Obama: US would go bankrupt without health changes

Tom,

So true. I wonder why the people who scream "spread the wealth" and "we need to be equal" still have millions in the bank and dont do their part. How about cutting a check here to the "poor" people of the world.

BTW. We are already backrupt............

Yeah, the over 250K people will only be affected. The dims just want everyone brought down to the lowest common denominator. Controlled.

All were already bankrupt. We have over 54 trillion in unfunded liabiliites (Soical Security, Medicare, and this health care bill is just going to add to this). The deficit is 14 trillion not including the above. We need 2.2 trillion this year alone to pay for interest on debt and expiriing debt. we as a nation if we take tax receipts, and sell the gold reserves we still have can only come up with 600 billion.

So how are we handling this issue? Selling more debt. The issue now is that the two biggest buyers of our debt Japan and China have basically slowed down or stopped all together in buying our debt, so we came up with SOMA which is basically the Federal Reserve. So were buying our own debt at records levels.

Also within this health care lesigation there is a provision for the start of currency controls (we won't be able to take currency outside the us.)

I urge all to search on this look for the Greenspan-Guidotti rule. This explains when a country is bankrupt.

Also look for Argentina in the 1980's when that country went bankrupt.

Were in a world of hurt and very few people realize it.

Wake up before its too late.

Agree with Rob, we are already in serious trouble. This article is an attempt to justify the take over the rest of health care. Face it, medicare and medicaid robbed social securty under president johnson by moving social security into the general fund. Now social security is in the Red and medicare and medicaid are not far behind. All this new legislation does it cut medicare but not to save it but rather to help fund this new program along with 460B of new taxes. We are on the road to financial ruin if this isn't stopped and turned around. The best way to fix health care it to repeal this bill along with medicare and medicaid. Cut the demand and the cost will come down.

I wonder why the people who scream "spread the wealth" and "we need to be equal" still have millions in the bank and dont do their part. How about cutting a check here to the "poor" people of the world.

Why should they have to part with any of the money??? They earned it, they worked for it and most of all it is their money. Why should anyone be forced to give more because they just happen to make more money.

Agreed. But the American electorate has to have a clear alternative to chose from, and does not, Tea Party aside....Just as during the '08 Presidential election.....I don't see the GOP positioning themselves as a hard-core, small-government, supply-side economics alternative to the Obama agenda... the right is too complacent, counting on large electoral gains in November, while attempting to downplay the moderate / conservative power-struggle within the GOP...

If what Obama said is true, then he has put us on the path of even quicker bankruptcy. Nothing in the bill was about controlling cost, only expanding it. You can't cover more people for more services, while recklessly increasing demand on a finite supply and expect that you're going to pay less. I think Obama just discovered a new economic principal:as demand wildly outstrips supply, costs will decline. I think I'll call it Obamanomics, and you won't find this principal in any economics class.

Instead of trying to treat the symptoms of high healthcare costs, he should have cured the disease by attacking the root causes of the problem.

You are absolutely correct. Assertations that this will prevent a fiscal crisis are absolute lies.

OMG, the man is clueless! I totally agree with you tom, and especially with Larry @ 1.6 in that Mr. Obama has put this country into an even quicker pace toward bankrupting the country.

Obamanomics indeed--this will go down in history as a course that will be eventually implemented in many colleges and University's Economics' curriculae as "What not to do when you become President."

How does forcing Americans to buy insurance help keep this country out of bankrupcy? I would say the main concerns would be the 3.5 trillion dollar budget for 2010 and the 1.75 trillion dollar deficit.

You do all understand that even though the article says that health care reform "costs" 1.3 trillion dollars, the "costs" are paid for through revenue sources in the bill and there is a net reduction to the deficit....

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill cuts deficits by $130 billion in the first 10 years, and up to $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years.

So a more fair headline would be...

Health Care Reform Bill Reduces Deficit by $1.3 Trillion in the Next 20 Years... Doing Nothing Doesn't Reduce the Deficit At All

Sheesh - What President Obama said is true. Without reforms we would be bankrupt. This is but one step to making our health care system more cost effective. And no matter what you say, the CBO said this will reduce the deficit.

The one item that can reduce the deficits long term, is tough choices. Neither party is willing to make them. The Party of NO clue spent us to the @!$%#ing ground. Obama is on the right track with spending, but needs to make some tough decisions with Congress - BOTH Parties.

It will take true Bi-partisanship and tough choices to get us back on track. I see one thing that Obama did as a true step in the right direction on this and that is the deficit commission. Too damn bad the Congress couldn't get on board with this idea.

The entire concept that the health care "reform" is going to save us money, lower costs, and lessen the debt is a bold faced lie.

This is a power grab and an extension of the socialist agenda, nothing more, nothing less.

Just because the CBO said something would happen, doesn't make it so...Did the CBO include the cost of the doctor fix? Did the CBO review Medicare and Social Security originally and tell us that they'd be in deep trouble down the road? The CBO takes what they are given, and provides a projected result.

Can any supporter of the bill provide one example of a massive program that's been run by our government and has not cost more than originally expected or isn't currently in danger of going broke?

The CBO would be much easier to believe if there was a history of successfully managed government programs, but since that's not the case, it's hard to put your faith in the government getting it right "this time"...

many cost such as kids with pre-existing conditions isn't included

That is not true...the insurance companies originally tried to weasle out of the requirement, but they have already given in and agreed that the new law does require them to cover such kids.

So, even if this saves 1.3 trillon over 10 years that is nothing compared to WHAT THIS NATION RACKS UP.

So saving $1.3 trillion is not good enough for you? I am proud of our president for implementing such sweeping reform of the health insurance industry while also reducing the deficit...seems like very good policy to me.

Ok so now he got his pet project that will stop the US from going bankrupt so we are safe.

All I can say is wait and see?

just because the CBO said something would happen, doesn't make it so

Republican lawmakers seem to respect the CBO's opinion on things...

The CBO is, for better or for worse, the non partisan arbitrer of cost. Don’t believe me? Just ask Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). Here he is explaining why CBO is GOD:

- “I say all the time that CBO is God around here, because policy lives and dies by CBO’s word. Like the Bible, a CBO document can mean different things to different people and it’s easy to pull things out in isolation to justify a position. I hope everyone will take the full picture into account before rushing to judgment.” [March 6, 2006]

- “Do you question the work of the CBO and JCT? Well you shouldn’t because they’re like God around here.” [December 9, 2009]

All were already bankrupt. We have over 54 trillion in unfunded liabiliites (Soical Security, Medicare, and this health care bill is just going to add to this). The deficit is 14 trillion not including the above. We need 2.2 trillion this year alone to pay for interest on debt and expiriing debt. we as a nation if we take tax receipts, and sell the gold reserves we still have can only come up with 600 billion.

13 trillion, without any payments at 6% would be 780 billion, not 2.2 trillion.

The debt that is being incurred right now accounts for around $30,000 per man, woman and child in the U.S

Actually, $41,179 per citizen. $115, 935 per tax payer.

So how can you criticize the CBO when your math seems less than accurate.

redsfan,

The first thing to understand is that originally the CBO was expecting costs to be comparable to the House bill, which was over 2 trillion dollars. Obama called the the head of the CBO to the white house to have a "Discussion" over the numbers and magically, the CBO report on the senate bill came in at 900 billion. Hopefully we can both agree that there was nothing that the President should have needed to meet with an accountant for, to enable that accountant to review a plan and produce a cost estimate. Nothing other than to employ coercion, to make the CBO produce numbers favorable to his cause that is.

If you're doubtful, look at this statement from the CBO in the same report you're quoting:

"It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate of [Medicare] spending could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or through reductions in access to care or the quality of care," the agency says in its report.

Without placing themselves in peril at Obama's hands, the CBO did say that they don't see how the $500 Billion savings could be achieved. Rightly so, considering the fact that the baby-boomers are reaching retirement age and are about to swell medicare to the bursting point.

There's another factor that hasn't been included. For every dollar the bill removes from our pocket, there is a corresponding reduction in regular tax revenue. Robbing Peter to pay Paul so to speak.

If you think that you won't be affected because you make less than $250,000, you're mistaken. Insurance companies will have to raise rates, to distribute the "risk" associated with covering pre-existing conditions. Drug manufacturers will be taxed on their drugs, which is a cost they will pass on to each and every one of us. You'll pay at the pharmacy and pay with an increase in your health insurance premiums. Medical equipment manufacturers will be taxed, and they'll pass that on to each of us. Again, higher costs for procedures and higher insurance premiums.

Finally, the 40% tax on "Cadillac plans" for which the overall cost is $10,200 or more. If the total cost of your employer's individual plan is $850 per month or more (Including your contribution and theirs), they will be hit with a 40% tax, which translates to $4,080+ per year, all of which your employer will of course return to you via a lower salary, reduced benefits, higher co-pay, and higher deductibles. Most employer plans are probably close to, if not over that amount now. Once the increased costs I mentioned in the paragraph above kick in, even more employer plans will qualify as "Cadillac Plans".

You can continue to believe Obama's lies if you'd like, but there aren't enough magic mushrooms in the entire world for me to get that high.

redsfan:

so if a politician tells you the CBO is right, that makes them right? Please, think beyond what your representatives tell you...

Again, I'd ask if any supporter of the bill can provide one example of a massive program that's been run by our government and has not cost more than originally expected or isn't currently in danger of going broke (regardless of what the CBO said would happen)?

