Some of the Tea Party troops were outside Rep. Greg Walden’s Bend office Monday afternoon to register their opposition to health care reform, marching around and holding up signs saying things like “No Socialism!” and “Obama = Tyranny.”
I wondered what, if anything, the marchers actually know about the legislation they’re in such a lather over. One thing I bet they don’t know – because Glenn Beck and the rest of the Fox News crew would never tell them – is what the reform would do for them and other people in Walden’s congressional district.
It just so happens that the House Energy and Commerce Committee has put out a report breaking down the benefits of the bill for every congressional district in the country. According to the committee’s figures, in Oregon’s District 2 the measure would:
- Improve coverage for 417,000 residents who now have health insurance.
- Give tax credits and other assistance to up to 217,000 families and 22,100 small businesses to help them afford coverage.
- Improve Medicare for 142,000 beneficiaries, including closing the “donut hole” – the coverage gap between when a recipient reaches the basic prescription drug limit and when drug expenses become so heavy that catastrophic coverage kicks in.
- Extend coverage to 100,000 uninsured residents.
- Guarantee that 17,800 residents with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage.
- Protect 1,400 families from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs.
- Allow 57,000 young adults (up to age 26) to obtain coverage on their parents’ insurance plans.
- Provide millions of dollars in new funding for 39 community health centers.
- Reduce the cost of uncompensated care for hospitals and other health care providers by $83 million annually.
Besides ticking off the benefits, the congressional report gives the larger picture of what the reform legislation will do and how it will do it. If you want to get the facts for yourself instead of just accepting what the right-wing screamers on radio and TV tell you, you might want to check it out.
Comments
(41)
written by Jon Jegglie , March 18, 2010
Great! Then you libs need to step up and pay for it all.
written by northwesthippie.wordpress.com , March 18, 2010
Teabaggers won't let anything so boring and fundamental as fact and truth dissuade them of their irrational fears. They have an extremely narrow world view, and nothing will change it. They could see all the benefits of the bill - like, not getting dropped when they get sick, seeing their premiums go down over time, getting better care and broader coverage - and they would still find something to complain about.
written by Space Elf , March 18, 2010
And who is paying for this? The "EVIL" rich? Yeah! Get 'em!
This wonderful healthcare won't go into effect for 4 years. In the meantime, taxes for it will be collected starting almost immediately. You know as well as I do that those taxes (which are not being called a "tax") will NOT be put aside to pay for this program. Congress is using their trick to pass this saying it reduces the deficit. The only way it can do that is by using these taxes to fund already bloated government programs instead of borrow more from the fed.
For some reason, you still "trust" the government to manage this well. Social Security will start taking in less than it's paying this year. It was so smart of congress to "borrow" from our pension fund these last 50 years. In business, that is called fraud and people go to jail for it. The US government has never run any entitlement program effeciently. The rates will go up - fraud will go up - no political party will take responsiblity when it becomes the next boondoggle - and it will.
And, as always, the people voting yes for it don't have to be on it - but we do. They are elitist scum and so is anybody who supports this.
This wonderful healthcare won't go into effect for 4 years. In the meantime, taxes for it will be collected starting almost immediately. You know as well as I do that those taxes (which are not being called a "tax") will NOT be put aside to pay for this program. Congress is using their trick to pass this saying it reduces the deficit. The only way it can do that is by using these taxes to fund already bloated government programs instead of borrow more from the fed.
For some reason, you still "trust" the government to manage this well. Social Security will start taking in less than it's paying this year. It was so smart of congress to "borrow" from our pension fund these last 50 years. In business, that is called fraud and people go to jail for it. The US government has never run any entitlement program effeciently. The rates will go up - fraud will go up - no political party will take responsiblity when it becomes the next boondoggle - and it will.
And, as always, the people voting yes for it don't have to be on it - but we do. They are elitist scum and so is anybody who supports this.
written by H. Bruce Miller , March 18, 2010
Richard: Do you havemore trustworthy figures? I'd like to see them.
written by ATSF3751 , March 18, 2010
Fargher's stupid comment reflects the typical teabagger response to things beyond their 6th grade level.
Yes, do look at the Source, they are right on the mark with this commentary.
Go back to bagging, Richard. Next time you show up, have something intelligent to say and back it up with actual facts.
I guess you and the other 'baggers are against the 130 Billion this will reduce the deficit over the next decade? Thought you were for reducing the deficit? Guess not, huh?
Well, guess what Richard. Keep the system the same, just like you and the other 'baggers want, and it will implode within this decade. When insurance companies triple their rates within the next few years, do you think you'll be able to keep your insurance? Do you think your employer will be able to keep insurance for you. Think again.
Yes, do look at the Source, they are right on the mark with this commentary.
Go back to bagging, Richard. Next time you show up, have something intelligent to say and back it up with actual facts.
I guess you and the other 'baggers are against the 130 Billion this will reduce the deficit over the next decade? Thought you were for reducing the deficit? Guess not, huh?
Well, guess what Richard. Keep the system the same, just like you and the other 'baggers want, and it will implode within this decade. When insurance companies triple their rates within the next few years, do you think you'll be able to keep your insurance? Do you think your employer will be able to keep insurance for you. Think again.
written by John Philo , March 18, 2010
Interesting figures....
*U.S. Postal service established 1775 and in 2010 = Broke!
*Social Security established 1935 and in 2010 = Broke!
*Fannie Mae established 1938 and in 2010 = Broke!
*War on poverty started 1964 (one trillion dollars of taxpayer money transferred to the "poor" and there are more "poor" than ever)
*Medicare and Medicaid established 1965 and in 2010 = Broke!
*Freddie Mac established 1970 and in 2010 = Broke!
*Department of energy created 1977 (to lessen our dependence on foreign oil)has ballooned to 16,000 government employees (budget of 24 billion a year) and it is an abysmal failure!
And you think Americans can trust the government health care take over scheme to work?
I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell.
*U.S. Postal service established 1775 and in 2010 = Broke!
*Social Security established 1935 and in 2010 = Broke!
*Fannie Mae established 1938 and in 2010 = Broke!
*War on poverty started 1964 (one trillion dollars of taxpayer money transferred to the "poor" and there are more "poor" than ever)
*Medicare and Medicaid established 1965 and in 2010 = Broke!
