On 07/24/2011 03:45 PM, Oglethorpe wrote:

The Obama administration spent more in less than 3 years than the Bush
administration did in eight years. There would be no need to raise the debt
ceiling were it not for that.


Not true. Bush lost more cash money ($100 bills) in Iraq than Obama has
spent on most Federal programs for the needy.

Let's roll back to 1999 spending percentages.

dave wrote:

Not true. Bush lost more cash money ($100 bills) in Iraq than Obama has
spent on most Federal programs for the needy.

It was around 200 TONS of 100 dollar bills and something tells me it
wasn't lost at all. Nobody loses 200 tons worth of money. It probably
got funneled to the right people to make sure the war continued unabated.


mike


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOLZd+AAoJECGtZwCbtgwXU1EH/j4BVLNyV4/MTucsJnk7awQK
g52IPe9pT/0XUpKHDHDCTMxSrogDT5cbX6GMtbW1AX3nbSG/sHOdQXPfoC98x8LH
vfCOfwVJ0cpQlgNmcC9G5CBWgOVlnwMaQLpEJf0lT4/Sy/0rQWi2ery9ku2MvlBj
AekHI65hC9tH9G0XyrX2n9wbOoyrKF7aIxHKoXUEHeQKlhwKaF tsU0fUazFedizp
xJnpduBA2vOYRIsg6DGjjMJewX9pt7+owLa/OIuxalk4nOn1ciRw1Bw1WlOKR8c7
fJuyjbK1ssrcEU3ssLwFs+Ig6sKa0A04kkhN8ML83GPvJHXKj3 6DrP8uMofsq1U=
=Ek8s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

dave wrote in
:

On 07/24/2011 03:45 PM, Oglethorpe wrote:

The Obama administration spent more in less than 3 years than the
Bush administration did in eight years. There would be no need to
raise the debt ceiling were it not for that.


Not true. Bush lost more cash money ($100 bills) in Iraq than Obama
has spent on most Federal programs for the needy.

That's an interesting observation since the wars in both Iraq and
Afghanistan were under a trillion. Obamacare is almost that by itself.

Let's roll back to 1999 spending percentages.

Percentages of what?



--
RD (The Sandman)

Thought for the day.......

Handle every stressful situation like a dog would.
If you can't eat it or hump it....**** on it and walk away.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:25:31 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

That's an interesting observation since the wars in both Iraq and
Afghanistan were under a trillion. Obamacare is almost that by itself.

Everybody has a different figure for this, depending on their
political position. It did nothing to lower medical costs, but
really didn't do much to raise medical costs either - only changing
how we buy insurance.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

Howard Brazee wrote in
:

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:25:31 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

That's an interesting observation since the wars in both Iraq and
Afghanistan were under a trillion. Obamacare is almost that by itself.

Everybody has a different figure for this, depending on their
political position. It did nothing to lower medical costs, but
really didn't do much to raise medical costs either - only changing
how we buy insurance.

It wasn't a healthcare plan, as you noted it was mostly insurance reform.
The costs came during the debates (what there were on it....).



--
RD (The Sandman)

Thought for the day.......

Handle every stressful situation like a dog would.
If you can't eat it or hump it....**** on it and walk away.

On Jul 25, 10:27*am, Howard Brazee wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:25:31 -0500, RD Sandman

wrote:
That's an interesting observation since the wars in both Iraq and
Afghanistan were under a trillion. *Obamacare is almost that by itself..

- Everybody has a different figure for this,
- depending on their political position.
- It did nothing to lower medical costs,
- but really didn't do much to raise medical
- costs either
- only changing how we buy insurance.


Actually for the ~80% who where 'Insured'
before Obama-Care : In general it does not
change the way they buy their 'insurance'.

However, for the ~20% who where NOT 'Insured'
before Obama-Care : In general it does Force
them to Buy 'Insurance' or be Taxed -aka- the
Coercion {Force} of Taxes.

The Obama-Regime has given so many so many
Obama-Care 'exemptions' to Big Businesses
{Mega-Employers like Wal*Mart and McDonald's}
with tens and hundreds of thousands of
employees; that the Employers Mandates do not
exist for many/most.

So Obama-Care 'Targets' the Individual Un-Insured
Employee with a Mandate to be 'Insured' or Taxed.

~ RHF

On Jul 25, 4:42*pm, RHF wrote:

On Jul 25, 10:27*am, Howard Brazee wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:25:31 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman@comcast,net wrote:

That's an interesting observation since the wars in both Iraq and
Afghanistan were under a trillion. *Obamacare is almost that by itself..

- Everybody has a different figure for this,
- depending on their political position.
- It did nothing to lower medical costs,
- but really didn't do much to raise medical
- costs either
- only changing how we buy insurance.

Actually for the ~80% who where 'Insured'
before Obama-Care : In general it does not
change the way they buy their 'insurance'.

However, for the ~20% who where NOT 'Insured'
before Obama-Care : In general it does Force
them to Buy 'Insurance' or be Taxed -aka- the
Coercion {Force} of Taxes.

The Obama-Regime has given so many so many
Obama-Care 'exemptions' to Big Businesses
{Mega-Employers like Wal*Mart and McDonald's}
with tens and hundreds of thousands of
employees; that the Employers Mandates do not
exist for many/most.

Ergo, it is unconstitutional under the "Equal Protection" clause of
the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

So Obama-Care 'Targets' the Individual Un-Insured
Employee with a Mandate to be 'Insured' or Taxed.

~ RHF
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size.
Government programs, once launched, never disappear.
Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal
life we'll ever see on this earth! "
-- Ronald Reagan

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 05:59:18 -0700, dave wrote:

Let's roll back to 1999 spending percentages.

Spending as a percentage of GDP - and taxing as a percentage of GDP.


--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

"Howard Brazee" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 05:59:18 -0700, dave wrote:

Let's roll back to 1999 spending percentages.

Spending as a percentage of GDP - and taxing as a percentage of GDP.

So let's see,

Spending 32.65% of the GDP

Meanwhile we increase the debt by 1.34% of the GDP each year.

So tell me, how long until we are bankrupt?