President Obama hasn't lied about anything. If you actually listen to him, and read the analyses of the bill, there are many things which aren't perfect. Obviously, nobody can prevent the insurance companies from using every dirty little trick in their bags to raise rates and screw the American people, just like they've been doing for decades. However, provisions in the health care bill will slow down those increases and provide oversight of insurance companies that just haven't been there before...a very good step in the right direction.

I don't understand the arguemtn that "if you regulate or tax the insurance companies, they'll just raise the rates". They already raise the rates in ridiculous amounts because they are greedy and have no limits. So what is the solution? Do nothing? I don't think so. Having insurance exchanges in 2014 is better than having no solution, doing nothing, and allowing the problem to get worse and worse.

All I'd like is something (other than a politician's word) to back up the "savings" we're going to see...

Yet again, I'd ask if any supporter of the bill can provide one example of a massive program that's been run by our government and has not cost more than originally expected or isn't currently in danger of going broke (regardless of what the CBO said would happen)?

OK Tom;

Obama pulled a fast one on many independent voters. He won't get away with any more double talk.

It's no secret any longer. He's a patented liar. The government he envisions is one that steals freedom, puts Americans under a government umbrella and blames the Republicans for whatever ails the country.

Redsfan,

The first big lie is that insurance companies are the cause of high insurance costs. $60 Tylenol and hospital stays that are $1000s per day are the cause of high insurance costs. The insurance company has to pay for those high costs, and they have to return them to the the customer. It's not a "dirty trick" for a business to charge it's customers for the costs that it incurs.

When you go to the grocery story, does your grocer sell you whatever you want at half of what it cost him to buy it? No, because if he did, he'd quickly be out of business. The same holds true for an insurance company.

If they have to pay more for a drug or service, they have to pass the cost on to you, or they would be out of business. I can imagine that your thought on that is "Good, let them go out of business, the greedy SOBs". Perfect idea, then you can pay 100% of your health care costs out of your pocket. Oh wait, you can already do that but choose not to, which means that like me, you realize that although insurance isn't cheap, if you ever have a major illness, insurance is worth many times more than you pay for it.

It is always divisive to take on big and important issues. What is rare is to take on a project for the betterment of the public even knowing that it may hurt you. That is what heroes are made of. That is why this death trap on the public has always been unfixable, too many politicians who care about polls and not enough heroes.

I suspect when it is rolled out and the public sees the logic of having safeguards and saving lives with lower costs to the public in the bigger picture, scare mongers are going to have much to answer for.

Funny how some think government money should only be spent on war, big business, and the wealthy. The middle class of America apparently do not deserve to live or be on the spending list.

I wonder if the CBO took into account the 30 million illegal immigrants about to be given amnesty in its projections. I mean if it saves 130 billion with illegals unable to be covered, once they are covered, it would have to save us like another 10 billion right?

Thanks for looking out for me President Obama.

"Perhaps some of you conservative geniuses can answer a few things for me?"

I can tell you that this won't happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jJvkkNmR_8

Ha ha ha California Militia. I thought I was seeing things when I read your name. Did you move to California? You must be the lonliest new resident in California. ROFL.

Seriously, do you worry about Mexican's being the reason for all bad in America even as many Californians are buying up and retiring in Mexico? I am fighting the influx by sitting on the beach in the Yucatan Peninsula with a Tequila Sunrise to keep an eye on the scary, meany enemy.

Call it a trade.

Lemme get this straight. Obama and the Dems in Congress have been working feverishly since Inauguration Day to bankrupt the nation by burying us in debt. So now to fix his own mess he's saddling the nation with Crap Sandwich V3.0?

GWB was bad, but he can't hold a candle to the Post Turtle who now occupies the Oval Office.

Hey, redsfan; You do realize, don't you, that just like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the new Health Care Reform plan is just another giant federal Ponzi Scheme (ooops, excuse me, "entitlement"). Wealth redistribution at its finest.

The news just the other day was reporting that Social Security is now paying out more than they collect -- twenty years earlier than the CBO initially projected. And all those "loans" that SS "gave" to Congress to fuel their ever-expanding demands for cash are sitting as IOUs in a vault in West Virginia -- still unpaid. So where the hell does Congress think it's going to get the cash to pay for all this largesse?

I can tell you where -- hyper-inflation and confiscatory taxation. What is about to happen to the US dollar will make the inflation in Weimar Germany between the two World Wars look like a Sunday picnic in the park.

So, how's all that "Hope and Change" treating you? Buyer's remorse setting in yet?

LOL not in militia anymore... was what you might call a phase...

and who said mexicans...

anyway. try not to drink so much you cant keep at least ONE eye on the enemy...

btco,

I agree with you wholeheartedly on that one. I mean think of it. What do you suppose will happen to employees when their employers can't afford to fork out large sums of money to pay for insurance for their employees?

Then again. How productive can an unhealthy workforce be? Production is the only thing that will drive money around, and if you can't produce, where do you think the money will come from? So yes, Obama is right. The country would go bankrupt without Health Care Reform. And those of you who are against it, got any alternatives that will help to keep costs down and ensure that everyone is able to afford health insurance?

If you think that you won't be affected because you make less than $250,000, you're mistaken. Insurance companies will have to raise rates, to distribute the "risk" associated with covering pre-existing conditions.

So I have to pay higher premiums so someone with a pre-existing condition can buy health insurance? What's wrong with that?

Oh yeah, I am so greedy, I think money is more important than someone's life. I think spending my own money on cheap plastic junk from Walmart is better than those Walmart employees having health insurance.

California Militia well I am pleased to know it was in the past. It was hard for me too picture you in California. lol

I assumed Mexico because that is what most say they are so concerned about. I have yet to hear the discussion include the dang Irish who make us drink on St. Paddy day and who, in my opinion, are too blame for green beer.

Do not worry...every vacation I drink just enough on the beach to reach Nirvana AND keep an eye on the enemy. I like to call it multitasking. ;-)

Hippo Potamus

So I have to pay higher premiums so someone with a pre-existing condition can buy health insurance?

Welcome to Obama's tax plan. The fiendish angle is that many taxes don't appear as such, because for Joe and Jane Sixpack not all of them are levied directly upon them by the government. If the feds tax insurers and medical equipment manufacturers, those industries will pass the cost along to the insured in the form of higher premiums.

So I have to pay higher premiums so someone with a pre-existing condition can buy health insurance?

Let me say this without the sarcasm. I am more than happy to pay higher premiums so everyone can have access to health care. I donate 10% of my income to people in need. I am willing to pay more than poor Joe and Jane Sixpack so they can afford health insurance. I am appalled by the selfishness of displayed here. It's all about you and your money and how Jane and Joe Sixpack are living off the government and the rich are paying their way-OR is it Jane and Joe Sixpack are being over taxed and should get a tax break?

If children with pre-existing conditions are such a burden to society, perhaps next time parents pray for their child with diabetes instead of getting treatment, we should thank them for saving the tax payers money.

Regardless of who is to blame...who is responsible for paying off the debt? Over taxed Jane and Joe Sixpack? Or the trickle down wealthy? Or the poor who can't afford medications? Seniors? Who?

Hippo Potamus,

I made no judgement, positive or negative, about paying for pre-existing conditions. If you reread my post, all that I did was inform anyone who thinks they're not going to be impacted by the taxes, that they're wrong. To prove my point I had to explain the ways that each and every one of us will be affected.

Your response is proof positive of the problem with this bill and the majority of its supporters. You don't even understand the issue, but you're more than willing to comment on the viability of a solution.

Those Walmart workers you're talking about have employer health insurance. Employer health insurance does cover pre-existing conditions. Some immediately, some after a 6 to 12 month waiting period. The only people that were unable to get insurance due to pre-existing conditions were the people that were trying to buy individual policies.

If you're going to comment about the waiting period, there's an easy, cost free solution for that too. If you have some condition that you're receiving treatment for when you leave a job, your previous insurance should have to continue covering treatment for that ailment until the waiting period at your next employer's insurance has expired. Both insurance companies would have to identify how much of the premium is required because of covering that disease across all of their insured. Lets say it was 30% of the premium. You would continue to pay 30% of your previous premium to your old insurance company and your new company would have to reduce their premium by 30%, since they weren't covering you for that ailment.

The answer to what to do for individual policy holders is a much longer one, but it is also cost free. The solution to any problem isn't to just throw money at it. Business realizes that, so why can't our government?

And most are too stupid to see it.

President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."

This should be the Democratic attack line that's used anytime Republicans bring up HCR.

I admit, I used it the other day when debating with my girlfriend's brother. He started in with his "You know how much this will cost, don't you?" line, to which I promptly said, "Do you know how much the cost of inaction would be?" He tried to waver on the issue but I just kept coming back to the bankrupting cost of a burgeoning health care system that if not for Democrats would remain status quo, GOING BROKE. Eventually, when he saw that his talking point wasn't getting him anywhere he admitted, albeit reluctantly, that the current health care system without continued, in fact increasing financial support from Uncle Sam (they currently get about 18 BILLION DOLLARS to administer Medicare Advantage annually), would be a major problem. But he quickly inserted the caveat that this was a future problem.

I must admit I love low hanging fruit in a debate. When I asked if he was suggesting "kicking the can down the road?" and pointed out that wasn't a very fiscally conservative point of view to have, he quickly pointed out that he had painted the patio.