*Freddie Mac established 1970 and in 2010 = Broke!
*Department of energy created 1977 (to lessen our dependence on foreign oil)has ballooned to 16,000 government employees (budget of 24 billion a year) and it is an abysmal failure!
And you think Americans can trust the government health care take over scheme to work?
I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell.
written by hometoroost , March 18, 2010
You haven't a clue Miller. The great majority of us are fed up with socialist meddling and the financial disasters you create.
written by Space Elf , March 18, 2010
You keep throwing blame at the insurance companies. Rates go up but their profits stay at a low 3% - 4% (Microsoft is at 25%+). Why are rates going up?
1. Because states keep demanding that health insurance cover more and more. In WA State back in the 90's, a rule was passed requiring insurance companies to cover extensive mental health. Nearly every insurance company stopped selling in WA because they couldn't afford to.
2. Medical costs keep going up. This is largely in part to large malpractise lawsuits. If a doctor's liablity insurance goes up, guess what? He raises his fees. This happens even if a particular doctor has never been sued.
It's time to fix the underlying problems instead of demonizing good Americans just to follow an agenda. Congree wants to vote for this before Spring Break so on-the-liberals won't get flooded with angry citizens back home and perhaps change their minds.
The fact that they are willing to go against the Constitution to pass this shows how corrupt the liberals are. Once again I will state: "THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS". This means, grab your ankles, America!
1. Because states keep demanding that health insurance cover more and more. In WA State back in the 90's, a rule was passed requiring insurance companies to cover extensive mental health. Nearly every insurance company stopped selling in WA because they couldn't afford to.
2. Medical costs keep going up. This is largely in part to large malpractise lawsuits. If a doctor's liablity insurance goes up, guess what? He raises his fees. This happens even if a particular doctor has never been sued.
It's time to fix the underlying problems instead of demonizing good Americans just to follow an agenda. Congree wants to vote for this before Spring Break so on-the-liberals won't get flooded with angry citizens back home and perhaps change their minds.
The fact that they are willing to go against the Constitution to pass this shows how corrupt the liberals are. Once again I will state: "THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS". This means, grab your ankles, America!
written by northwesthippie.wordpress.com , March 18, 2010
*U.S. Postal service established 1775 and in 2010 = Broke!
235 years being an ongoing entity ain't bad, dude. Show me some examples of free-market, private businesses that have lasted that long?
*Social Security established 1935 and in 2010 = Broke!
For one thing, Social Security ain't broke. Regardless, the reasons for its pending insolvency have less to do with government actions than simple demographics...there are fewer and fewer young people paying into the system, and old people are living much longer...you can do your part by either dying early, or choosing NOT to draw on it when you reach eligibility...curiously, many wealthy people still choose to take their Social Security payments even though they have absolutely no need for it, then they rant against the government for letting it go broke.
*Fannie Mae established 1938 and in 2010 = Broke!
Fannie Mae is a good example of the financial world run amok! Fannie and Freddy are in the position they are in now because of a lack of financial regulations that allowed the free market, privately held financial services industry to make bad loans to unworthy borrowers, knowing full well that many of those loans were guaranteed by Fannie/Freddy, and thus took out much of the downside from making such terrible business decisions.
*War on poverty started 1964 (one trillion dollars of taxpayer money transferred to the "poor" and there are more "poor" than ever)
There wasn't any money "transferred to the poor." Sorry guy, but federal funding of anti-poverty programs doesn't mean simply handing out checks to poor people...the funds went to various programs that help educate and train low-income people, help them with temporary housing so they have an address when applying for a job, give them food stamps so they have a minimum of sustenance, etc...and if there are more "poor than ever," have you stopped to think what has happened since 1964 regarding the actual population of this country? It's grown, big time. It stands to reason that if the overall population rises significantly over a period of time, the number of poor people will too. In this case, a very healthy percentage of that population growth resulted from immigrants coming here from other countries, many of which were poor to begin with, thus skewing the numbers of the poor higher. Regardless, if you think we've got a lot of poor people now, imagine what it would be like without many of the programs that have helped low-income people get educated and, thus, better paying jobs. The situation would be much, much worse.
*Medicare and Medicaid established 1965 and in 2010 = Broke!
Neither of these programs are broke, but do face difficulties not too long from now. Why? For Medicare, see the section above on Social Security. Demographics is the primary culprit. But the situation could be changed easily, simply by upping the tiny amount of money that people currently contribute to Medicare. Currently, it's a 1.5 % tax on wage earners, with employers paying another 1.5 %...that's pretty paltry, considering the program gives you free and/or substantially reduced health care for the REST OF YOUR LIFE once you turn 65...
*Freddie Mac established 1970 and in 2010 = Broke!
See comments on Fanny.
*Department of energy created 1977 (to lessen our dependence on foreign oil)has ballooned to 16,000 government employees (budget of 24 billion a year) and it is an abysmal failure!
Read your history, guy. The DOE was created in response to the oil crunch, but had vastly greater responsibilities. It enveloped numerous other agencies, and was tasked, from the start, with administering all phases of the country's nuclear weapons development and nuclear power development activities, among other things. As such, it has massive responsibilities not only related to power, but to national defense as well. You call it a failure if you want, but 300 million other Americans might consider it a good thing that a federal government agency has regulatory power over something as dangerous as nuclear reactors and weapons technology. Of course, if you want that kind of thing handled solely by the private sector, go to the former Soviet countries, where privateers are making good money selling nuclear materials and technologies.
235 years being an ongoing entity ain't bad, dude. Show me some examples of free-market, private businesses that have lasted that long?
*Social Security established 1935 and in 2010 = Broke!
For one thing, Social Security ain't broke. Regardless, the reasons for its pending insolvency have less to do with government actions than simple demographics...there are fewer and fewer young people paying into the system, and old people are living much longer...you can do your part by either dying early, or choosing NOT to draw on it when you reach eligibility...curiously, many wealthy people still choose to take their Social Security payments even though they have absolutely no need for it, then they rant against the government for letting it go broke.
*Fannie Mae established 1938 and in 2010 = Broke!
