 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Sequester = Murder
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Sequester = Murder From: Elmore Date: 22 Apr 13 - 09:18 PM Sorry, not Eorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Sequester = Murder From: Elmore Date: 22 Apr 13 - 08:14 PM Eorry to hear Obama's been sequestered. Was it the Republicans? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Sequester = Murder From: Songwronger Date: 21 Apr 13 - 11:37 PM Sequestration cuts hit Michigan 18 April 2013 The state of Michigan will lose $150 million in federal aid due to the sequester cuts signed by President Obama. Republican governor Rick Snyder has rejected any increased state funding to make up for the shortfall and instead has outlined a series of devastating cuts to special education, low-income heating assistance, community health care programs and other services. In addition, Detroit Medical Center, a massive hospital complex that is one of the city's largest employers, announced plans to lay off 300 workers as a result of the two percent sequester cuts to Medicare. Some 70 percent of DMC patients are Medicare or Medicaid recipients, reflecting the high level of poverty in Detroit, where over 60 percent of children live below the official poverty line. While Michigan has a surplus of over $500 million—due primarily to billions in previous cuts to education, revenue sharing with cities and programs for the poor and elderly—the Snyder administration plans to cut $59.2 million from programs this year and $91.3 million in 2014 due to the federal cuts. "We've said from the start that Michigan would not be replacing lost federal dollars with state dollars due to sequestration and that still holds true," said Snyder. "We support getting the nation's fiscal house in order, though across-the-board cuts like this are not the way to go about it," he said hypocritically. http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/04/18/mich Last week I had to refer to refer to this page on wikipedia. It's about serial killers. It gives headcounts and I thought at the time that Harry Truman should have been listed. He bombed two civilian targets with a-bombs. They happened to be the two largest Christian cities in Japan (a masonic thing), but that aside, those bombings of civilian cities even during a time of war can't really be considered an act of war. He murdered those people. That puts him way ahead of Ted Bundy and Charles Manson and the people on the wikipedia list. And then I read about how Obama's sequester is affecting just one town, Detroit. 300 healthcare workers who tend to the poor will be laid off. The resulting deaths will be on Obama's head. So how many people has Obama killed so far with his sequester? Is anyone keeping count? This is just the beginning. His budget proposal will make things 10-100 times worse. I don't think he'll be able to surpass Stalin or Hitler's bodycount in his remaining 3 years in office, but his total will be up there. In the millions if he's able to cut social services like he wants. Anyone keeping score on this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Sequester = Murder From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Apr 13 - 01:45 AM Other than the fact that Medicare or Medicaid doesn't cover much dental, Ebbie is correct.....(don't faint, it might be an extra ambulance charge!) All the Obamacare stuff is way over the top, considering how much it won't cover, who makes the decisions, fines, extra taxes, and profiling, not to mention how intrusive it is!! GfS P.S. A single payer plan would have been better!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Sequester = Murder From: Ebbie Date: 05 Apr 13 - 12:58 AM Medicare is the best thing going. The least fraud, the fewest errors, the most coherent and transparent insurance system we have. Would that all our insurances were like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Sequester = Murder From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Apr 13 - 11:51 PM Under the Unaffordable Care Act, you CANNOT bargain the prices down, any longer! Look it up...or talk to a hospital. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Sequester = Murder From: Songwronger Date: 04 Apr 13 - 10:59 PM Hospitals routinely charge ten times what they expect to collect. They can be bargained with. What upsets me is how Medicare is gouged. A family member recently had a $4700 procedure done. He has private health insurance and Medicare. The private company sent him a letter saying they would pay $489 as their portion. He won't have to pay anything, so that means Medicare will pick up nearly $4000. So even though he has good private health insurance, taxpayers will pay about 90% of the cost. The system is designed to maximize profits for the private companies, soak the taxpayers, and bankrupt the individuals. And it will only get worse under Obamacare, as it's structured now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Sequester = Murder From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Apr 13 - 02:55 AM Yeah, try negotiating when your eyeball is hanging out of its socket. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Sequester = Murder From: Ebbie Date: 04 Apr 13 - 02:20 AM Time Magazine did a Special Report (Bitter Pill; March 4 2013) on our health care and why the system charges what it does. They documented the obscene charges and the amounts Medicare pays for each specific incident and procedure. Turns out that what Medicare pays the hospitals/doctors/facilities more than pays their costs plus a margin. Basically, they claim that no one expects people to pay the inflated costs on the sheet, that it is always negotiable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Sequester = Murder From: Songwronger Date: 03 Apr 13 - 11:19 PM CANCER CLINICS TURNING AWAY THOUSANDS OF MEDICARE PATIENTS Cancer clinics across the country have begun turning away thousands of Medicare patients, blaming the sequester budget cuts. Oncologists say the reduced funding, which took effect for Medicare on April 1, makes it impossible to administer expensive chemotherapy drugs while staying afloat financially. Patients at these clinics would need to seek treatment elsewhere, such as at hospitals that might not have the capacity to accommodate them. "If we treated the patients receiving the most expensive drugs, we'd be out of business in six months to a year," said Jeff Vacirca, chief executive of North Shore Hematology Oncology Associates in New York. "The drugs we're going to lose money on we're not going to administer right now." http://investmentwatchblog.com/cancer-clinics-turning-away-thousands-of-medicare-patients/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Sequester = Murder From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 Mar 13 - 02:37 PM Yeah, Mrrzy..I've posted the YouTube link of Nicholson blurting that out, several times on here. Great shot! