[wmbwinn]

Boy, I have created all sorts of fun. And, it was probably best to let everyone else respond/retort than for me to continue. I made my points.

Anyway, here is some more disturbing news coming out of the Thugocracy of Master Obama's Democratic Party:

Democrats Vote To Give ACORN Regulatory Authority Over Financial Institutions

WASHINGTON - During consideration of H.R. 3126, legislation to establish a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee voted to pass an amendment offered by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) that will make ACORN eligible to play a role in setting regulations for financial institutions.

The Waters amendment adds to the CFPA Oversight Board 5 representatives from the fields of "consumer protection, fair lending and civil rights, representatives of depository institutions that primarily serve underserved communities, or representatives of communities that have been significantly impacted by higher-priced mortgages" to join Federal banking regulators in advising the Director on the consistency of proposed regulations, and strategies and policies that the Director should undertake to enforce its rules.

By making representatives of ACORN and other consumer activist organizations eligible to serve on the Oversight Board, the amendment creates a potentially enormous government sanctioned conflict of interest. ACORN-type organizations will have an advisory role on regulating the very financial institutions from which they receive millions of dollars annually in direct corporate contributions and benefit from other financial partnerships and arrangements. These are the same organizations that pressured banks to make subprime mortgage loans and thus bear a major responsibility for the collapse of the housing market.

In light of recent evidence linking ACORN to possible criminal activity, Democrats took an unprecedented step today to give ACORN a potential role alongside bank regulators in overseeing financial institutions. This is contrary to recent actions taken by the Senate and House to block federal funds to ACORN.

A recent inquiry into bank funding of ACORN activities by three House Committees found that institutions that would be regulated by the CFPA have provided millions of dollars to the organization in the form of direct donations, lines of credit, cash, and other assets over the last 15 years.

The Waters amendment passed on a vote of 35-33.

http://republicans.financialservices...=860&Itemid=43

I probably don't have to say much. You probably already know how I feel about it.

I stand with the sexist Sarah Palin and the racist Michael Steele in our disbelief and horror of what is happening to our country.

[wmbwinn]

Now, I will retract the word "leaches" from prior posts and substitute the phrase, "zero liability voter".

47% will pay no federal income tax
An increasing number of households end up owing nothing in major federal taxes, but the situation may not be sustainable over the long run.

By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: October 3, 2009: 2:58 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most people think they pay too much to Uncle Sam, but for some people it simply is not true.

In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.

The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero -- or less -- is on the rise. The center's original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks.
The issue doesn't get a lot of attention even as lawmakers debate how to pay for policy initiatives like health reform, whether to extend the Bush tax cuts and how to reduce the deficit.

The vast majority of households making up to $30,000 fall into the category, as do nearly half of all households making between $30,000 and $40,000.

As you move up the income scale the percentages drop.

Nearly 22% of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 end up with no federal income tax liability or negative liability as do 9% of households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000.

Of course, income taxes don't tell the whole story. Workers are also subject to payroll taxes, which support Social Security and Medicare.

When considering federal income taxes in combination with payroll taxes, the percent of households with a net liability of zero or less is estimated to be 24% this year, according to the Tax Policy Center's estimates.

A key reason why there is a zero-liability group at all is because the U.S. tax system is progressive. Those who bring in more money pay more than those lower down the income scale to support government functions such as national defense and social safety nets like Medicaid for those in need. That progressivity can be dialed up or down.

"Some think it's too progressive. Some don't think it's progressive enough," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center.

President Obama falls into the latter camp. He has proposed increasing the income tax burden on families making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000, while offering new measures to reduce the tax bite for most Americans making less.

One of Obama's proposals is to extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for everyone except high-income tax filers, which was the group that derived the most benefit from those cuts.

As a result, under Obama's budget, he would keep the ranks of the non-payers higher than they would otherwise be.

Why the tax-free matter
The question of who pays and who doesn't is not a trivial matter. But Washington policymakers are not dealing with it in an explicit way.

And that's a problem, given the country's fiscal outlook.

If asked to vote up or down on whether they are comfortable with such a large group of voters contributing no federal income tax or payroll tax revenue, the majority may well decide it is appropriate given the means of the households involved. Or they may decide that it's not.

Either way, that decision should inform the debate about the many costly policies and deficit-reduction strategies that lawmakers will be grappling with for years to come.