Fannie Mae is a good example of the financial world run amok! Fannie and Freddy are in the position they are in now because of a lack of financial regulations that allowed the free market, privately held financial services industry to make bad loans to unworthy borrowers, knowing full well that many of those loans were guaranteed by Fannie/Freddy, and thus took out much of the downside from making such terrible business decisions.
*War on poverty started 1964 (one trillion dollars of taxpayer money transferred to the "poor" and there are more "poor" than ever)
There wasn't any money "transferred to the poor." Sorry guy, but federal funding of anti-poverty programs doesn't mean simply handing out checks to poor people...the funds went to various programs that help educate and train low-income people, help them with temporary housing so they have an address when applying for a job, give them food stamps so they have a minimum of sustenance, etc...and if there are more "poor than ever," have you stopped to think what has happened since 1964 regarding the actual population of this country? It's grown, big time. It stands to reason that if the overall population rises significantly over a period of time, the number of poor people will too. In this case, a very healthy percentage of that population growth resulted from immigrants coming here from other countries, many of which were poor to begin with, thus skewing the numbers of the poor higher. Regardless, if you think we've got a lot of poor people now, imagine what it would be like without many of the programs that have helped low-income people get educated and, thus, better paying jobs. The situation would be much, much worse.
*Medicare and Medicaid established 1965 and in 2010 = Broke!
Neither of these programs are broke, but do face difficulties not too long from now. Why? For Medicare, see the section above on Social Security. Demographics is the primary culprit. But the situation could be changed easily, simply by upping the tiny amount of money that people currently contribute to Medicare. Currently, it's a 1.5 % tax on wage earners, with employers paying another 1.5 %...that's pretty paltry, considering the program gives you free and/or substantially reduced health care for the REST OF YOUR LIFE once you turn 65...
*Freddie Mac established 1970 and in 2010 = Broke!
See comments on Fanny.
*Department of energy created 1977 (to lessen our dependence on foreign oil)has ballooned to 16,000 government employees (budget of 24 billion a year) and it is an abysmal failure!
Read your history, guy. The DOE was created in response to the oil crunch, but had vastly greater responsibilities. It enveloped numerous other agencies, and was tasked, from the start, with administering all phases of the country's nuclear weapons development and nuclear power development activities, among other things. As such, it has massive responsibilities not only related to power, but to national defense as well. You call it a failure if you want, but 300 million other Americans might consider it a good thing that a federal government agency has regulatory power over something as dangerous as nuclear reactors and weapons technology. Of course, if you want that kind of thing handled solely by the private sector, go to the former Soviet countries, where privateers are making good money selling nuclear materials and technologies.
written by Gadfly , March 18, 2010
Seriously Space Elf?
1. States keep "demanding" that health insurance cover more and more? Study out today shows that fewer Oregonians are covered by insurance now than in 2001. No one...not even the Republicans are attempting to say that MORE Americans are being covered and that is driving up health care. Isn't the goal for all of us, regardless of political affiliation to provide more people with Health Care? I hope for humanities sake the answer is yes.
2. Malpractice is a large part of the Healthcare issue. Too bad the Republicans couldn't figure out a way to work the majority party in Congress and the Senate. I bet they could have gotten that out of them.
Grab my ankles? Tell me when to let go! My insurance rates are large. I'll enjoy seeing them on the receiving end. It's going to be like Spring Break in the Castro.
1. States keep "demanding" that health insurance cover more and more? Study out today shows that fewer Oregonians are covered by insurance now than in 2001. No one...not even the Republicans are attempting to say that MORE Americans are being covered and that is driving up health care. Isn't the goal for all of us, regardless of political affiliation to provide more people with Health Care? I hope for humanities sake the answer is yes.
2. Malpractice is a large part of the Healthcare issue. Too bad the Republicans couldn't figure out a way to work the majority party in Congress and the Senate. I bet they could have gotten that out of them.
Grab my ankles? Tell me when to let go! My insurance rates are large. I'll enjoy seeing them on the receiving end. It's going to be like Spring Break in the Castro.
written by Space Elf , March 18, 2010
Northwesthippie, you should put the bong down before display your ignorance.
Post Office - Easy to stay in business when the government is there to bail you out everytime.
Social Security - Congress spent every extra dime collected on whatever wasteful thing they desired. They should have saved the money. If they did, I might get to see SS in my old age.
Fannie/Freddie - Who was in charge of the oversight? Barney Frank & Chris Dodd. They could have stopped the collapse, but chose to ignore it. They are exclusively at fault.
War on Poverty - No tranfer of funds? Are you high? Food stamps, welfare chaecks, milti-generational welfare families? And where do you think the money came from? Mostly from high taxes on the wealthy. The governemnt collected the money and TRANSFERRED it to the poor! Read Robin Hood again.
Medicare - See Social Security
DOE - their main task was to find new energy sources in response to the Arab Oil Embargo. What have they found? We still buy most of our energy from the middle east. What a waste.
Gadfly, you should really read before you respond. The MORE I was refering to was covering more medical and mental health issues to those who buy their insurance - not more people! Why would I use the example I did?
Congress will never stop allowing large malpractise suits because? Most of them are lawyers and get political funding from various legal groups. They won't bite the hand that feeds them. That's also why we also get screwed over by the banks. Both parties are guilty.
Do you really think your insurance rates will go down under obummercare? HA!!!! Have taxes ever gone down? Even in good times? Get a clue, dude!
Post Office - Easy to stay in business when the government is there to bail you out everytime.
Social Security - Congress spent every extra dime collected on whatever wasteful thing they desired. They should have saved the money. If they did, I might get to see SS in my old age.
Fannie/Freddie - Who was in charge of the oversight? Barney Frank & Chris Dodd. They could have stopped the collapse, but chose to ignore it. They are exclusively at fault.
War on Poverty - No tranfer of funds? Are you high? Food stamps, welfare chaecks, milti-generational welfare families? And where do you think the money came from? Mostly from high taxes on the wealthy. The governemnt collected the money and TRANSFERRED it to the poor! Read Robin Hood again.
Medicare - See Social Security
DOE - their main task was to find new energy sources in response to the Arab Oil Embargo. What have they found? We still buy most of our energy from the middle east. What a waste.
Gadfly, you should really read before you respond. The MORE I was refering to was covering more medical and mental health issues to those who buy their insurance - not more people! Why would I use the example I did?