Republicans making the argument against the cost of action is akin to throwing a boomerang, pointing out the cost of inaction is akin to the boomerang hitting them in the back of their 'fiscal' melons! Ahhh, the circular argument, a Republican tool of choice.

I guess there's no limits on stupid considering that car doesn't come with brakes!

If your girlfriend's brother had no answer, as presented in your post, you need better debate partners.

Those Walmart workers you're talking about have employer health insurance.

Those Walmart workers are part-time. Walmart did have the decency to have applications for Medicaid available for these workers.

The only people that were unable to get insurance due to pre-existing conditions were the people that were trying to buy individual policies.

Correct and it depends on the state in which you live. The state where I live, individuals are subject to a 9 month waiting period on conditions treated in the last 6 months. Insurance companies are prohibited from permanently excluding pre-existing conditions. So looking at health care reform-if the insurance companies are honest-the price of premiums should go up slightly to deal with covering these conditions for 9 months.

If you're going to comment about the waiting period, there's an easy, cost free solution for that too. If you have some condition that you're receiving treatment for when you leave a job, your previous insurance should have to continue covering treatment for that ailment until the waiting period at your next employer's insurance has expired.

The HIPPA of 1996 has already taken care of this. If you have group insurance and you change to a different group insurance within 63 days, you do not have a waiting period. With the COBRA of 1985, you really have an additional 18 months to find a job with benefits without having a waiting period for a pre-existing condition.

You don't even understand the issue, but you're more than willing to comment on the viability of a solution.

Issues

1. Some people who are not eligible for group insurance, are not able to buy an individual plan due to pre-existing conditions.

2. Insurance companies lose money by insuring those with pre-existing conditions. They offset these losses by raising premiums.

3. Making sure every one has access to health care involves money. If you don't think you should pay for it...who should? Or do you think that these people should be priced out of the market?

The answer to what to do for individual policy holders is a much longer one, but it is also cost free.

Let's have a cost free solution...

Spend 950 billion to keep the country from going bankrupt when the country is already bankrupt? Fuzzy math?

Bubba-939441

Spend 950 billion to keep the country from going bankrupt when the country is already bankrupt? Fuzzy math?

What else can we expect from a J.D.?

try this one tom:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7753

"Feds finds Massive fraud in Bush's 150 Billion Iraq Reconstruction"

rickace 1.44, Brilliant point.

It's no secret any longer. He's a patented liar. The government he envisions is one that steals freedom, puts Americans under a government umbrella and blames the Republicans for whatever ails the country.

Wow how shocking and horrifying. It would be if there were any truth to your words. Sounds more like talking points instead of reality. "Patented liar" How so brown cow?

"Steals freedom" seems to me Bush did that. And government is there to deal with issues that involve the need for uniformity across states for the Federal and across counties or cities for state government and within a county for local government in order for the region to function and any government reduces freedom. If there was just one person in the middle of the wilderness, quite rightly he could likely do whatever in the heck he wants. But bring people in together as a population and freedoms are reduced as the population must be governed for the benefit of the population.

Government is also there to deal with programs and issues that go beyond the capacity either from manpower or finances. In other words the Federal government deals with issues and situations that require a large financial input and manpower.

"Blames the Republicans" ...well unfortunately like it or not, Republicans, the blame does rest with the Republican leaders and the complete destruction of our country during Bush. Trying to act like Obama is failing to undo the extreme mess that Republicans caused does not work. He is doing really well considering the fact that the Republicans are still doing whatever they can to destroy our country. If people want to see our country heal and prosper sooner, it has become terribly apparent that we will have to vote out all Republicans in November.

In fact the only thing Obama is doing wrong, is he is actually in there working for his country and the people. So unless you are a GOP Nazi, a terrorist, or a corporation losing your complete control of a country and people, you are really pleased that Obama is doing what is right. Politically I think he is also right- reality will dispel the ugly distortions and lies being tossed out by the right. And it is that that causes the most fear amongst the GOP. People will truly be helped. Our country will move again toward freedom and prosperity and the fascist sector will have lost power and control.

Bubba-939441

Spend 950 billion to keep the country from going bankrupt when the country is already bankrupt? Fuzzy math?

I'd say more like "no math". It doesn't appear that the Fed Gov uses any actual math in any of their calculations, if they did, we wouldn't be debt that we are.

It all comes down to one thing, the government has spent too much future income to remain solvent.

It doesn't work for you and me, and it won't work for them either.

Jayney

rickace 1.44, Brilliant point.

Hehe, thanks ^_^

Speaking of J.D.s, they've infested the leadership of the FDIC as well. Chairwoman Bair has one and three of the other four governing officials have 'em as well. The fifth holds a lower degree in law.

I figure they got their appointments because they did something good somewhere else. Nice cushy job when a handful of banks fail in a year. And now it's the Job From Hell. The wheels began to come off in 2008 when the economy headed south. Over 100 failures in 2009 and the pace is even quicker so far this year. Five lawyers. Go figure.

Like Social Security, the FDIC is yet another accident waiting to happen brought to us by FDR and his band of socialists. The FDIC is either bankrupt or close to it. I heard recently that they now want to close failed banks in lieu of taking receivership of them.

Prudent depositors would do well not to rely upon FDIC protection. Find a safe bank like I did, one that won't need a bailout. Veribanc.com rates banks, and I'm a happy customer. For a mere $10 spent on an Instant Report I learned that my own bank holds a rating of "Green 3-stars", the second-highest rating they issue. If it ever drops to yellow, I'll be looking for a new bank.

mike lonkouski

It all comes down to one thing, the government has spent too much future income to remain solvent.

It's not short of astounding that we've dug ourselves into a $12 trillion hole over ten years and have escalated the pace under the Obama administration. Any Joe Sixpack with a credit card manages his money better than Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress manage the federal budget and the national debt.

It doesn't work for you and me, and it won't work for them either.

Absolutely right. The arc we're on is unsustainable and we'll soon learn the price to be paid for such gross fiscal malfeasance. It's anyone's guess how, but possible scenarios abound.

Any Joe Sixpack with a credit card manages his money better than Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress manage the federal budget and the national debt.

Most of the 13 trillions dollars in debt came from Republican presidencies. Don't forget the Clinton surplus that Bush gave away in tax breaks instead of doing the fiscally responsible thing and paying off the debt. So your offense about Obama is political.

Hippo Potamus

Most of the 13 trillions dollars in debt came from Republican presidencies.

You skirt my ignore list. Do you have anything to offer besides "It's Bush's Fault"?

Obama & the dems are in serious propaganda saturation mode. Every day the non-stop campaign. When will this guy figure out that we have turned off the channel to his rhetoric? No one takes him seriously anymore. sheesh. He thinks he's in some court of law where he can manipulate the facts, leave out the details that don't fit his case, & we will all fall for his silly assertions. As if we cannot think for ourselves, add 2 & 2, & seek out information that contradicts his silly phony speeches that demand we believe that all is well with his policies.

The concept of spending trillions of dollars on health care to keep from going bankrupt is the successor to the Vietnam War philosophy of the necessity of killing Vietnamese peasants to save them from Communism....

"By all means, end social security, medicare and medicaid." This will likely be necessary.... I can't see any way around it.....charity belongs in the private sector.... non-profits, mutual aid societies, etc.... Americans are very generous..... then Reagan did modest cutbacks in the social network, the MSM screamed, and Americans opened their wallets, as we always do...

hungary1956--

I wonder why the people who scream "spread the wealth" and "we need to be equal" still have millions in the bank and dont do their part. How about cutting a check here to the "poor" people of the world.

Why should they have to part with any of the money??? They earned it, they worked for it and most of all it is their money. Why should anyone be forced to give more because they just happen to make more money.

It is merely a matter of pointing out the hypocrisy. Those screaming "spread the wealth" are not practicing what they scream. Ergo hypocrites.

-------------------------------------------

Obama: US would go bankrupt without health changes

*busting out laughing*

Would go? We are there.

USDEBTCLOCK real time. This is fun to watch.

Reality check.

With this Fiscally Unhealthy government Bribed Unconstitutional bill, you could go to jail and be fined up to $250,000. How Constitutional and good is that?

Most of these so called benefits will not be available until 2013 and 2014!

What a hypocrit, how many will die waiting?

We are going to be Mandated to pay and Penallized and jailed for Benefits we do not get?

Go to jail, is this Constitutional?

Therese Nelson

With this Fiscally Unhealthy government Bribed Unconstitutional bill, you could go to jail and be fined up to $250,000. How Constitutional and good is that?

Go to jail, is this Constitutional?

It's not. But then this president and Congress wipe their asses routinely with the Constitution. The "stimulus" is unconstitutional. Federal investment in private sector corporations such as General Motors and Citibank -- which creates the clear and present danger of a conflict of interest -- is unconstitutional. Where the heck are the lawyers when we need them? Chasing ambulances.

We are going to be Mandated to pay and Penallized and jailed for Benefits we do not get?

It's looking that way. And we'll be taxed to pay the salaries of 16,000 additional Schutzstaffel IRS agents to enforce this law.

Jayney

Obama & the dems are in serious propaganda saturation mode.

That's really all they can do. The screws are tightening and they're feeling the pinch. Their pre-inauguration forecast of unemployment at 7.7% and falling in Q1 2010 has been disproven. The airhead who co-authored the bogus forecast now chairs the president's Council of Economic Advisors, so we know where he's getting some of his bad advice from.