"As the number [of nonpayers] becomes larger, we have to question whether we'll make good decisions about how to allocate resources," economist George Zodrow, a professor at Rice University. "Most people don't understand how skewed the tax distribution is."

Experts say that to pay for all the things on the country's growing tab, the money can't just come from a shrunken pool of taxpayers.

"Over the long run, you'll have to have a broader base," Zodrow said.

First Published: September 30, 2009: 12:55 PM ET

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/t...ion=2009093012

47 percent pay no Federal taxes. So, all a Democrat like Master Obama has to do is promise the world to that group (zero liability voters), gain another 4 percent of the voting block, and he can't lose...

[wmbwinn]

In his book “Democracy in America”, Alexis DeTocqeville (circa 1848) had this to say: ” A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse (a liberal gift) out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.”

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependency;
From dependency back again to bondage.

http://www.online-internet-marketing...-of-democracy/

the above link is just where I found this old and very famous quote. I hate to give that link credit for a very old quote accredited to Alexis DeTocqeville.

Anyway, add that into the mix as you continue to debate the situation. It is not as if I am wrong. I will disappear for a while and let you rant and rage and stomp your feet.

[Mavdog]

interesting, the above commentary laments the possibility that there could be representitives who "have an advisory role on regulating the very financial institutions from which they receive millions of dollars annually in direct corporate contributions".

so do you believe that the group making this an issue (that's the republican party btw) will support a ban on ANY representitive being in an "advisory role" (which is of course not a regulator) if they receive any monies from the financial industry?

that would of course exclude any lobbying firm/lobbyist, any trade organization or a member of that organization speaking on their behalf, anyone employed by a financial institution and any member of the two major political parties from serving in an "advisory role".

the answer of course is no, the republican party would not suppor such a ban. they only see a problem when it's not THEIR advisor having a "role on regulating the very financial institutions from which they receive millions of dollars annually in direct corporate contributions".

so if it's someone echoing their party line, it's ok. otherwise it's not.

no contradiction there.....

[mary]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

http://www.online-internet-marketing...-of-democracy/

the above link is just where I found this old and very famous quote. I hate to give that link credit for a very old quote accredited to Alexis DeTocqeville.

Anyway, add that into the mix as you continue to debate the situation. It is not as if I am wrong. I will disappear for a while and let you rant and rage and stomp your feet.

I'm not ranting and raving or stomping my feet. I just said you were an idiot. And its not as if I'm wrong.

And please.......the word "debate" doesn't really describe anything happening in this political forum...EVER.

Get over yourself.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

interesting, the above commentary laments the possibility that there could be representitives who "have an advisory role on regulating the very financial institutions from which they receive millions of dollars annually in direct corporate contributions".

so do you believe that the group making this an issue (that's the republican party btw) will support a ban on ANY representitive being in an "advisory role" (which is of course not a regulator) if they receive any monies from the financial industry?

that would of course exclude any lobbying firm/lobbyist, any trade organization or a member of that organization speaking on their behalf, anyone employed by a financial institution and any member of the two major political parties from serving in an "advisory role".

the answer of course is no, the republican party would not suppor such a ban. they only see a problem when it's not THEIR advisor having a "role on regulating the very financial institutions from which they receive millions of dollars annually in direct corporate contributions".

so if it's someone echoing their party line, it's ok. otherwise it's not.

no contradiction there.....

It is shocking that you are entirely ignoring that we are talking about ACORN here. Do you not read the news and know the scandals with ACORN?

Backing off to a generic discussion about special interest groups is a strategy to entirely ignore the issue. The issue is that we have a group widely known to be as fraudulent and corrupt as any entity crossing the American political spectrum in a very long time (a group so obviously egregious that a Democrat Congress voted to de-fund them, albeit only for a month as they are again funded now). This is almost as bad as asking the Ku Klux Klan to advise on financial institutes. Not as bad as that (I am exagerating), but still very bad.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mary

I'm not ranting and raving or stomping my feet. I just said you were an idiot. And its not as if I'm wrong.

And please.......the word "debate" doesn't really describe anything happening in this political forum...EVER.

Get over yourself.

no comment of substance whatsoever regarding the material? Only a go F*ck yourself response???

[mary]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

no comment of substance whatsoever regarding the material? Only a go F*ck yourself response???

I made my points....you didn't bother addressing any of them.

Besides, you've already figured out that you're superior to the other "side".

So why bother?