Congress will never stop allowing large malpractise suits because? Most of them are lawyers and get political funding from various legal groups. They won't bite the hand that feeds them. That's also why we also get screwed over by the banks. Both parties are guilty.
Do you really think your insurance rates will go down under obummercare? HA!!!! Have taxes ever gone down? Even in good times? Get a clue, dude!
written by Jon Jegglie , March 18, 2010
northwesthippie, where to start?
Postal service: Broke and continually raising prices and cutting services in an attempt to curtail spiraling losses. Furthermore, a private enterprise would have anticipated the impact of electronic communication and found a way to capitalize on it.
Social Security: Doomed to be broke. What you call a "simple demographic issue", most of the rest of us call a collapsing ponzi scheme. Madoff and Stanford are in prison for less.
FNM and FRE: Broke. Let me try to explain something to all the liberal whiners out there. A mortgage is a contract between a lender and a borrower. The borrower agrees to the terms of the contract, which does actually mean he is required to pay the loan under the terms he agreed to. The lender upholds its end of the contract and purchases a home on behalf of the borrower. Why should the borrower not also be held to the terms of the contract that they willingly and voluntarily signed?
And don't give me TARP and bailouts. I'm a free market guy, and was not a fan of the bailouts even though they may have been necessary. That said, the banks have almost all repaid TARP along with billions of dollars of interest. The government has profited from the program. Where is that interest money?
War on Poverty: You claim it is not merely a bunch of handouts and then go on to list the handouts.
"training":handout
Welfare: handout
Housing: handout
Food Stamps: handout
Medicare: I always love the comments by liberals about how this tax increase and that tax increase is so paltry as to be unnoticable. Its HBM's favorite line. But multiply each small increase dozens of times, and suddenly the amount isn't so paltry.
DOE: We agree, at least to the extent that nuclear materials are concerned. It is a national security issue and therefore a constitutionally mandated function of government.
Postal service: Broke and continually raising prices and cutting services in an attempt to curtail spiraling losses. Furthermore, a private enterprise would have anticipated the impact of electronic communication and found a way to capitalize on it.
Social Security: Doomed to be broke. What you call a "simple demographic issue", most of the rest of us call a collapsing ponzi scheme. Madoff and Stanford are in prison for less.
FNM and FRE: Broke. Let me try to explain something to all the liberal whiners out there. A mortgage is a contract between a lender and a borrower. The borrower agrees to the terms of the contract, which does actually mean he is required to pay the loan under the terms he agreed to. The lender upholds its end of the contract and purchases a home on behalf of the borrower. Why should the borrower not also be held to the terms of the contract that they willingly and voluntarily signed?
And don't give me TARP and bailouts. I'm a free market guy, and was not a fan of the bailouts even though they may have been necessary. That said, the banks have almost all repaid TARP along with billions of dollars of interest. The government has profited from the program. Where is that interest money?
War on Poverty: You claim it is not merely a bunch of handouts and then go on to list the handouts.
"training":handout
Welfare: handout
Housing: handout
Food Stamps: handout
Medicare: I always love the comments by liberals about how this tax increase and that tax increase is so paltry as to be unnoticable. Its HBM's favorite line. But multiply each small increase dozens of times, and suddenly the amount isn't so paltry.
DOE: We agree, at least to the extent that nuclear materials are concerned. It is a national security issue and therefore a constitutionally mandated function of government.
written by H. Bruce Miller , March 18, 2010
This just in: Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports health care reform bill will cut deficit by $138 billion over 10 years.
More money available to spend on wars -- Republicans should love it!
More money available to spend on wars -- Republicans should love it!
written by Space Elf , March 18, 2010
Dude, it only cuts the deficit because it collects premiums for 4 years BEFORE it has to pay anything out. Can I get a paycheck for 4 years without paying my bills? It will make my balance sheet look wonderful too.
written by mister , March 18, 2010
"This just in: Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports health care reform bill will cut deficit by $138 billion over 10 years."
hey BHM all they have to do is quit taking illegals for patients and that would cure the health deficit by double the 138 billion.
hey BHM all they have to do is quit taking illegals for patients and that would cure the health deficit by double the 138 billion.
written by northwesthippie.wordpress.com , March 18, 2010
"Furthermore, a private enterprise would have anticipated the impact of electronic communication and found a way to capitalize on it."
I can name any number of private enterprises that failed due to lack of foresight regarding the potential impact of market forces. can you name any private enterprise that has lasted as long as the USPS? I thought not.
"FNM and FRE: Broke. Let me try to explain something to all the liberal whiners out there. A mortgage is a contract between a lender and a borrower. The borrower agrees to the terms of the contract, which does actually mean he is required to pay the loan under the terms he agreed to. The lender upholds its end of the contract and purchases a home on behalf of the borrower. Why should the borrower not also be held to the terms of the contract that they willingly and voluntarily signed? "
You clearly don't know the background behind the credit/housing bubble. If you did, you would know that mortgage originators almost always sell their loans to other parties, primarily Freddie/Fannie, which guarantee the loans. With another enterprise guaranteeing the loans, mortgage originators lent money to anybody and anything. It took the risk out of the equation for these free-market capitalists. They made buttloads of money on bad lending decisions because of this. It has nothing to do with the obligation, moral or otherwise, of the borrower to pay back the loan. It had to do with the virtually unregulated financial services industry and their gaming the system to profit as much as possible while leaving all the risk in the hands of others.
"War on Poverty: You claim it is not merely a bunch of handouts and then go on to list the handouts.
"training":handout
Welfare: handout
Housing: handout
Food Stamps: handout"
Wrong, these are INVESTMENTS. And nobody has yet to address the question I posed...would there be MORE poor or LESS poor if you took these programs away?
Nice try though.
I can name any number of private enterprises that failed due to lack of foresight regarding the potential impact of market forces. can you name any private enterprise that has lasted as long as the USPS? I thought not.
