Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

Say the Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
It's BUSH'S FAULT!!!!

Ba da BING!

Nice drive, dude.

This silly bufu teed that one up nicely for you, and you yanked it 20 seats deep into the upper deck.

Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:

<quoted text>
Utterly clueless..."... profits at medicare."
Wow.
Now go spin away, with your rhetorical arguments. But for you to even write "profits at medicare" is ludicrous. Its a non-starter. Period.
Btw, do you think The Kenyan actually comprehends everything that President Axelrod has him read from the ObamaPrompter?
Judging by how he often stumbles over some parts of Axelrod's words, I doubt it.

Good morning bonehead. Go look in the mirror while you strke yourself in the forehead sharply with the heel of the palm.

THINK!(If you can.)

I think his figures not only included general overhead but profit for the insurance companies. Of course, with no profit motive for Medicare that would automatically tilt things in favor of Medicare.......now wouldn't it?

What is even more ludicrous is your belief as stated that I wrote "profits at medicare..." Want to point out where I said that?

On the other hand, I also pointed out the difference in salaries of those that run insurance companies and those the run medicare.

You must have drank a lot while you were away. You used to be much more intelligent.

nac wrote:

<quoted text>
That would be an excellent start. Both parties are bought & paid for by in large the same groups, with a few special interests that are exclusive to one or the other. The American people lose out big time, no matter which hijacked party is in power. The last 12 years could not make this any more clear.
They don't even bother hiding it anymore. Because they DON'T HAVE TO! They have sold the false left/right paradigm to the majority of the people ... and the people can't buy it fast enough.
Mark Twain said it best when he said, "It is much easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled."

I don't disagree. Corporations for the most part contribute to both sides. They just contribute more to the side they think is going to win.

And we have absolutely nothing in place to force politicians to listen to "We the People" as long as both parties participate in being bought out.

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
I did not state that, you lying sack of shit.
Another OKB intentional distortion - incompetent hack.
I simply stated the FACT that the coalition forces were acting under authority of a UNSC Resolution.
Cite - by topix post number - anything I stated ANYTHING about the operational command structure.
Putz.
<quoted text>
As I stated, correct in re: US CIA incitements of the Kurds and southern Iraqis to rebel against Saddam, and their susequent betrayal.
A blatant lie in re: giving permission to Saddam to fly armed rotorcraft in the no-fly zones, which was an explicit provision of the cease-fire agreement negotiated between Saddam and THE COALITION. Not a unilateral decision by the US or Bush 41.
Quit being such an irresponsible dcik by parroting bogus partisan memes even after you've been shown clearly they're bogus.
That is the behavior of a dishonorable, dishonest partisan hack.
Typical OKB purely argumentative response in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

UN vs. US: First, the US President has the authority to act without UN approval. Invading Iraq by bush the son is an example. Second, Bush the father never went to the UN to request helping the Kurds or the Shia in the South.

As far as the No Fly Zones go, you need to research your history. They were imposed on Saddam by the coalition (led by the US) and not by the UN.

"The problem is that no UN resolution mandates or even approves of the NFZs. They were imposed solely by the participants and maintained by them only. Even a generous (mis)reading of UNSCR 688 would still require a formal resolution to okay the NFZs. No such resolution exists. Further, Security Council resolutions 686 (setting out the preliminary terms of the ceasefire), 687 (the formal ceasefire declaration), and 688 all include "Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq," things clearly violated by the NFZs.

Additionally, for those claiming justification under 688, the resolution does not invoke Chapter VII of the UN Charter ("Actions with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression") in which "Security Council"—the council, not two or three members—" shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" (Article 39). Further articles outline the procedure for identifying the potential need to take action and actually acting, including the necessary establishment of a Military Staff Committee, which is responsible for the planning of the "application of armed force" (Article 46; also see 47). Even if only "some" of the Security Council members take part, it is the Council that will make the determination. Either way, there is no standing under 688 for the implementation of the NFZs."

http://everything2.com/title/no-fly+zone

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
Those figures reflect only the direct costs of adminstering the Medicare TRUST FUND. Add to that figure the total direct & indorect cost of the civil service posts at HHS that would not exist but for the federal government's handling Medicare, that could be eliminated of the the program was 100% turned over to the States, to get a true apples-to-apples cost comparison.