On balance, this adminstration is like a fish out of water. The economy is collapsing and they are without a clue as to how to respond. Propaganda will avail them for only so long. The time will come when the people demand that they either deliver the goods or get the hell out. Since there is no way to accomplish the impossible (restore the economy to its former self) seats in the White House and Congress will become hot seats. Very hot seats.

And that couldn't happen to a better bunch of crooks.

hippo

I have not seen you around for a while. Last time I came across your posts you were still portraying yourself as an archetype of your biased vision of the extreme right. You liked to make egregious statements such as the poor should die rather than have your tax dollars go to support them. If you recall I asked you plenty of questions to which you delivered excellent extreme stereotypical answers before running from the scrutiny. I thus wrote you off as a lunatic.

So you have dropped the charade, huh?

Well good. You were by far the most extreme right-wing person I have found on NV. Since you were simply playing a role I feel better about my fellow viners.

rickace - this might settle your question on the ignore list

hippo

Since you are now a curiosity for a different reason, here are some links to your disingenuous side:

Pre-existing conditions, lifetime limits impede the profits of insurance companies. If you are denied coverage, you should have to pay cash for treatment or go without

Sick people aren't worth as much. Obviously, if you are going to cost society a lot of money, you should not rely on others to pay your medical bills. Abortion and euthanasia are good ways to make sure the sick don't take away resources from hard working healthy people.

Self interest to have some sickly kid taking all my tax dollars to buy health care? I think my life would be better if I didn't have to support those that are an obvious drain on society. And if you don't draw that line at self-sufficiency, where do you draw it?

No one gets care unless they are able to pay for it. Hospitals and doctors can refuse treatment if the patient is unable to pay. Why should I pay outrageous medical costs so those who can't pay haveaccess to health care?

So you literally will have medical practitioners let a man bleed to death (any example is fine) if he cannot pay?

Why should I pay for his poor choices?

So many posts from which to choose ...

The best way to reduce costs and lower the risk of bankruptcy is to repeal this bill plus repeal medicare and medicaid. This will cut the demand and the costs will come down. It will also reduce the federal budget by $765B reducing the budget deficit. If we repeal social security the budget would balance.

It will take hard choices to close this deficit, prevent default, and pay off the debt. The progressive liberal federal government expansion since the inception of income tax followed by social security, medicare, medicaid and now obamacare will force the government to either default or take control of all the corporate and personal profit, salaries,and interest gains in order to balance the budget.

We the people must decide if this republic (remember folks we are a republic and not a democracy) goes forward or we fall into the depths of a socialist democracy.

By all means, end social security, medicare and medicaid. If you can no longer work because or your age, go curl up somewhere and die. You are a burden to the rest of us. What a great message. Why not have some bumper stickers made up with that sentiment. Tell me, genius, how will people too poor to afford health insurance, too old or disabled to work, be cared for? Do you really advocate a society where people like this are simply discarded? Please tell me you are being sarcastic. By the way, you are correct. We are a republic. That is why the refrain that the health care plan was shoved down our throats is garbage. In a republic, you electe people to make important decisions about the country; you do not make those decisions based on the latest poll results.

Paddymurphy, I don't think anyone who really truly qualifies for Medicare and Social Security should go without.

HOWEVER, the systems are being abused along with Medicaid by people who simply choose NOT to work. And by this - I mean young healthy folk who can work but choose to not do so.

And, the government is the one we can blame as far as losing Social Security - they passed a law that lets them dip into those funds. Plus, in its early days, you could donate some in for a year or so then take it for the rest of your life. It had problems frmo the get go.

By FEDERAL LAW, a hospital must give basic care to anyone needing it. That's one reason for long lines in the ER for people just needing a flu shot or something.

And tell me dear sir/madam, do you like working your butt off (at least I hope you are doing such) to pay for people who are capable of work but are too lazy - knowing the government will give them health care - or even better worse, will give them assistance to buy that insurance?

(Oh, BTW, I'm considered Poor by the living standard, I make less than $25K a year, but I can promise you I will NOT be eligible for that assistance. I know because I'm not really even eligible for Medicaid - though I won't take it as I'm able to work and insurance is NOT expensive).

I'm sorry - but people do not want this because it doesn't help them, it helps a bunch of lazy-asses who are capable of working. That's why we are falling down - if we did this in World War II we'd be speaking German or Japanese by now. We've gotten apathetic, we want stuff given to us instead of working.

Seriously - you need to realize there is more harm than good that will come out of this. And note, I said there will be some good, but I maintain the bad will occur.

austin...

ouch... could you imagine if the government just cut people off after having bailed out big business...

could almost see a real revolt there....

austinmrk

We the people must decide if this republic (remember folks we are a republic and not a democracy)

That makes you and me smarter than our J.D. POTUS who remarked once that we're a democracy.

goes forward or we fall into the depths of a socialist democracy.

We've already moved closer to being an oligarchy than a republic. Ever since ARRA/TARP was being legislated the president and Congress have demonstrated that the will of the people no longer carried any weight.

You're right, the time to decide is drawing near. Either we act and take back our federal government from the hands of the corrupt and self-serving, or we don't act and let them creep ever further into our lives, controlling more and more of the private sector and placing more burdensome regulations upon people and industry.

Personally I like to blame President Millard Fillmore for all of our socio-political and economic problems.

Curse you Fillmore! Curse you!

The only thing worse than a politician is a 'good" politician.

ptw2

"But most likely by then Obama will be out of office." And it will still be Bush's fault...LOL

Indeed!

This graph shows the history of our national debt. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html Interesting how, other than during WWII, when democrats are in power the national debts goes down and when Republicans are in power (other than Ike) it goes up. The cries that we are at unprecedented levels of debt is also a buch of bull@!$%#. We had much higher levels of debt at teh end of WWII and were able to get out of it then. History shows that during times of crisis, the debt increases because of decreased revenues and increased spending to stimulate the economy. Eventually, as the economy recovers, revenues increase, government spending on things like Unemployment, medical assistance and other programs that provide aid to people during tough economic times, decreases. Had it not been for the Bush tax cuts during a time of crisis, when our military spending increased dramatically, and the unfunded medicare drug plan, we would not have nearly as much debt.

I'm sorry Paddymurphy, but you MUST give us more up-to-date information than from 2007 and whitehouse.gov - BTW a site that can be manipulated to fit Obama's agenda.

Additionally, this is common sense - we have had a debt since our inception, and simply put you cannot spend your way out of debt. Anyone with a credit card knows this is not possible - unfortunately we have morons on all sides who think this can happen.

Then again - we have several Cabinet members who didn't pay taxes (which - *gasp* - also help reduce debt) and those who have paid only paid what was due really - not all if any of the interest and penalties incurred. It's funny how they are telling us we have to pay our taxes and buy insurance or face fines for that reason.

Stop reading "statistics" and look at the real world - common sense is that we have never gotten out of debt (yes, Clinton's balanced budget was that, not a balanced National budget), and won't as long as we keep spending recklessly and not doing things such as TORT REFORM.

Here we go again: Hoover got us in, and WWII got us out. Bush got us in, and

to his credit, started trying to get us out. Though, mostly he threw money at bankers.

Democrats as history shows are better for the fiscal position of our country... Smile :-)

Yeah, Paddy you need to give us better information! I think the graph you were reading was upside down. EVERYONE knows that GWB and Reagan were real Americans and true fiscal conservatives!

Get with the program!

In all seriousness

Additionally, this is common sense - we have had a debt since our inception, and simply put you cannot spend your way out of debt. Anyone with a credit card knows this is not possible - unfortunately we have morons on all sides who think this can happen.

Who thinks this, don't just spout off names, give me proof that they think this way.

Stop reading "statistics" and look at the real world - common sense is that we have never gotten out of debt (yes, Clinton's balanced budget was that, not a balanced National budget), and won't as long as we keep spending recklessly and not doing things such as TORT REFORM.

So what you seem to be saying is that just because the NUMBERS say that Reagan and Bush massively drove up the debt, common sense says they didn't? You also seem to be saying that TORT REFORM will solve our debt crisis.

I am almost afraid to ask, but here goes. Show me an article that proves this statement.

Please note that we still have not paid back the money we borrowed to fund WWII.

tracytruth

So what you seem to be saying is that just because the NUMBERS say that Reagan and Bush massively drove up the debt, common sense says they didn't?

I'm a conservative and a member of the Republican Party. It shames me that Republican President GWB doubled the national debt during his watch.

But he's history. The new reality is a Democratic president who is behaving like Bush on steroids. We're $2 trillion deeper in just one year. At that rate Obama will exceed in one term what GWB did in two.

Yup and all the fool liberals can say is "look at the trillions Bush spent on the wars" The same wars still going on now, that's funny!

Rickrace in a moment when the public sector is not spending and the private sector is not spending, the only choice left is government spending. By the way, the difference between Bush's last budget and Obama's first budget was .4 trillion dollars. I agree it's more, but come on.

We can play the game that the Heritage Foundation plays and claim that Bush's last budget was really Obama's first. But that would be a lie. Bush also kept both wars off the books, Obama included the wars, in an effort to be HONEST about spending.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

The events and policies that have pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term, however, were largely outside the new Administration’s control. If not for the tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.