"FNM and FRE: Broke. Let me try to explain something to all the liberal whiners out there. A mortgage is a contract between a lender and a borrower. The borrower agrees to the terms of the contract, which does actually mean he is required to pay the loan under the terms he agreed to. The lender upholds its end of the contract and purchases a home on behalf of the borrower. Why should the borrower not also be held to the terms of the contract that they willingly and voluntarily signed? "
You clearly don't know the background behind the credit/housing bubble. If you did, you would know that mortgage originators almost always sell their loans to other parties, primarily Freddie/Fannie, which guarantee the loans. With another enterprise guaranteeing the loans, mortgage originators lent money to anybody and anything. It took the risk out of the equation for these free-market capitalists. They made buttloads of money on bad lending decisions because of this. It has nothing to do with the obligation, moral or otherwise, of the borrower to pay back the loan. It had to do with the virtually unregulated financial services industry and their gaming the system to profit as much as possible while leaving all the risk in the hands of others.
"War on Poverty: You claim it is not merely a bunch of handouts and then go on to list the handouts.
"training":handout
Welfare: handout
Housing: handout
Food Stamps: handout"
Wrong, these are INVESTMENTS. And nobody has yet to address the question I posed...would there be MORE poor or LESS poor if you took these programs away?
Nice try though.
written by Jon Jegglie , March 19, 2010
"can you name any private enterprise that has lasted as long as the USPS? I thought not"
Of course not. Private enterprises that lose money and have a faulty business model fail (or should be allowed to), go away, and are replaced by ones which are more adaptive to market forces. Failed government enterprises (such as my personal favorite Amtrak, or locally BAT) continue to be propped up with ever increasing amounts of tax payer subsidy.
Mortgages: No sir, you are the one who does not understand. The lenders, or whoever ends up holding the note, are contractually entitled to THEIR money that was used to purchase a home for the borrower. The most basic principle of a person's responsibility as a consumer is "let the buyer beware". If I could sell you a truck load of cinders in central Oregon for $100,000, that doesn't make me bad, it makes you an idiot. Just because banks were offering "bad" products doesn't mean anybody was forced to buy them. Lots of companies offer bad products or bad prices. But show me one person who signed for an ARM in 2005, during a time of historic low interest rates that were sure to go up, that did so at the point of a gun. Personal responsibility please.
"Wrong, these are INVESTMENTS. And nobody has yet to address the question I posed...would there be MORE poor or LESS poor if you took these programs away?"
Investment: laying out money or capital in an enterprise with the expectation of profit.
Recipients of these "investments" never have to do anything to receive them except fill out a few forms. It isn't paid back. This tax bracket has a net negative tax rate. There is no expectation of profit. This makes them HANDOUTS.
Now, I will gladly address the question. Handout programs such as these create a dependency culture which devalues and disincentivizes work and personal responsibility. Why work when you don't have to, its a great setup if you can get it. This culture perpetuates and grows the cycle of poverty through a collective mindset of hopelessness fed to them by liberal do gooders who tell them how bad they have it and how bad things are going to continue to be and how their only hope are the government programs that barely keep them scraping by. Folks in this demographic have higher rates of child bearing, crime, alcohol, and drug abuse, activities which they are in no position to support financially but are subsidized by working taxpayers. Of course these values are passed on to their children which causes the problem to cross generational boundaries. So the answer is that there are vastly more poor as a result of these programs which only entrap perfectly capable people in a cycle of poverty into perpetuity.
Of course not. Private enterprises that lose money and have a faulty business model fail (or should be allowed to), go away, and are replaced by ones which are more adaptive to market forces. Failed government enterprises (such as my personal favorite Amtrak, or locally BAT) continue to be propped up with ever increasing amounts of tax payer subsidy.
Mortgages: No sir, you are the one who does not understand. The lenders, or whoever ends up holding the note, are contractually entitled to THEIR money that was used to purchase a home for the borrower. The most basic principle of a person's responsibility as a consumer is "let the buyer beware". If I could sell you a truck load of cinders in central Oregon for $100,000, that doesn't make me bad, it makes you an idiot. Just because banks were offering "bad" products doesn't mean anybody was forced to buy them. Lots of companies offer bad products or bad prices. But show me one person who signed for an ARM in 2005, during a time of historic low interest rates that were sure to go up, that did so at the point of a gun. Personal responsibility please.
"Wrong, these are INVESTMENTS. And nobody has yet to address the question I posed...would there be MORE poor or LESS poor if you took these programs away?"
Investment: laying out money or capital in an enterprise with the expectation of profit.
Recipients of these "investments" never have to do anything to receive them except fill out a few forms. It isn't paid back. This tax bracket has a net negative tax rate. There is no expectation of profit. This makes them HANDOUTS.
Now, I will gladly address the question. Handout programs such as these create a dependency culture which devalues and disincentivizes work and personal responsibility. Why work when you don't have to, its a great setup if you can get it. This culture perpetuates and grows the cycle of poverty through a collective mindset of hopelessness fed to them by liberal do gooders who tell them how bad they have it and how bad things are going to continue to be and how their only hope are the government programs that barely keep them scraping by. Folks in this demographic have higher rates of child bearing, crime, alcohol, and drug abuse, activities which they are in no position to support financially but are subsidized by working taxpayers. Of course these values are passed on to their children which causes the problem to cross generational boundaries. So the answer is that there are vastly more poor as a result of these programs which only entrap perfectly capable people in a cycle of poverty into perpetuity.
written by H. Bruce Miller , March 19, 2010
Conservatives are always complaining that the war on poverty hasn't been won, but you never hear them complaining that the war on drugs hasn't been won.
written by northwesthippie.wordpress.com , March 19, 2010
Again, you confuse my points about the mortgage debacle. We were discussing why financial insolvency of Freddy/Fannie. And it is a FACT that these two organizations guaranteed the vast majority of mortgages, issues in vast numbers and by vast percentages by private financial services firms. Those free market, private enterprises took on greater and greater risk in their lending practices because they knew that they would NOT be holding the notes on the mortgages, as the notes would be securitized and end up in the hands of Freddy/Fanny. This has nothing to do with personal responsibility on the part of the borrower. These things are a direct result of a free-wheeling, wild west attitude on the part of the largely unregulated financial services industry that put short term profits ahead of long-term outcomes. They made vast sums of money making loans that they knew had little chance of being repaid, in full knowledge that the bad debts would eventually fall on Freddy/Fanny.
"Recipients of these "investments" never have to do anything to receive them except fill out a few forms. It isn't paid back. This tax bracket has a net negative tax rate. There is no expectation of profit. This makes them HANDOUTS."