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Sequester = Murder From: Mrrzy Date: 19 Mar 13 - 01:46 PM Truth? You can't HANDLE the truth! OK, it's a movie line, not a song lyric, but still... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Sequester = Murder From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 18 Mar 13 - 08:19 PM Bobert: "Truth is that if this tread was "Best Biscuit Recipe Ever" you'd turn it into another Obama-hate rant..." Served with your roasted Tea from the Tea party??? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Sequester = Murder From: Bobert Date: 18 Mar 13 - 05:34 PM Truth, GfinS??? You want the truth??? Truth is that if this tread was "Best Biscuit Recipe Ever" you'd turn it into another Obama-hate rant... There... Now you have the truth... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Sequester = Murder From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 18 Mar 13 - 04:06 PM So are we a majority of two??..or have the partisan ninnies all run away? I guess it was too much truth for them. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Sequester = Murder From: GUEST,Niggardly Bastard Date: 18 Mar 13 - 03:45 PM I approve GfS's message. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Sequester = Murder From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 18 Mar 13 - 03:01 PM So, I guess we're all in agreement on this one..Obama is just another front man, for those pesky banksters....I have no problem with that! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 17 Mar 13 - 02:59 PM When banks are too big to fail, too big to jail, too big for trial, too big to manage, too big to regulate, too big to shrink, and too big to reform... they are just too big. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 Mar 13 - 09:02 PM Well, I guess those who might know what is REALLY going on is less than 1% ..but it don't mean that it still ain't going on! Bobert, you asked how they were corrupting....well read this.... The link wouldn't work...BUT..... SEC Nominee Signals Cautious Approach to Prosecuting Banks March 13, 2013, 1:18 pm ET by Jason M. Breslow Watch The Untouchables, FRONTLINE's look at why no Wall Street executives have been prosecuted for fraud in connection with the financial crisis. President Obama's pick to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission told senators at a confirmation hearing Tuesday that federal prosecutors should consider the "collateral consequences" of bringing a criminal indictment against financial institutions. The comment by Mary Jo White, a former U.S. attorney herself, comes less than a week after Attorney General Eric Holder told lawmakers that the Justice Department has considered the impact to the broader economy of prosecuting major banks for the financial crisis. The size of some institutions, Holder said, "has an inhibiting impact" on the department's ability to bring certain cases. The attorney general's comments were put to White during an exchange with Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.). Asked to respond to Holder's statement, White told the Senate Banking Committee that federal prosecutors are instructed by Justice Department policy to consider the "collateral consequences of a criminal indictment to innocent shareholders, employees, or the public." And while no institution should be considered "too big to charge," she said, "certainly, prosecutors should consider that before proceeding." White's remarks echoed similar comments made by Lanny Breuer — who led bank enforcement during his tenure as assistant attorney general — in an interview with correspondent Martin Smith for the FRONTLINE film The Untouchables. Breuer's interview (which you can read here) prompted a Jan. 29 letter from Senators Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) seeking an explanation from the Justice Department about how it determines which cases to prosecute. If confirmed, White would not have the authority to bring criminal charges. She told lawmakers, however, that as a former United States attorney in Manhattan from 1993 to 2002, she spoke with Treasury Department officials on at least one occasion when considering whether to bring charges against a financial firm. Those consultations, she said, addressed not just the possible fallout of a case for the U.S. economy, but global markets as well. "Essentially, I was seeking information based on an argument that had been made by the lawyers for the institution that I ultimately indicted, as to whether an indictment of that institution would result in great damage to either the Japanese economy or the world economy," explained White. "And the answer I got back is that I should proceed to make my own decision, which I took to mean that it would likely not have that impact." The SEC does not consider collateral consequences in its charging decisions, White said, "But they do consider consequences in their remedies." She signaled such considerations could factor into decisions over civil penalties. White also addressed concerns about her work since leaving her post as a U.S. Attorney. She has since worked as a partner for the law firm Debevoise and Plimpton, where she has represented clients such as JPMorgan Chase and former Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis. Seeking to ease those concerns, White said her work for Wall Street clients "does not change me as a person. It doesn't mean I embrace the policy thoughts of any of my clients. … The American public will be my client, and I will work as zealously as is possible on behalf of them. " Mary Jo White, President Obama's nominee to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission, appears at a 2004 news conference. (AP Photo/Tim Roske) Try this one.... Fifth story down. ...................................................................... Great nominee!!!!!! Just who the banksters would want!