What do the individual states have to do with Medicare? It is Medicaid that the states administer.

And no, the costs include adminstering Medicare, not Medicaid.

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
Those figures reflect only the direct costs of adminstering the Medicare TRUST FUND. Add to that figure the total direct & indorect cost of the civil service posts at HHS that would not exist but for the federal government's handling Medicare, that could be eliminated of the the program was 100% turned over to the States, to get a true apples-to-apples cost comparison.

What it does not include is the cost of fraud which is much higher at Medicare than it is at Medicaid. A good portion of the $500 Bil that Obama cut from Medicare was saved by bringing Medicare into the same system Medicaid uses to control Fraud. The Republican House has voted 31 times not to cut fraud.

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
What it does not include is the cost of fraud which is much higher at Medicare than it is at Medicaid. A good portion of the $500 Bil that Obama cut from Medicare was saved by bringing Medicare into the same system Medicaid uses to control Fraud. The Republican House has voted 31 times not to cut fraud.

Okboston the 500 billion in Medicare cuts had nothing to do with fraud!! Sebelius In her first appearance before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee was ask about the double-counting in the Obamacare budget!

Sebelius was asked so “Then you’re also using the same $500 billion to what? Say your funding health care. Your own actuary says you can’t do both.[…] What’s the $500 billion in cuts for? Preserving Medicare or funding the health-care law? Sebelius’ reply Both so Boston either she’s lying or your Confuse!!

.

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
Those figures reflect only the direct costs of adminstering the Medicare TRUST FUND. Add to that figure the total direct & indorect cost of the civil service posts at HHS that would not exist but for the federal government's handling Medicare, that could be eliminated of the the program was 100% turned over to the States, to get a true apples-to-apples cost comparison.

BINGO.

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
UN vs. US: First, the US President has the authority to act without UN approval. Invading Iraq by bush the son is an example.

Of course. And if Bush 41 had done so also, you'd be whining about that.

But he didn't - and you're disappointed he didn't.

okboston wrote:

<quoted text> Second, Bush the father never went to the UN to request helping the Kurds or the Shia in the South.

No, he didn't. He reckoned enough American lives had been lost.

If he had done so, you'd be damning him for that.

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>As far as the No Fly Zones go, you need to research your history. They were imposed on Saddam by the coalition (led by the US) and not by the UN.

That's exactly what I said, bozo.

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
Ba da BING!
Nice drive, dude.
This silly bufu teed that one up nicely for you, and you yanked it 20 seats deep into the upper deck.

I used the Savoy Special:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

TSM wrote:

<quoted text>
Okboston the 500 billion in Medicare cuts had nothing to do with fraud!! Sebelius In her first appearance before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee was ask about the double-counting in the Obamacare budget!
Sebelius was asked so “Then you’re also using the same $500 billion to what? Say your funding health care. Your own actuary says you can’t do both.[…] What’s the $500 billion in cuts for? Preserving Medicare or funding the health-care law? Sebelius’ reply Both so Boston either she’s lying or your Confuse!!
.

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/65-old...

http://blog.medicare.gov/category/affordable-...

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/repor...

It would be nice if you stopped putting words in my posts. I could not care less what Selebes said, read what I wrote and then find fault with that.

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text> Of course. And if Bush 41 had done so also, you'd be whining about that.
But he didn't - and you're disappointed he didn't.
<quoted text>
No, he didn't. He reckoned enough American lives had been lost.
If he had done so, you'd be damning him for that.
<quoted text>
That's exactly what I said, bozo.

Actually Teddy, I was in the military at the time and there were many of us that thought the best thing to do was to invade at that time. In hindsight it probably was.

There is a significant difference between invading as a response to the invasion of Kuwait AND his treatment of the Kurds and Shia after you have encouraged them to rebel when compared to an invasion based on false information.

BTW: I would not have agreed with Clinton invading either and he has more of a reason than bush the son.

But then I did have any real problems with any of the three bush stimulus packages except for the way they were structured just as I did not have a problem with Obama's stimulus except for the way it was structured.

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text> Of course. And if Bush 41 had done so also, you'd be whining about that.
But he didn't - and you're disappointed he didn't.
<quoted text>
No, he didn't. He reckoned enough American lives had been lost.
If he had done so, you'd be damning him for that.
<quoted text>
That's exactly what I said, bozo.