I would love to see any stats you might have that shows people who availed themselves of social welfare programs, such as job training, education, temporary housing, etc., have not given anything back to society. You seem to imply that not a single one has ever been able to lift himself out of poverty due to these programs. I know for a fact that is wrong.
Nice try, though.
"Recipients of these "investments" never have to do anything to receive them except fill out a few forms. It isn't paid back. This tax bracket has a net negative tax rate. There is no expectation of profit. This makes them HANDOUTS."
I would love to see any stats you might have that shows people who availed themselves of social welfare programs, such as job training, education, temporary housing, etc., have not given anything back to society. You seem to imply that not a single one has ever been able to lift himself out of poverty due to these programs. I know for a fact that is wrong.
Nice try, though.
written by H. Bruce Miller , March 19, 2010
Cost of providing health insurance to 32 million uninsured Americans: $940 billion over 10 years.
Cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: $973 billion and counting.
Cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: $973 billion and counting.
written by Space Elf , March 19, 2010
Cornhusker deal? Louisiana purchase? Willing to violate the constitution? 55% of Americans against it?
Do you honestly believe that the pricetag will stay at $940 billion? The cost oif the war would be lower if YOUR president followed his promise to pull out of the middle east. And naturally, you bring up drugs - hum....
Do you honestly believe that the pricetag will stay at $940 billion? The cost oif the war would be lower if YOUR president followed his promise to pull out of the middle east. And naturally, you bring up drugs - hum....
written by H. Bruce Miller , March 19, 2010
"The cost oif the war would be lower if YOUR president followed his promise to pull out of the middle east"
The cost of the war would be a LOT lower if your hero Bush hadn't invaded Iraq after spinning a bunch of lies about Saddam's WMDs.
And I don't remember Obama ever promising to "pull out of the Middle East."
The cost of the war would be a LOT lower if your hero Bush hadn't invaded Iraq after spinning a bunch of lies about Saddam's WMDs.
And I don't remember Obama ever promising to "pull out of the Middle East."
written by aaychbee'em critic , March 19, 2010
This just in: Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports health care reform bill will cut deficit by $138 billion over 10 years -- from HBM's post with a note of satisfaction and approval.
HBM even you know better. Everyone who has at least made a token attempt to keep up with this POS bill knows that this figure is based upon ten years of higher taxes matched against six years of benefits (costs). Ten years of "revenues" over six years of costs. I'm sure that makes perfect sense to you HBM.
I've got a deal for you. You buy my car and pay for it over five years, but you can only start to use it after three years. Sound good to you?
Also these "health" savings are based upon the so called "doc fix" in Medicare whereby Medicare has been set to reduce doctor payments by a half billion each year. Except that the senate has consistently rescinded this reduction each and every year since its inception several years ago. But this still counts as "savings" by the CBO. Unfortunately, the CBO can't call the dems out. So if the bill submitted by the dems states this doc fix will be part of the bill, the CBO can't laugh and tell them it will never happen eventhough history is on the CBO's side. The CBO can only score the POS put in front of them and can not point out the lunacy.
Also, HBM why does this bill have educational issues in it such as the government take over of the student loan programs. The revenues that would generate (and cost the jobs of several thousand private sector employees) is counted as part of the deficit reduction measures of the "health bill." Another fraud.
So HBM why don't you do some real research. Oh wait, you're not an investigative reporter. I forgot.
And BTW, why is the House Energy committee pontificating on health care. Shouldn't they be trying to develop... oh say someting like an energy policy? Drill, baby, drill.
HBM even you know better. Everyone who has at least made a token attempt to keep up with this POS bill knows that this figure is based upon ten years of higher taxes matched against six years of benefits (costs). Ten years of "revenues" over six years of costs. I'm sure that makes perfect sense to you HBM.
I've got a deal for you. You buy my car and pay for it over five years, but you can only start to use it after three years. Sound good to you?
Also these "health" savings are based upon the so called "doc fix" in Medicare whereby Medicare has been set to reduce doctor payments by a half billion each year. Except that the senate has consistently rescinded this reduction each and every year since its inception several years ago. But this still counts as "savings" by the CBO. Unfortunately, the CBO can't call the dems out. So if the bill submitted by the dems states this doc fix will be part of the bill, the CBO can't laugh and tell them it will never happen eventhough history is on the CBO's side. The CBO can only score the POS put in front of them and can not point out the lunacy.
Also, HBM why does this bill have educational issues in it such as the government take over of the student loan programs. The revenues that would generate (and cost the jobs of several thousand private sector employees) is counted as part of the deficit reduction measures of the "health bill." Another fraud.
So HBM why don't you do some real research. Oh wait, you're not an investigative reporter. I forgot.
And BTW, why is the House Energy committee pontificating on health care. Shouldn't they be trying to develop... oh say someting like an energy policy? Drill, baby, drill.
written by aaychbee'em critic , March 19, 2010
Hey NWhippie.commie:
The reason Fannie and Freddie ended up these POS mortgages was largely due to the Community Reinvestment Act passed under that minnion of malaise, Jimmy C. It required lenders to lend into areas of economic distress of less credit worthy standing (remember "redlining"?) Fannie and Freddie were required more and more of these laons to support this program. In the nineties, ole Bubba raised that the amount even higher so that the percentages of uncreditworthy loans rose from about 15% of the portfolio to about 40% of the portfolio.
I don't blame those seeking the loans at all. It was poor policy that stoked the market.
The reason Fannie and Freddie ended up these POS mortgages was largely due to the Community Reinvestment Act passed under that minnion of malaise, Jimmy C. It required lenders to lend into areas of economic distress of less credit worthy standing (remember "redlining"?) Fannie and Freddie were required more and more of these laons to support this program. In the nineties, ole Bubba raised that the amount even higher so that the percentages of uncreditworthy loans rose from about 15% of the portfolio to about 40% of the portfolio.