And for someone that just basically cuts and pastes what he reads somewhere else, you're one to talk about "substance".

[wmbwinn]

any questions about why ACORN is a problem????

[wmbwinn]

How is that Hope and Change working for you???

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mary

I made my points....you didn't bother addressing any of them.

Besides, you've already figured out that you're superior to the other "side".

So why bother?

And for someone that just basically cuts and pastes what he reads somewhere else, you're one to talk about "substance".

I went through your rants looking for your assertion that you made points of debate/discussion. Having found little, I wonder if this is what you meant as points of discussion:

I'm so tired of the blatant bigotry by some people.

Why is it that anyone that thinks Sarah Palin is a stupid bitch is an extreme feminist?

Why is it that all liberals are "leaches" and all conservatives are "productive person".

I've worked my ass off my entire freaking life, you idiot.

Who the sam fu*k are you to judge people?

I'm going to put everyone in my own groups.

Morons
Non-morons.

It has nothing to do with political party, ethnicity, race, religion, or sex. What group do you want to be in?

Some days I just wish the dm.com Political forum would delete itself.

Beyond that, I only found anger and swearing without substantive input/response.

And, if the things quoted above are your "points", then I rest my case that you have made no points.

Read my article on the fact that 47 percent of Americans pay no taxes and are therefore accurately zero liability voters. It does not mean they don't work. It doesn't mean they don't have taxes deducted from their paychecks. It just means when you get to the bottom of the tax form or tax spreadsheet, that they aren't really paying any taxes in consideration of their refunds, credits, and receipts of benefits from Uncle Sam.

But, 47 percent are still zero liability voters.

[wmbwinn]

Isn't the recession over?

[wmbwinn]

So, are these attempts at humor (like my post about Conservatives, Liberals, and Beer) going to get me in "hot water" also?

[wmbwinn]

By the way, I am deeply flattered that after all this time, someone remembered my posts about trichomonads and their similarities to the political campaign of Master Obama...

(see the tags for this thread)

[wmbwinn]

just in case Chumdawg is still paying any attention as he "threw the race card" into this haphazardly and inaccurately....

[wmbwinn]

Do you really think ACORN should be advising financial institutions???

[wmbwinn]

By TIM PARADIS and MARCY GORDON, AP Business Writers Tim Paradis And Marcy Gordon, Ap Business Writers – Sat Oct 31, 9:29 am ET
NEW YORK – Regulators have shut California National Bank of Los Angeles and eight smaller related banks as the weak economy continues to produce a stream of loan defaults.

The banks closed on Friday by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation were in California, Illinois, Texas and Arizona. They were divisions of privately held FBOP Corp., a bank holding company based in Oak Park., Ill.

U.S. Bank in Minneapolis, a division of US Bancorp, agreed to assume the deposits and most of the assets of the banks. The banks had combined assets of $19.4 billion and deposits of $15.4 billion at the end of September, the FDIC said.

The nine banks had 153 offices, which will reopen as U.S. Bank branches Saturday.

FBOP Corp., itself wasn't closed under the deal, grew from one bank with assets of $125 million in 1990. From 1990 to 2007 the company acquired 28 banks, according to its Web site.

The closing of nine banks in one day was the most the FDIC has shut since the financial crisis began taking down banks last year. The closings boost the number of failed U.S. banks this year to 115. In 1989, during the savings-and-loan crisis, the FDIC closed 534 banks, or about 10 a week.

California National Bank had 68 branches. About 100 FDIC employees arrived at the CalNational headquarters in downtown Los Angeles at around 6:15 p.m on Friday. They were seen fanning out into various offices around the building, a squat concrete structure that prominently displays the failed bank's name.

The FDIC simultaneously arrived at the bank's other branches, spokeswoman Roberta Valdez said. She said the FDIC would spend the weekend transferring the bank to U.S. Bank.

Besides California National Bank, the banks involved in the latest round were Bank USA, NA, in Phoenix; San Diego National Bank; Pacific National Bank in San Francisco; Park National Bank in Chicago; Community Bank of Lemont in Illinois; North Houston Bank, Madisonville State Bank, and Citizens National Bank in Teague, all in Texas.

Rick Hartnack, vice chairman of consumer banking for U.S. Bancorp, said the move complements its operations in California, Illinois and Arizona. The deal doubled the company's branches in California so that more than 20 percent of U.S. Bank's branch network will be in the state.