As far as the no fly zone, your post gave a different impression. Particularly the part where Helicopters were not included.

How long before we are all bankrupt because of Obama's stumulus? California is already on the way, city by city.

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
Good morning bonehead. Go look in the mirror while you strke yourself in the forehead sharply with the heel of the palm.
THINK!(If you can.)
I think his figures not only included general overhead but profit for the insurance companies. Of course, with no profit motive for Medicare that would automatically tilt things in favor of Medicare.......now wouldn't it?
What is even more ludicrous is your belief as stated that I wrote "profits at medicare..." Want to point out where I said that?
On the other hand, I also pointed out the difference in salaries of those that run insurance companies and those the run medicare.
You must have drank a lot while you were away. You used to be much more intelligent.

Spin away.

Medicare doesn't make profits.

You are IGNORANT. Look up "cost shifting", fool.

Every healthcare analyst knows about it. Medicare is a poor payor. Private plans are charged higher rates by providers to make up for the difference that Medicare reimburses. Even more so for Medicaid.

In essence, much of the insurance premium private insurers charge is a hidden government tax.

I've gone over this before with you. Perhaps your brain cells are fried, or you are just a spinning idiot.

YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT PUBLIC FINANCES. Not even basic concepts.

Now then, for those with functioning brain cells, here is the actual CBO report which walks you through how the 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion cumulative projected federal surplus turned into a $6.1 trillion deficit.

Look at the table. You will see that revenue actions and expense actions enacted since 2009 really ballooned the projected budget deficit.

Bush gets a C-.

Obama the Teleprompter Stooge gets a big fat F.

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/a...

Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:

<quoted text>
Spin away.
Medicare doesn't make profits.
You are IGNORANT. Look up "cost shifting", fool.
Every healthcare analyst knows about it. Medicare is a poor payor. Private plans are charged higher rates by providers to make up for the difference that Medicare reimburses. Even more so for Medicaid.
In essence, much of the insurance premium private insurers charge is a hidden government tax.
I've gone over this before with you. Perhaps your brain cells are fried, or you are just a spinning idiot.
YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT PUBLIC FINANCES. Not even basic concepts.

Your the one looking ignorant. Twice now I have pointed out that I was pretty sure the "overhead" he posted inlcuded "profits." At no point did I indicate that Medicare made a profit.

Look up your anal sphincter for your brains, cause they aren't out here in the open.

Again, the topic is overhead. Overhead is not impacted by cost shifting and you have done nothing to link cost-shifting to overhead.

"Confronting The Medicare Cost Shift
Plans are increasingly concerned about the degree to which providers overcharge them to make up for losses from government programs"

http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0612/0...

There are many other articles on Medicare cost shifting.

OK-B is too stupid to understand the difference between "price" and "cost," and other basic economic principles. President Axelrod, with his silly sloganeering, counts on voters like him.

Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:

Now then, for those with functioning brain cells, here is the actual CBO report which walks you through how the 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion cumulative projected federal surplus turned into a $6.1 trillion deficit.
Look at the table. You will see that revenue actions and expense actions enacted since 2009 really ballooned the projected budget deficit.
Bush gets a C-.
Obama the Teleprompter Stooge gets a big fat F.
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/a...

Sibnce in a previous post we determined you have few if any functioning brain cells this should come as not surprise:

1. Looking at the chart, any program listed before the stimulus is a bush program, not an Obama program. The chart says things got worse for bush programs when the economy turned south.

2. Looking at the chart revenues seem to be about 50% of the problem. In fact the total change in revenue projection 2002 - 2011 is a negative $6.147 Tril vs the change in spending of $5.715 Tril.(Must be all those big Obama tax cuts considering the grade you gave.)

Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:

"Confronting The Medicare Cost Shift
Plans are increasingly concerned about the degree to which providers overcharge them to make up for losses from government programs"
http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0612/0...
There are many other articles on Medicare cost shifting.
OK-B is too stupid to understand the difference between "price" and "cost," and other basic economic principles. President Axelrod, with his silly sloganeering, counts on voters like him.

Hey, I have not discussed anything but overhead of which you proved yourself to be blissfully ignorant. When you post something that shows you have a speck of knowledge concerning overhead and why his figures were generally correct then we can more on.

But until then, everything else you post is just an admission on your part that you don't have a clue.