I don't blame those seeking the loans at all. It was poor policy that stoked the market.
written by H. Bruce Miller , March 20, 2010
Critic: The CBO projects that the health care reform proposal would further reduce the deficit BEYOND the first 10 years:
"Although CBO does not generally provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year budget projection period, certain Congressional rules require some information about the budgetary impact of legislation in subsequent decades, and many Members have requested CBO’s analyses of the long-term budgetary impact of broad changes in the nation’s health care and health insurance systems. Therefore, CBO has developed a rough outlook for the decade following the 2010-2019 period by grouping the elements of the
legislation into broad categories and (together with the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation) assessing the rate at which the budgetary impact of each of those broad categories is likely to increase over time. Our analysis indicates that H.R. 3590, as passed by the Senate, WOULD REDUCE FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICITS OVER THE ENSUING DECADE relative to
those projected under current law — with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP). ... Using that same analytic approach, the combined effect of enacting H.R. 3590 and the
reconciliation bill would also be to REDUCE FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICITS OVER THE ENSUING DECADE relative to those projected under current law — with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP. The incremental effect of enacting the reconciliation bill (over and above the effect of enacting H.R. 3590 by itself) would thus be to further reduce federal budget deficits in that decade, with a total effect that is in a broad range between zero and one-quarter percent of GDP." (Emphases added)
For the full report, see http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113...hr4872.pdf
"Although CBO does not generally provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year budget projection period, certain Congressional rules require some information about the budgetary impact of legislation in subsequent decades, and many Members have requested CBO’s analyses of the long-term budgetary impact of broad changes in the nation’s health care and health insurance systems. Therefore, CBO has developed a rough outlook for the decade following the 2010-2019 period by grouping the elements of the
legislation into broad categories and (together with the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation) assessing the rate at which the budgetary impact of each of those broad categories is likely to increase over time. Our analysis indicates that H.R. 3590, as passed by the Senate, WOULD REDUCE FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICITS OVER THE ENSUING DECADE relative to
those projected under current law — with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP). ... Using that same analytic approach, the combined effect of enacting H.R. 3590 and the
reconciliation bill would also be to REDUCE FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICITS OVER THE ENSUING DECADE relative to those projected under current law — with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP. The incremental effect of enacting the reconciliation bill (over and above the effect of enacting H.R. 3590 by itself) would thus be to further reduce federal budget deficits in that decade, with a total effect that is in a broad range between zero and one-quarter percent of GDP." (Emphases added)
For the full report, see http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113...hr4872.pdf
written by H. Bruce Miller , March 20, 2010
"Willing to violate the constitution?"
How does this legislation violate the Constitution?
"55% of Americans against it?"
About 40% of those who are against it are opposed BECAUSE THEY THINK IT DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH -- a fact that the right-wingers conveniently fail to mention whenever they bring the poll numbers up.
How does this legislation violate the Constitution?
"55% of Americans against it?"
About 40% of those who are against it are opposed BECAUSE THEY THINK IT DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH -- a fact that the right-wingers conveniently fail to mention whenever they bring the poll numbers up.
written by H. Bruce Miller , March 20, 2010
Hey teabaggers, here are some of your fellow "patriots" in action:
"WASHINGTON (AP) — A congressman who was spat on by a protestor on Capitol Hill says he is declining to press charges, but turns out the Capitol Police say they made no arrests.
Missouri Democrat Emanuel Cleaver was making his way through a group of angry protestors when the incident occurred. It was one of several ugly incidents in a day of protests against President Barack Obama's health care overhaul measure, which faces a House vote on Sunday.
Cleaver, who is black, was also one of several lawmakers who faced racial epithets as they walked to the Capitol to vote."
Are ya proud?
"WASHINGTON (AP) — A congressman who was spat on by a protestor on Capitol Hill says he is declining to press charges, but turns out the Capitol Police say they made no arrests.
Missouri Democrat Emanuel Cleaver was making his way through a group of angry protestors when the incident occurred. It was one of several ugly incidents in a day of protests against President Barack Obama's health care overhaul measure, which faces a House vote on Sunday.
Cleaver, who is black, was also one of several lawmakers who faced racial epithets as they walked to the Capitol to vote."
Are ya proud?
written by northwesthippie.wordpress.com , March 20, 2010
Poor aaychbee'em critic,
Your argument would hold water if it was only uncreditworthy borrowers who have defaulted. Guess what? MORE defaults are at the hands of prime rather than subprime borrowers....lots more, in fact. Dude, you live in Bend...look around once in awhile. See all those foreclosures? They ain't poor people losing their houses...they are prime borrowers who got caught up in speculation. They had HIGH credit scores, and decent incomes. And Bend wasn't an economically distressed area, either, if I recall...everyone was doing GREAT! Buying tons of toys, boats, fancy cars, bigger and fancier houses! Living the life!
But the banks overlooked some minor details...like debt to income ratios, for example. The banks wanted the fees, they made the loans, and it had NOTHING to do with the Community Reinvestment Act requirements. They were giving loans to credit-worthy borrowers, but didn't care that the borrowers had no intention of ever living in the homes. The banks knew the whole deal was speculation, but what did they care? They were making money! And if those borrowers defaulted? So what! Freddy/Fannie were there to take the fall.
Sorry, but you lose on this one.
Your argument would hold water if it was only uncreditworthy borrowers who have defaulted. Guess what? MORE defaults are at the hands of prime rather than subprime borrowers....lots more, in fact. Dude, you live in Bend...look around once in awhile. See all those foreclosures? They ain't poor people losing their houses...they are prime borrowers who got caught up in speculation. They had HIGH credit scores, and decent incomes. And Bend wasn't an economically distressed area, either, if I recall...everyone was doing GREAT! Buying tons of toys, boats, fancy cars, bigger and fancier houses! Living the life!
But the banks overlooked some minor details...like debt to income ratios, for example. The banks wanted the fees, they made the loans, and it had NOTHING to do with the Community Reinvestment Act requirements. They were giving loans to credit-worthy borrowers, but didn't care that the borrowers had no intention of ever living in the homes. The banks knew the whole deal was speculation, but what did they care? They were making money! And if those borrowers defaulted? So what! Freddy/Fannie were there to take the fall.
Sorry, but you lose on this one.
written by aaychbee'em critic , March 20, 2010
HBM: I must admit that I did not know what the term "teabagger" or "teabagging" meant when it entered the libs lexicon to describe those who would stand up for their rights and speak out. I have since found out what a truly vulgar and pornagraphic term it is and that you find pleasure in using it. "Are ya proud?" You should be ashamed of yourself.
written by aaychbee'em critic , March 20, 2010
Back in your cerebral fog days of the 60's, you would declare that same person a hero if he spat on a Congressman.....or policeman, or soldier, or sailor for that matter.
written by Space Elf , March 21, 2010
This has to be your most childish post. Are we proud?