The company will have nearly 3,000 branches in two dozen states.

"California and Chicago turned out to be two of the most attractive markets in the country where we just didn't have the branch density that we wanted," he said.

US Bancorp in October reported a 4.7 percent increase in its third-quarter earnings and said it wasn't seen bad loans grow as fast as they had been earlier this year. The company's stock fell 99 cents, or 4.1 percent, to $23.22 as part of a broad slide in stocks Friday.

As the economy has soured, with unemployment rising, home prices tumbling and loan defaults soaring, bank failures have cascaded and sapped billions out of the deposit insurance fund. It has fallen into the red.

The FDIC expects Friday's closings will cost the fund $2.5 billion. The FDIC and U.S. Bank agreed to share losses on about $14.4 billion of the combined purchased assets of $18.2 billion.

Failures have been especially concentrated in California, Georgia and Illinois. While the pounding from losses on home mortgages may be nearing an end, delinquencies on commercial real estate loans remain a hot spot of potential trouble, regulators say. If the recession deepens, defaults on the high-risk loans could spike. Many regional banks, especially, hold large concentrations of these loans.

Also on Friday, agencies including the FDIC, the Federal Reserve and the Office of Thrift Supervision issued guidelines for banks modifying troubled commercial real estate loans. They emphasize the principle that modifying loans in a prudent manner is often in the best interest of both the bank and the creditworthy commercial borrower.

The 115 failures are the most in a year since 1992 at the height of the savings-and-loan crisis. They have cost the federal deposit insurance fund more than $25 billion so far this year, and hundreds more bank failures are expected to raise the cost to around $100 billion through 2013.

To replenish the fund, the FDIC wants the roughly 8,100 insured banks and savings institutions to pay in advance about $45 billion in premiums that would have been due over the next three years.

Depositors' money — insured up to $250,000 per account — is not at risk, with the FDIC backed by the government. The FDIC still has billions in loss reserves apart from the insurance fund. It can also tap a Treasury Department credit line of up to $500 billion — $100 billion of which does not require Treasury's approval.

The Obama administration recently proposed a plan to provide infusions of money to small banks at low interest rates, provided they agree to increase lending to small businesses. Banks and credit unions that serve low-income areas would get aid at even lower rates to help small businesses in the hardest-hit rural and urban areas. The aid would come from money still available in the $700 billion federal bailout fund, which went mostly to large banks.

The 115 bank failures this year compare with 25 last year and three in 2007.

Banks have been especially hurt by failed real estate loans. Banks that had lent to seemingly solid businesses are suffering losses as buildings sit vacant. As development projects collapse, builders are defaulting on their loans.

The number of banks on the FDIC's confidential "problem list" jumped to 416 at the end of June from 305 in the first quarter. That's the most since June 1994. About 13 percent of banks on the list generally end up failing, according to the FDIC.

___

Gordon reported from Washington. Thomas Watkins reported from Los Angeles

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091031/..._bank_closures

How is that Hope and Change working for you???

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mary

Have you got a post to reference, or are you just pulling this out of your ass?

I find it funny that Mary jumped on Dude for not having references/links/articles and also jumps on me for quoting references/links/articles with no original content. I just thought I would mention that...

Anyway, on to the healthcare debacle aspect of Master Obama's dying economy:

WASHINGTON – What's all the fuss about? After all the noise over Democrats' push for a government insurance plan to compete with private carriers, coverage numbers are finally in: Two percent.

That's the estimated share of Americans younger than 65 who'd sign up for the public option plan under the health care bill that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is steering toward House approval.

The underwhelming statistic is raising questions about whether the government plan will be the iron-fisted competitor that private insurers warn will shut them down or a niche operator that becomes a haven for patients with health insurance horror stories.

Some experts are wondering if lawmakers have wasted too much time arguing about the public plan, giving short shrift to basics such as ensuring that new coverage will be affordable.

"The public option is a significant issue, but its place in the debate is completely out of proportion to its actual importance to consumers," said Drew Altman, president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "It has sucked all the oxygen out of the room and diverted attention from bread-and-butter consumer issues, such as affordable coverage and comprehensive benefits."

The Democratic health care bills would extend coverage to the uninsured by providing government help with premiums and prohibiting insurers from excluding people in poor health or charging them more. But to keep from piling more on the federal deficit, most of the uninsured will have to wait until 2013 for help. Even then, many will have to pay a significant share of their own health care costs.