Obama does need to get long term spending under control, but his bigger priority at the moment is trying to turn the US economy around.

Yup and all the fool liberals can say is "look at the trillions Bush spent on the wars" The same wars still going on now, that's funny!

OK genius what would you have done differently to end the wars sooner? We're ARE drawing down in Iraq.

So really, I'm serious. Give me your plan. How would we have gotten out of Iraq sooner. What would you be doing differently in Afghanistan? You sound like a foreign policy expert. I'll await your response. (But I won't hold my breath)

I would have used tactical nukes and not even have bothered with soldiers. I would have reminded the rest of the world you don't mess with the USA

tracytruth

Rickrace in a moment when the public sector is not spending and the private sector is not spending, the only choice left is government spending.

Absolutely not. The government's role as limited by Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution is governing, period. Then again this president and Congress routinely wipe their asses with the Constitution, so it comes as no surprise that they're spending. But it's not their own money, it's yours and mine. I don't know about you, but I prefer to direct the spending of my own money instead of trusting the feds with it.

We can play the game that the Heritage Foundation plays and claim that Bush's last budget was really Obama's first. But that would be a lie. Bush also kept both wars off the books, Obama included the wars, in an effort to be HONEST about spending.

None of that is news to me, and it doesn't refute the fact that within his first month in office Obama burdened taxpayers with $800 billion in fresh new debt with no plan to pay it down. His term will end and being a filthy rich millionaire he'll have a cushy private life. Meanwhile, Joe and Jane Sixpack will get stuck with the tab.

Obama does need to get long term spending under control

That's an understatement. He needs to get spending under control, period. Right now. Unfortunately he's all for spending like a drunken sailor.

but his bigger priority at the moment is trying to turn the US economy around.

And that's an impossible task. The tail (Washington) can't wag the dog (the economy). During the 1990s no amount of governmental manipulation could stir the stagnant economy of Japan. The feds though are incapable of learning from the errors of others so what does our Einstein president do? Makes the exact same mistakes.

FACEPALM!

Inauguration Day 2013 can't come fast enough.

Good post Rickace

Larry-304061

Good post Rickace

Thanks ^_^

I'm not well-informed in many area, but this stuff is my bread and butter. Nice thing about the Consititution is that it doesn't take a degree in law to read and understand it. The founding fathers left us a true gem, and the testament to that is over two-hundred years as a nation under the same form of government. Over that span of time many nations have come and gone.

I remember you! And you're back with the same nonsense. That's cute. If I would have remembered our last "discussion" I wouldn't have wasted my time with a thoughtful response because obviously I wouldn't get one back from you.

Then again this president and Congress routinely wipe their asses with the Constitution

This seems like a common talking point with you. I'm not sure why you like this visualization, but if you get some perverse satisfaction out of it, be my guest. It's of course not true, but you go on believing it, if it makes you feel better.

I see from some of your posts that your really into Glenn Beck, that explains a lot. You do know he's quite a few brick shy of a load?

within his first month in office Obama burdened taxpayers with $800 billion in fresh new debt with no plan to pay it down.

As opposed to GWB whose tax cuts cost 2.5 Trillion Dollars, engaged in TWO unfunded wars, and rammed through a prescription drug benefit that will cost over 1 trillion dollars. At least to your credit you claim that you weren't happy with GWB.

Despite you continuously pointing to Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, and claiming that government can't do..."something", we finally get to the heart of your little rant.

I don't know about you, but I prefer to direct the spending of my own money instead of trusting the feds with it.

You don't want to pay for things that you don't like.! Isn't that cute, just like a five year old. Your going to stamp your feet and hold your breath until 2013 when you "think" someone will move into the White House that sees things YOUR way.

I suspect that if you were in charge you would get rid of Social Security, Medicaid, medicare and of course the new health care LAW. I'm sure there's a lot of other programs that you would like to dismantle as well.

I got news for you, these programs aren't going anywhere. I would suggest that you pick up all of your Ayn Rand books that you've thrown all of the floor and move to a place more in line with your thinking, might I suggest Somalia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

I'm not well-informed in many area, but this stuff is my bread and butter.

Wow!

Rickace. Here is the first sentence of Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States'...Here is the Commerce Clause. "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; and here is the necessary and proper clause. "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Congress has the power to regulate commerce and to pass all laws necessary and proper for doing so. Health care is 1/6th of the economy, obviously a large component of interstate commerce. The Supreme Court, which, according to the Constitution, has the role of determining whether a law is constitutional, has interpreted the Commerce clause to permit the regulation of any activity that may affect commerce. In order to conclude, as you apparently do, that regulating health insurance is beyond the power of congress, you would have to ignore two hundred years of supreme Court precedent telling us what the constitution means. Are you that sure of yourself that you would substitute your judgment on what the founding fathers meant for the collective wisdom of the Supreme Court over the last two hundred years?

rule the world
I would have used tactical nukes and not even have bothered with soldiers. I would have reminded the rest of the world you don't mess with the USA.

Tactical Nukes? Tactical Nukes? You're kidding right? You would have lobbed nuclear bombs into a country that didn't do anything to us (Iraq)? You also would have lobbed nuclear bombs into Afghanistan? I'm sure all of the other countries in those regions would have been thrilled with our use of nuclear weapons.

I really think some of you people on the right are sociopaths. Tactical Nukes? Please!

tracytruth

This seems like a common talking point with you.

It will be, long after the Obama administration ships out in 2012. You see, as an American the Constitution is dear to me. It contains among other things the Bill of Rights that keeps the government out of my home and away from my guns.

I'm not sure why you like this visualization

It's terse and graphic, that's why.

but if you get some perverse satisfaction out of it, be my guest.

I'm not a perv.

It's of course not true

Really now? Find me the clause in Section 8 of Article I that empowers Congress to enact the stimulus.

but you go on believing it, if it makes you feel better.

Snark? That's all you can argue with?

I see from some of your posts that your really into Glenn Beck, that explains a lot.

You're seeing what you want to see. I've watched Beck and although he makes a lot of good points I am nowhere near being "really into" him as you assert.

You do know he's quite a few brick shy of a load?

So's the president when it comes to managing the economy. Between the two of them, Obama is far more disturbing because he wields federal power, whereas Beck rides a microphone.

The remainder of your post is boorish and rude, as well as content-free.

Don't bother replying. You've just landed yourself a seat on my Ignore List. Rudeness has no place on my screen.

The remainder of your post is boorish and rude, as well as content-free.

Don't bother replying. You've just landed yourself a seat on my Ignore List. Rudeness has no place on my screen.

LOL! Typical response from the extreme right! It's certainly not rude or boorish to say the the president wipes his @ss on the constitution! Grow up, Rickrace.

"Find me the clause in Article I, section 8, that empowers congress to enact the stimulus" See my post above with the actual language from the constitution. You ignore the necessary and proper clause and two hundred years of supreme court precedent. Congress has the enumerated powers and implied power to enact legislation necessary to carrying out those powers. The stimulus package was nothing more than a combination of tax breaks and traditional government spending. You claim that the constitution is you bread and butter and yet you evidence a fundamental lack of understanding of the entire body of constitutional law that has evolved over two hundred years. Stop quoting from the document and cite some cases. After all, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means.

Rickace...great posts. Thank you for so clearly stating the obvious, even though some people don't want to understand the truth.

They can't refute with facts, so they sink to name calling and personal insults. Sad.

Paddymurphy

After all, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means.

In Rickrace's mind the constitution means what HE says it means and that's the problem with the extreme right.

Merleiz: No name calling from me, just pointing out, factually, how profoundly wrong Rickface about the Constitution, what it actually says and what the body upon whom the Constitution conferred the power to determine the meaning of the Constitution has said about these issues. For all of his talk about the constitution, he has not referred to a single supreme court decision that supports his reading of the Constitution in general and Article I, Section 8 in particular.

merleliz

Rickace...great posts. Thank you for so clearly stating the obvious, even though some people don't want to understand the truth.

Thanks for your kind words. I do indeed treasure the Constitution and am appalled by how the feds today think they can enact any old thing they want regardless if they're empowered to do so or not. The stimulus for example isn't what the framers had in mind as a proper role of government. It amounts to the feds tossing $800 billion willy-nilly into the private sector, closing their eyes, crossing their fingers, and hoping it has a salubrious effect. Is that good government? Hell no.

They can't refute with facts, so they sink to name calling and personal insults. Sad.

Aye, and I'm quite accustomed to it. Thank Newsvine for the Ignore List. There's stuff worth seeing and there's stuff that's not.

Really merleliz

They can't refute with facts, so they sink to name calling and personal insults. Sad.

Explain to me why we have social security, medicare and medicaid. Explain this to me. What you and your "constitutional" friends seem to say is that for the past 100 years Congress, every president and the Supreme Court have all conspired against the constitution. Is that what your saying?

Every person in a position of authority in this country since (1792 really , if you read my link). Has trampled on YOUR definition of the constitution.

Instead of calling into question your grasp of reality, you claim that I should have to prove my reasons for believing as I do! My reasons are the fact that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are laws. No one other than fringe right-wing ideologues are challenging these concepts. NO ONE.

This is a little like claiming that the entire universe revolves around the Earth and when people laugh at you, you get angry. What else are we supposed to do?

Explain to me why we have social security, medicare and medicaid.

How about you explaining to me why they are broke? Oh, yeah, and how adding another massive entitlement program is going to make it better?