Were you proud of the union thugs at town hall meetings? Were you proud when libs pulled a sign out of the hands of an 8 year old child? Were you proud of Clinton being impeached? Were you proud of all of the disgraceful things "your side" has done?
You get ONE THING and try to rub our noses in it. It's time for you to move up to middle school and get out of the playground.
Were you proud of the union thugs at town hall meetings? Were you proud when libs pulled a sign out of the hands of an 8 year old child? Were you proud of Clinton being impeached? Were you proud of all of the disgraceful things "your side" has done?
You get ONE THING and try to rub our noses in it. It's time for you to move up to middle school and get out of the playground.
written by H. Bruce Miller , March 21, 2010
"You get ONE THING and try to rub our noses in it."
This is far from the only time that people at Tea Party rallies have exhibited racism.
And then there were the ones who ridiculed a man with Parkinson's who was demonstrating for health care reform and threw dollar bills at him as he sat in his wheelchair.
I don't say all the tea partiers are lowlifes like these, but OTOH I have yet to hear any of them, or the politicians who pander to them, denounce such actions. In fact one congressman (Nunes of California) actually DEFENDED the racist behavior in Washington today, saying the "totalitarian" of the Democrats had provoked it.
This is far from the only time that people at Tea Party rallies have exhibited racism.
And then there were the ones who ridiculed a man with Parkinson's who was demonstrating for health care reform and threw dollar bills at him as he sat in his wheelchair.
I don't say all the tea partiers are lowlifes like these, but OTOH I have yet to hear any of them, or the politicians who pander to them, denounce such actions. In fact one congressman (Nunes of California) actually DEFENDED the racist behavior in Washington today, saying the "totalitarian" of the Democrats had provoked it.
written by aaychbee'em critic , March 21, 2010
To NWhippie.commie:
Please do some reading. The originators of these loans sell them on the secondary market. Fannie and Freddie basically became the secondary market for these loans. Fannie and Freddie are not forced to buy these loans. They operate as quasi private companies. If Fannie and Freddie don't buy the loans due to their uncreditworthiness, it would not be long before these primary markets couldn't sell them. But when Fan and Fred are forced to buy more and more due to the regulatory requirements of things like the Community Reinvestment Act, then we see the outcome.
Take a look at any research of the loan pools of Fan and Fred offerings of mortgage backed securities and you'll see that the average FICO scores for these pools were steadily declining going leading into this mess. But then again, you seem to be one that doesn't let facts get in the way of their bloviating.
Don't think I lost this one. We all did.
Please do some reading. The originators of these loans sell them on the secondary market. Fannie and Freddie basically became the secondary market for these loans. Fannie and Freddie are not forced to buy these loans. They operate as quasi private companies. If Fannie and Freddie don't buy the loans due to their uncreditworthiness, it would not be long before these primary markets couldn't sell them. But when Fan and Fred are forced to buy more and more due to the regulatory requirements of things like the Community Reinvestment Act, then we see the outcome.
Take a look at any research of the loan pools of Fan and Fred offerings of mortgage backed securities and you'll see that the average FICO scores for these pools were steadily declining going leading into this mess. But then again, you seem to be one that doesn't let facts get in the way of their bloviating.
Don't think I lost this one. We all did.
written by Stephen Cramer , March 21, 2010
Okay--now I'm truly ashamed and appalled. Those of you who say you need video proof--what proof did you need to question the president's citizenship? How many were amused by the email comparing the first lady to a chimp and forwarded it on?
The English philosopher John Stewart Mill said it best: "while it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is most certainly true that most stupid people are conservative."
Now, go ahead and prove him correct. Because he also wrote: "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
The English philosopher John Stewart Mill said it best: "while it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is most certainly true that most stupid people are conservative."
Now, go ahead and prove him correct. Because he also wrote: "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
written by Space Elf , March 22, 2010
http://www.foxnews.com/politic.../politics+(Text+-+Politics)&utm_content=My+Yahoo
The alledged racist activities are condemned. I'm sorry you are afraid of Fox News.
And again, you have not responded to the questions I asked of you. Are you proud of how this albatros was passed? Do you condone the back room deals? We both know that if the Republicans had done this, you would be the first to go off on a rant. You cannot be trusted to be unbiased to ANY degree.
Are you capable of answering these questions directly? If not, you will prove to all readers that you are a fraud!
The alledged racist activities are condemned. I'm sorry you are afraid of Fox News.
And again, you have not responded to the questions I asked of you. Are you proud of how this albatros was passed? Do you condone the back room deals? We both know that if the Republicans had done this, you would be the first to go off on a rant. You cannot be trusted to be unbiased to ANY degree.
Are you capable of answering these questions directly? If not, you will prove to all readers that you are a fraud!
written by H. Bruce Miller , March 22, 2010
"Are you proud of how this albatros [sic] was passed? Do you condone the back room deals?"
I'm not ashamed of it. Deals were made? Hey dude, that's called "the political process." Horse-trading of this type has been going on in the Capitol ever since there was a Capitol, and I hope you're not going to try to tell me Republicans never engage in it.
Also, it's pretty damn funny to hear the Republicans moaning about the process used in the House when they have never hesitated to thwart the will of the majority through use of the filibuster in the Senate.
I'm not ashamed of it. Deals were made? Hey dude, that's called "the political process." Horse-trading of this type has been going on in the Capitol ever since there was a Capitol, and I hope you're not going to try to tell me Republicans never engage in it.
Also, it's pretty damn funny to hear the Republicans moaning about the process used in the House when they have never hesitated to thwart the will of the majority through use of the filibuster in the Senate.
written by Space Elf , March 22, 2010
When have republicans ever done anything like this? Prove your accusations! Ever hear of hard data?
written by H. Bruce Miller , March 22, 2010
Ooh, my bad, of course Republicans have never, EVER made deals to get a bill passed! How could anyone even IMAGINE such a thing!
You're ridiculous, Elf.
You're ridiculous, Elf.
If you believe the figures then I have some ocean front land in Colorado you may be interested in. Look at the source, they are way off course!