The latest look at the public option comes from the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan economic analysts for lawmakers.

It found that the scaled back government plan in the House bill wouldn't overtake private health insurance. To the contrary, it might help the insurers a little.

The budget office estimated that about 6 million people would sign up for the public option in 2019, when the House bill is fully phased in. That represents about 2 percent of a total of 282 million Americans under age 65. (Older people are covered through Medicare.)

The overwhelming majority of the population would remain in private health insurance plans sponsored by employers. Others, mainly low-income people, would be covered through an expanded Medicaid program.

To be fair, most people would not have access to the new public plan. Under the House bill, it would be offered through new insurance exchanges open only to those who buy coverage on their own or work for small companies. Yet even within that pool of 30 million people, only 1-in-5 would take the public option.

Who's likely to sign up?

The budget office said "a less healthy pool of enrollees" would probably be attracted to the public option, drawn by the prospect of looser rules on access to specialists and medical services.

As a result, premiums in the public plan would be higher than the average for private plans. That could nudge healthy middle-class workers and their families to sign up for private plans.

"The concern was that the public option would destabilize the bulk of private insurance, but in fact what Congress has fashioned is very targeted," said economist Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "It's not going to be taking away the insurance industry's core business."

It's unclear whether there are enough votes in the Senate for a public plan. The version that Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has offered would let states opt out, probably leaving a smaller plan that the House would want.

Insurers aren't buying the budget office analysis. Asked if it might soften that opposition, industry spokesman Robert Zirkelbach of America's Health Insurance Plans responded with a curt "No."

While a government plan might start out modestly, insurers fear that Congress could change the rules later, opening it up to all people and setting take-it-or-leave payments for hospitals and medical providers, instead of negotiating, as the House bill calls for.

For the same reason, employer groups also remain wary. Big companies don't want to lose control of their health care budgets and instead have the government send them a tax bill.

"That cost is going to come back to you one way or another ... and it's coming back in the way of taxes and liabilities," said Eastman Kodak's chief executive, Antonio M. Perez, speaking for the Business Roundtable. "We just don't believe that there are miracles out there."

If Congress passes a public plan that's not much of a sensation, Democrats might have reason to regret all the time and energy they invested in it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091101/...re_public_plan

just under a trillion dollars in ten years is well spent for the 2 percent gain, you think?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

just in case Chumdawg is still paying any attention as he "threw the race card" into this haphazardly and inaccurately....

Oh, trust me, there was nothing haphazard about it. Nothing at all.

As for accuracy...well, I'll just say that I once walked the same ground that you walk now. It seemed right at the time. I figured it out, though--thank God--and I hope you will one day, too.

[wmbwinn]

Chumdawg: please explain to my apparently too little brain where I am racist.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Chumdawg: please explain to my apparently too little brain where I am racist.

I already did, dude. When you cling to provincial notions, you can't just dismiss yourself from certain of the provincial notions that you know are wrong. When you cling to the notions, you espouse all of them.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

It is shocking that you are entirely ignoring that we are talking about ACORN here. Do you not read the news and know the scandals with ACORN?

Backing off to a generic discussion about special interest groups is a strategy to entirely ignore the issue. The issue is that we have a group widely known to be as fraudulent and corrupt as any entity crossing the American political spectrum in a very long time (a group so obviously egregious that a Democrat Congress voted to de-fund them, albeit only for a month as they are again funded now). This is almost as bad as asking the Ku Klux Klan to advise on financial institutes. Not as bad as that (I am exagerating), but still very bad.

I'm certain that you would take the same position on ANY organization that has had a member or employee accused of wrongdoing, right?

so if a lobbying firm had an employee who in the past was shown to have violated the law they would not be suitable for being an "advisor", right?

if a political party had a member shown to be guilty of an illegal act they too should not be an "advisor", right?

a trade organization that has experienced wrongdoing in the past, they would be disqualified from being an "advisor", right?

well? how consistent are you in your tar and feathering?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091031/..._bank_closures

How is that Hope and Change working for you???

this certainly qualifies for the "idiot alert"....I hear the horn sounding.

[mary]

I find it funny that Mary jumped on Dude for not having references/links/articles and also jumps on me for quoting references/links/articles with no original content. I just thought I would mention that..

Dude implied that I was making a series of statements, which I clearly did not make. It had nothing to do AT ALL with posting "references, links or articles" to outside material.

LOL