Explain to me how and why the government can "mandate" what I do with my money after they take their pound of flesh in taxes? Explain to me the justification in the Constitution for the government telling me I must buy a product or a service from a private company, whether I can afford to pay for it or not, and pay them profits on the product or service they are offering, even if I don't want the product or service, and if I refuse to do so I must pay a fine/tax to the government?

My employer paid for 20 years for health insurance for me. I used it once, and the insurance company paid out the equivalent of two months premiums...can you say "The f*cking I'm getting isn't worth the f*ucking I'm getting?" 20 years worth of premiums...well over $100,000.00 dollars, down the drain. And now the premiums are so high we can't afford it anymore, gave up health insurance in favor of getting a paycheck, and the new law states that paycheck or not, now I have to pay for it again. My latest premium quote was more than my house payment and car payment combined, so what am I supposed to do? Live on the streets so I can have health insurance? Work two jobs to pay for health insurance? Not health care...health insurance. If I had back the money I'd paid for the freaking health insurance I could pay for my own health care...and then some!

Better yet, explain this one to me. How does "mandatory" equal "affordable"?

Yeah, that one is the kicker, isn't it. Because it doesn't. So all this bill means to me is an extra tax.

Worried that I might get sick and not be able to pay for it? Well, you have my permission to let me die in the street...the way this country's headed, I'm not real enthusiastic about a long life anymore. I'm really glad that I'm old, and won't live to see what's going to happen next.

You really have no understanding of insurance, do you? You have insurance incase something goes wrong. Do you have homeowners, life, disability insurance? If you are lucky, you will never need to use any of them. But if you are not lucky, if something bad happens, like your house burns down, you become disabled or. god forbid, you die, the insurance you paid for will be worth far more than what you paid. It is certainly easy now for you to look back and say, " I really didn't need health insurance." What if, however, you did. Every day people suffer horrible injury or learn they suffer from a chronic illness that will require substantial medical care. In my family, one brother in law had three heart attacks before he was fifty, the other brother in law a massive stroke at 53. If either did not have health insurance, they would have lost everything they worked for. This law. over time, will slow the growth of health insurance premiums and will provide help to individuals and small businesses obtain health insurance coverage. it is not an entitlement program, it is a responsibility program. It encourages people to obtain health insurance so that their health care is paid for through insurance, rather than by the rest of us in higher taxes or higher premiums. Right now, those of us with health insurance subsidize those, like you apparently, who do not have health insurance. Your welcome

merleliz

How about you explaining to me why they are broke?

Easy peasy. FDR and his band of socialists were too @!$%#ing lazy to put their thinking caps on to explore the realm of "the dark side" to borrow a phrase from Star Wars. SS and the FDIC rely upon prosperity to survive. Decades later along come us Baby Boomers and we're a dream come true for SS. We paid in heavily.

What FDR's band of nitwits never envisioned with that feds would subsequently raid the cookie jar (the SS trust fund) to pay for government programs. Well, they did. It's not just the Boomers they screwed. It's all workers paying into or drawing from SS. The feds raided the cookie jar and now all that remains is a few cobwebs and a pile of IOUs from a bankrupt federal government.

FDR's FDIC is toast as well. Over 100 failed banks in 2009, and the rate in Q1 2010 exceeds that.

Aside from the TVA and banking regulations in Glass-Steagall is there anything that FDR's band of fools got right?

You are so right. THe last 70 years in this country have been an economic disaster. How have we survived so long under such dire economic circumstances. What world do you live in? It is certainly not the world the rest of us live in and it is dark, hateful world.

PaddyMurphy...there are no guarantees in life. And buying insurance is not going to save you from financial disaster if you become seriously ill. For most of us, if you are so sick you can't work you are going to lose everything anyway, you know?

Two of the people I loved most in this world had excellent insurance and they both died anyway, one in surgery and one a slow painful death from cancer...he suffered for six months and the last three were in intense pain.

I'm going to tell you a little story about that one. He couldn't collect unemployment unless we fired him, and even then, since he was unable to work, he couldn't be "actively seeking employment"...one of the conditions for drawing an unemployment check. He went down to apply for disability, because he didn't want to be a burden on our small company, and he had paid into SS all his working life, over 40 years. He was told at the government office where he had to apply "You say you have a prognosis of no more than six months...well, it's going to take you that long to get your first check, do you really want to go through all this process and make me fill out all these forms since you are unlikely to live long enough to collect?" He got up and walked out. We paid him until the day he died so that he would have some peace of mind, knowing that he wasn't going to end up homeless while dying from cancer.

And this is the government you want controlling your health care?

What FDR's band of nitwits never envisioned with that feds would subsequently raid the cookie jar (the SS trust fund) to pay for government programs.

Wasn't that LBJ's idea?

Right: Your single experience with social security means more than the millions helped by since it was created 70 years ago. What a self centered existence you have. Your one bad experience means more than all the good that has been done. I have represented disabled people for years. For every story like the one you told, there are tens of thousand of other stories of how much there programs help. For every insensitive clod like the one your friend supposedly encountered, there are thousands of people who work for the government at every level who care and who try to help. And it is simply not true that whether you have health insurance or not your lose everything if you get sick. That is the whole @!$%#ing point of making sure that everyone is covered. Having health insurance is often the difference between losing everything and not. Both of my brothers-in-law, who had life changing medical conditions, survived and their families survived financially BECAUSE THEY HAD HEALTH INSURANCE. What is so hard to understand about that? The two people you lost, if they had health insurance then their families were not left with the cost. The rest of us were not left to pay the cost. RIght? If they did not have insurance, either their families or my family and the rest of us who have insurance and pay taxes would, indirectly, be responsible for paying for that care. No one claims that just because you have health insurance, you will not die. Many people, however, will live BECAUSE they have health insurance. That is a fact.

merleliz

I'm going to tell you a little story about that one.

What a tragic tale. The feds extorted payments to Social Security from him during his working years, and then turned their backs on him in his hour of need.

This is exactly why the federal government should stay out of our private lives. It's OUR money, and we'll manage it better than indifferent Washington bureaucrats can. And should one of us die before collecting SS benefits, the person's estate should get all payments back PLUS interest.

Given his gross malfeasance during WWII and all the havoc SS has been visiting upon the nation for decades, FDR is hands-down the worst American president to date.

Wasn't that LBJ's idea?

I don't know enough to answer, but it's safe to say that all that money just sitting there is a temptation politicians of all stripes would find difficult to resist. That's a problem with prosperous times, they make people stupid. When life is good, few anticipate the good times ending. They didn't in the Roaring Twenties, and they didn't post-Y2K. Economists treat the economy as a physical object with inertia. When the economy expands they forecast continued expansion. No one considered, "Gee what if we can't pay these IOUs back to the American people who contributed to Social Security?"

We'll find out soon enough.

Do you understand anything about social security? First of all, the little story told above was not about Social Security Retirement, it was about social security disability. You have to be disabled for six months BEFORE the payments begin. That is an aspect of the law to protect social security and to not provide payment to people temporarily unable to work. If he walked away from the application process because it was too difficult, that is his fault. It should be difficult to obtain these benefits to make sure that only those truly in need get them. This bull@!$%# about taxes being "extortion" or "government stealing" is sickening. If you do not like it here, leave. People like you crow about what a great country this is, how it is the greatest that is, ever was or ever will be. Perhaps it is, but running a country like this takes money. Are you saying there should be not taxes? Of course not, you just believe that they are too high. Then say that. Don't throw out bull@!$%# lines about extortion and theft. Every civilized nation in the world has a program like social security; like medicare; like unemployment insurance. They are necessary programs that have to be paid for. You have this delusion that everything would be just great if the government did little or nothing to help those who have, for whatever reason, fallen by the wayside. There will always be poor and a society is measured by what it does for the least of its members. You recognize that philosophy. We celebrate the resurrection of is author tomorrow.

EVERYONE knows that GWB and Reagan were real Americans and true fiscal conservatives!

tracytruth

I think your the one with the chart upside down...?

Yeah, Paddy you need to give us better information! I think the graph you were reading was upside down.

Republicans = FCINO, Fiscal Conservative in Name Only.

Paddymurphy

This is why I was sarcastic with Rickrace in my earlier posts. I've had "discussions" with him before. Describing him as obtuse would be an understatement. You will get nowhere trying to be reasonable. You will get nowhere pointing out facts.

Rickrace and people like him claim to love the USA, but they really are in love with THEIR idea of USA and people who don't agree with their ideas are WRONG. Rickrace and people like him are nothing more than narcissists and they will not be reasonable.

Rixar13

I was being sarcastic. Sarcasm on the internet is sometimes hard to interpret, sorry!

Republicans = FCINO, Fiscal Conservative in Name Only.

I completely agree!

I completely agree!

My bad, sorry.... Smile :-)

For every insensitive clod like the one your friend supposedly encountered, there are thousands of people who work for the government at every level who care and who try to help.

Wow, and in 58 years I've never met any of them.

Stood in line at the DMV lately?

Met up with the care and compassion of the IRS?

If he walked away from the application process because it was too difficult, that is his fault.

Hmmm....I guess it was very wrong and short sighted of him to die within the six month diagnosis he was given...did you not understand that part? He was told he would be dead of cancer in six months, but he didn't want to end up freaking homeless and starving at the end of three! And if we hadn't paid him for the time he was dying, he would have...this is what is wrong with dealing with the freaking government...he had a medical diagnosis of six months to live but all the government was concerned about was:

That is an aspect of the law to protect social security and to not provide payment to people temporarily unable to work

And, Paddymurphy, I just have to ask

You have this delusion that everything would be just great if the government did little or nothing to help those who have, for whatever reason, fallen by the wayside.

Did you not understand that this was my point? What did the government do for my friend? Little or nothing. No, wait, what they did was, pure and simple...nothing. Paid his taxes all his life, lived by the rules, and they were willing to let him be homeless and starving as he died. What was he supposed to pay his electrical bill with? His car note, so he could go back and forth to the doctor? His freaking INSURANCE! Because the law says he had to wait six months to get a check. Didn't matter that he was going to be dead in six months...and no one in the government had the compassion, the laws didn't have the compassion or common sense to say "gee, we might need to fast track this for this guy since he's dying of cancer".

Again, and these are the people you want running healthcare?

I'm one, and I put up with whiny little @!$%#s like you all of the time, complaining about how unfair life is to you. How the government is the problem instead of your @!$%#ty attitude. You blame the government and everyone else for your pathetic little life. Get over yourself.

Can you read? Social Security disability does not pay unless you have been disabled for six months. It is like that to prevent people from receiving it and draining it for transitory disabilities. Didn't your friend have disability insurance? Why not? Pretty irresponsible. I have had it with people who do not plan for their own emergencies, who expect the rest of us to take care of them simply because they haven't provided for themselves. Didn't h ever hear that you are supposed to have enough saved so you can meet your obligations for six months. Do I sound like a Republican? You are freaking amazing. You oppose government help for anyone because, in your mind. the government did not step up and help your friend. What hypocrisy? If it wasn't for the change in our priorities started when that idiot actor became president thirty years ago, your friend might have had some help.

And, yes, I was at the DMV last Saturday and the people were very nice and accommodating. They even tried to offer a woman who brought her crying child by letting her go first, but she got pissed when they approached her, thinking that they were going to ask her to take her kid out, and left. I am sure she is like you, believing that she was not treated fairly when, in fact, she was the jerk. By the way, what did you do for your friend?

By the way, what did you do for your friend?

Can you read?

There's that lack of reading comprehension again...I paid his salary for six months while he was disabled, until the day he died. And did his job as well as my own to be able to afford it, otherwise I would have had to pay his salary to someone else.

And, yes, I was at the DMV last Saturday and the people were very nice and accommodating

LOL! I am sure you were!

I'm one, and I put up with whiny little @!$%#s like you all of the time, complaining about how unfair life is to you. How the government is the problem instead of your @!$%#ty attitude. You blame the government and everyone else for your pathetic little life. Get over yourself.

If you were able to discuss an issue without euphimistic profanity and personal attacks, I might be able to talk to you. As it is, congratulations, you are the first Viner to make my ignore list.

Then you will continue to wallow in your ignorance. You like to ignore facts contrary to your constipated view of this country. So typical, you think that law should change for your friend's particular situation.

Yep, I can file bankruptcy through paying health insurance premiums...

Since the bill doesn't add trillions of dollars to the deficit, the only lie is this article saying the bill "costs" $1.3 trillion...the "costs" are paid for through revenue sources in the bill and there is a net reduction to the deficit....

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill cuts deficits by $130 billion in the first 10 years, and up to $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years.

So a more fair headline would be...

Health Care Reform Bill Reduces Deficit by $1.3 Trillion in the Next 20 Years... Doing Nothing Doesn't Reduce the Deficit At All

redsfan:

Are you including the "abuse/fraud" savings in the "revenue sources" you're referring to? Are you including the cost of the doctor fix in your calculation? It's nice to read the CBO findings and take them as gospel, but not wise...

Lisa, way too sadly true. I had employer provided health insurance for 20 years. Used it once, and the insurance company ended up paying, after my deductible, about two months worth of premiums. Money got tight, no work, dropped the health insurance in favor of getting a paycheck.

Now, if we have to reinstate the health insurance, guess what is going to get dropped. That's right, the paycheck.

Somehow doesn't seem like such a sweetheart deal to me.

Lisafrequency

Remember that AIG got a large portion of the bailout money.

I remember that bailout all too well. Completely unconstitutional. The suits at AIG must have laughed all the way to the bank after hanging the tab on American taxpayers.

I think a lot of people have started realizing what a rip off insurance really is and they have stopped buying it and that is why AIG needed this bailout.

Actually what caused problems at AIG was a few suits who were playing with fire and got third-degree burns. They were dealing in the arcane derivatives called credit default swaps and way overleveraged. That's a gold mine when the market's going your way, and a disaster when it's not. At the root of the problem naturally was one of the Seven Deadly Sins: greed.

So they screwed themselves. If you're a small company and do that you take your licking. If you're AIG and well-connected with Washington, mommy kisses your boo-boo and you get $100 billion.

This is no way to operate the federal government.

The only way out is to get rid of SS, Medicaid/Medicare and cut all Government jobs to 50% in total size and 40% reduction is all federal salaries for all federal employee's. THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN THOUGH UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE!

rule the world

The only way out is to get rid of SS, Medicaid/Medicare and cut all Government jobs to 50% in total size and 40% reduction is all federal salaries for all federal employee's. THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN THOUGH UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE!

It already is too late.

Not if we get rid of all welfare as well as all social programs and the Dept's of Labor,Education,Energy and many others that are useless.

People wonder why the public education in this country sucks. IT IS BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IN INVOLVED!

We would prosper beyond belief if all the Government did was collect a small tax for the military and for maintaining US embassy's.

Get Government out of health care and education and the costs of both would all come down!

that rampant greed is the government and costs are high because the government will not pay doctors 100% for their services that is why they cost shift it to the insured. get the government out of everything and this country would explode with jobs and wealth.

RTW

You mean like get back to the original intent of the constitution and let the states handle their own @!$%#? The constitution is quite clear on what the duties and responsibilities of the federal govt. is supposed to be, and it isn't what is going on now.

writer21177

Welcome to the United States of Poverty this recession/recovery will mean a recovery for the stock market and the wealthy.

Nope. The next big losers will be on Wall Street. After the cocaine high from the stimulus and the Fed's shenanigans wears off, stocks will resume their plunge and this time is shaping up to be a magnificently devastating event. It will begin with a selloff from a crest as it did in August 1987. Bulls and bears will push and shove but the bears will gain the upper hand and the indexes will begin to fall. Pundits will label this a long overdue "correction" or "retracement" but they'll be wrong; the decline will proceed. After two or three months of decline the big boys -- institutional money managers, mutual fund managers, hedge fund managers -- will begin biting their nails to no avail. Selling pressure will build and many of those who jumped back in after getting burned in 2008 will head for the exits. Finally one day all the big boys will look at each other and cry "Holy sh*t!!!". Then it's Black Monday all over.

Unlike October 1987 though, there will be no subsequent resumption of rising prices. The markets will be on the fast track to the cellar, dragging Wall Street moguls along with them.

Obama, the Government and the People have no power against rampant greed.

Indeed they don't. Especially the government which is knee-deep in graft and greed. Thankfully our capitalist economy does have the power and over the next few years we'll witness today's titans of both industry and government come crashing to the ground. Mother Nature is reckless and ruthless when she comes to town. Rich, middle, lower, and poor classes will feel the pain.

I have been forewarned of a second collapse as well, the insiders will cash out in time....

writer21177

I have been forewarned of a second collapse as well

That's good. At least you'll be out of stocks when the bottom falls out. Many Americans won't be so fortunate. Owning stocks is "in" again, as evidenced by the return of TV ads for TD Waterhouse, E*Trade, and other brokerages. Decades of bull markets have conditioned investors that it's just going to go up again. The market will accommodate this mindset for only so long.

the insiders will cash out in time....

Insiders can't predict the future. The market has a way of making the herd pay, and while a few sharpies will see the writing on the wall and bail early, there will be no shortage of beef to dine on when the bears come back to the Street.

Whither the market, so follows the economy. The Crash of 1929 and subsequent Great Depression form a textbook example.

Yes, let's stop all businesses from making money! Let's stop them from being evil and actually showing a profit. But if they do, then we should take it!

Love the Country, Hate the Government, this country needs a Revolution to be great again. The only safe bet on Wall Street is investing in Debt.

I have confidence in this nation and it's ideals, however, if we don't have representatives willing to uphold the constitution and put this nation and it's people first, then the reasons for optimism decline dramatically. The 2010 elections will be an early indicator of where we go from here.

Who pays the millions and millions to win elections, Not the Voters, Who would your allegiance be with? The system is the problem. We will bring in more of the same in 2010 and nothing will change. Am I being cynical or realistic? Anyway I appreciate your optimism because where I live there are nothing but empty storefronts and homeless people in a once booming manufacturing town.

So...you hate insurance companies and your solution to their high premiums is to make everyone buy insurance?

Your right, very little has changed...because the government needs to collect 4 years of taxes before they can implement the first year of benefits...and this way Obama can spend the last two years in office preening himself as the President Who Got Us Health Care. He'll be out of office and sitting pretty when the S*** hits the fan. And then he will blame it on the Republican President currently in office...and a whole bunch of liberal morons will believe him.

merleliz

He'll be out of office and sitting pretty when the S*** hits the fan.

I don't think he'll get away that easy. 2008 was a shot across the bow. The economy still has much greed and rot to purge, and it's likely that will begin this year. This collapse is global and we won't be able to evade it. The once kissy-kissy EU is coming undone. Rating agencies are downgrading sovereign debt of several EU nations.

Investors already spooked by 2008 will head for the exits en masse when the stock market begins its next leg down. I expect at least one day of sheer panic a la the "Black" weekdays of the Crash of 1929. and the more recent Black Monday of 1987.

Obama's already a fish out of water and he'll be overwhelmed grappling with a collapsing economy and stock market simultaneously. There will be nowhere to hide. An already simmering electorate will catch fire and take its wrath out upon the president, Congress, the Federal Reserve, and anyone else they perceive to be part of the problems.

Republican President Hoover was tarred and feathered in the 1930s for not delivering the impossible. This time it will be a corrupt and inept Democrat.

Just like Bush stood in front of America and lied and Clinton and Reagan and Bush Sr and Nixon, Get a freaking clue you dumb Obama haters and admit why you really hate the president.

Ya that's right to all of you obama supporters we are all racists huh? You sir are a fool!

writer21177

Just like Bush stood in front of America and lied and Clinton and Reagan and Bush Sr and Nixon, Get a freaking clue you dumb Obama haters and admit why you really hate the president.

So when other preidents lie it's bad, but when Obama lies it's OK?

I'm not an Obama hater, I simply condemn just about all of his policies as bad for the USA. If it were a white man doing the same thing he'd get the same treatment.

Taxes on the rich are going to increase ten fold because all the working man's money has been pilfered.

OK tough guy. Go pray to the swastika and shave your head.

We are going to swarm you with Mexicans and Asians president@Skin you don't stand a chance.

latin Kings and triads got more money and guns than you morons can dream of, Not a bunch of hunting rifles either.

Writer and President: if you cannot be civil and have a civil discussion, please refrain from posting--what a disgusting tirade those last 6 posts were!!!

You folks give the majority of Americans a bad rep--we are all capable of discussing things--sometimes maybe a little heated, but at least not at this level of insults!

Sorry I am writing a thesis on internet communications and find the vile discourse on the Vine quite interesting, I actually take on and post all kinds of views to illicit different responses, however anytime Ii put up something serious it is usaully ignored or insulted. But I will refrain for any of those trying to have serious discourse. I was being vile today.

I am not sure that he wants to completely destroy our nation but it looks like he wants to take over.His goal is to create a new Europe.

Probably more like, in order to save us from the stink of the new Healthcare Plan, he has to take over Glade and Charmin.

And his young lobotomized minions will continue chanting "yes we can" until the crescendo brings them to the precipice of a Chris Mathew-esque O-gazm.

It seems that the liberals who have pretty much controlled the public education system for the past 35-40 years dumbed down the citizens of our exceptional Republic intentionally and have reduced college students to hyper-emotionally chanting to their pseudo-messianic leader. This administration will pass into history as either the most insidious attempt to remake America by a last sweep of our foundations or merely another ridiculous byword as was Carter's 4 years.

tom sevigny

It seems that the liberals who have pretty much controlled the public education system for the past 35-40 years

I have first-hand experience of that. As a schoolkid on Long Island during the 1960s my classmates and I received a fine education in our public schools. A few years ago I began teaching SAT prep only to find that many of my students couldn't even identify the subject and verb within a simple sentence. Parts of speech was a tough area as well, as was writing essays.

A co-worker who was also a teacher in the NYC public school system told me that some people take up teaching in public schools for the principal goal of earning a pension.

Now it's not all bleak. I had some classes with kids who'd received a decent education and it showed. But they were the exceptions, not the rule.

Well rickace, I was challenging my teachers in a manner that was much more adult or sophisticated as far back as middle-school than they had ever been accustom to. It made for an interesting time. The entire class was better for it, since they had no opinions nor did they question what they were being taught as facts at that age until someone began questioning things. High school was even better. A lot of fun during the Carter and Reagan years. My college history and philosophy professors were mostly arrogant liberals whose cognitive biases made them look like complete charlatans, which I enjoyed illustrating via thoughtful debate. I miss those years.

tom sevigny

Well rickace, I was challenging my teachers in a manner that was much more adult or sophisticated as far back as middle-school than they had ever been accustom to. It made for an interesting time.

Good show! No doubt the teachers appreciated that as well. I know my own SAT classes could have used more kids who challenged me.

You were miles ahead of me. My strengths were math and science. Normally I'd land in an average English class. In 11th grade I got a bump up to "fast" English. This was 1969 when the civil rights movement was in full swing and Nixon had just begun drawing down troop levels in Viet Nam. Our teacher was a cool young dude named Mr. Lupi who must have been a liberal because he took the liberty of running the class how he wanted to, not how the syllabus told him. We'd rearrange our desks such that we all faced each other, and Mr. Lupi would moderate a discsussion. A lot of my classmates were bright hippies and there was no lack of topics to discuss. Our all-white class read books by contemporary authors, I recall one by black radical activist Eldridge Cleaver.

But I was a fish out of water in that class, completely clueless about current events and their meanings. Whereas you were challenging others, I was merely treading water. It was only when I began blogging decades later in 2004 that I finally got some clues!

Eldridge Cleaver was interesting and so was Alex Haley's biography of Malcolm Little, better known as Malcolm X. Spike Lee was not bull@!$%#tin when he praised the book.

I read William Shirer's stuff back when I was 10 or 11 about the Nazis and the third reich. I'd rather read someone who experienced what they wrote rather than the postulation of someone who could only imagine what they were writing about. At the same age I was reading C.S. Lewis, Dante and Milton, but that was a horse of a different color. Teachers didn't know what to do with me.

Rickace,

I'm going to look through my files and see if I can find a copy of the high school aptitude test that Americans had to take back in the mid to late 1860s. Most students today would fail it miserably.

tom sevigny

At the same age I was reading C.S. Lewis, Dante and Milton, but that was a horse of a different color. Teachers didn't know what to do with me.

Nice!

Yeah I had a similar experience in math/science. Dad had a passion for both and pre-WWII made a living as a high-school math teacher. Mom taught me to read before I entered kindergarten. The teacher quickly figured out I didn't belong there and told her superiors who agreed. I then began spending 1/2 day in kindergarten and the other 1/2 in a first grade class. Finally it was 100% first grade, which I graduated that year. Then there was an experimental class that mixed 3rd and 4th grade students, all of whom packed two years into into one. After entering as a 4th-grader I graduated to 6th grade. Whoa! Pretty sure that's where we learned some "new math" which included set theory. In 6th grade I was learning trig from one of Dad's textbooks.

At that point the school system knew I was being challenged, and that was indeed true. Being two years younger than classmates wasn't fun socially but it did have an upside. Without social distractions there was plenty of free time at school to knock off homework assignments to ensure more free time at home. That's where my social life took place.

My crew was a bunch of misfits on a leash. Most of us (me included) smoked cigarettes which were available then at $0.25/pack. Our parents were always keeping tabs on us kinda sorta, but even so we routinely indulged in acts of mischief and were sly enough to get away with it over and over. I got caught by the cops and taken home exactly once, which led to my only grounding.

A few of us (me included) were amateur chemists, and we'd get our fathers to drive us to the local chemical supply house for our chemicals. Billy fashioned homebrew fireworks mixing an oxidant (potassium perchlorate?) and flammable substances like charcoal and sulfur. Put the mix in a small glass bottle, puncture a hole in the metal screw-on cap just large enough to admit a fuse, assemble, and voila! Go outdoors, light fuse, toss, and enjoy.

I bought a pound of pure sodium metal once, can't remember why. It was packed in oil because it wouldn't react with oil. It would react slowly with oxygen in the air to form an oxide. So one day I grabbed the sodium and a few pals and we headed off to the "sump", a large county-owned basin for stormwater drainage, and a popular neighborhood site for engaging in activities that were best kept from the prying eyes of adults. I tossed the pound of sodium into the water, knowing it would react with water. Maybe a minute went by with nothing interesting happening. Then KABOOM! The sodium had indeed been reacting with the water, ripping oxygen atoms away from their hydrogen atoms to form a stable oxide. A large bubble of flammable hydrogen gas (remember the Hindenburg?) then formed, and the heat released by the reaction detonated it when it surfaced.

Better living through chemistry, they say ;-}

I'm going to look through my files and see if I can find a copy of the high school aptitude test that Americans had to take back in the mid to late 1860s. Most students today would fail it miserably.

That sounds interesting. I hope you can dig it up.

When will he stop lying? NEVER!

You have got to be kidding!?

This is surreal.

Please tell me you are joking! You are, right?

Hey, Joseph Stalin had a strong women behind him too. She didn't have the chiseled arms and fashion sense though. The fashions in the Kremlin were classic blase' back then though. ;)

Oh my ...I'm going to have a Chris Mathew-esque O gazm. It starts with a tingle and when it ends you have to bum a cigarette from a smoker.

tom sevigny

Hey, Joseph Stalin had a strong women behind him too. She didn't have the chiseled arms and fashion sense though. The fashions in the Kremlin were classic blase' back then though. ;)

Could this be her perhaps?

;-}

very nice...Gotta love the flashlight ensemble. Thanks for reminding me of that commercial. Gottta love the internet.