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: Bobert Date: 15 Mar 13 - 12:42 PM Yo, GfinS... Take a basic college econ course... Your Tea Party econ is not only wrong but dangerous... Yeah, all this noise about debt sounds fine until you look at the real consequences of austerity in a down economy... Your economic theories are those of the 1%ers... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: Donuel Date: 15 Mar 13 - 10:50 AM If the Sequester had happened in June we would have the whole year to spread out the absurd austerity cuts, but it was in March, near the fiscal end of the year, so we only have six months to fit in all the cuts making it twice as bad as people first thought, without thinking. Wrongsongerr...can you say 'fiscal'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: Elmore Date: 15 Mar 13 - 02:24 AM N. B.: Elmo? Who the Hell is Elmo? I don't care what you say about me as long as you spell my name correctly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 Mar 13 - 02:15 AM ...and I thought it was 'Ban' the antiperspirant. Why don't we just ban banning?? GfS P.S. All things in moderation.....including moderation! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: GUEST,Niggardly Bastard Date: 15 Mar 13 - 01:47 AM Well Elmo ,the Word of God is the Word of God even when it comes from the lips of Satan. Or so a radio preacher I was listening to one day said. I think he was correct. And I think both Guest from Sanity and Songwronger are correct. I can't say as much for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: Elmore Date: 14 Mar 13 - 08:57 PM Remember folks.this thread was initiated by the same gentleman who wants to ban anti-depressants. Consider the source. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Mar 13 - 12:02 PM Bobert: ...and these are right in a row..)"I don't give a rip about balanced budgets... Sane fiscal policy??? Different story..." Bobert: "...If that means borrowing then why not??? " Because, Dear Bobert, Borrowing that money creates interest...which IS the debt...or didn't you know that....right now every dollar is 43-46 cents gobbled up by the interest owed on it. The more you borrow, the more interest..the more interest, the less the dollars is worth, the less the dollar is worth, the more you have to borrow...and who gets the benefit of all this??...not you...the banksters(Federal Reserve, private banking consortium)...and then you, a liberal, blame the banks colluding with the Republican, who you say are fucking up the economy, so to 'fix' it, the Democrats jump up and gleefully borrow more!...then you bitch at Republicans, who are bitching at you, who are bitching at.....(got it, yet?) To 'ALMOST' quote you, "That ain't liberal or conservative, just insane." To quote me, "Yes, Bobert, that is what corruption, they've been bought off to keep doing the same..a 'new program' for this, a 'new program' for that, to whichever side can sell the new program to their ideologues, meanwhile the debt goes higher, and the banksters are laughing their way, all the way to the Capital...and owning YOU!!" GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: Bobert Date: 14 Mar 13 - 09:44 AM I don't give a rip about balanced budgets... Sane fiscal policy??? Different story... Part of sane fiscal policy is having a government that knows when to put some $$$ into the economy... If that means borrowing then why not??? Interests rates are at an all time low... Borrow and invest that money in education, infrastructure, research and development, renewable energy, etc... Keynes, BTW, has been shown to be 100% correct over the years... Borrow when you have to and pay back when you can... That ain't liberal or conservative, just sane... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: GUEST,Niggardly Bastard Date: 14 Mar 13 - 05:27 AM I approve this message. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Mar 13 - 03:38 AM Now let me get this right, as according to some of you....it's the Republican's fault, because they are owned by the banksters and corporations, and they are controlling the Democrats from doing what they want to do....right? ....so, in essence, the banksters and corporations control both parties, because of it....well, that's not exactly how it's all done, or goes down.....but regardless, both the Democrats and the Republicans are controlled by the banksters and corporations, who pretty much dictate what they want done, and block what they don't want done....so if the Democrats blame the Republicans, or the other way around, both are still complicit, in the fact that their blaming the wrong people, and hiding who is really controlling them.....right? So...they're all in it together....what's so hard to figure that out???? GfS P.S. Ever wonder how much their paid off to do THAT!!??!!?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: Stilly River Sage Date: 13 Mar 13 - 10:45 PM Clinton not only had a balanced budget, he had a surplus. Which baby Bush blew as fast as he could. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: Songwronger Date: 13 Mar 13 - 09:15 PM The very first link in this thread goes to a story where Bob Woodward, of Watergate fame, says, "the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House." And he backs it up with reportage. The Dems and Reps are colluding to kill the social security nets in America. Obama RAN on a promise of austerity, and now he's delivering. He is delivering what the Republicans never could. Obama just axed 3/4 million jobs with his sequester, and he forced 600k children into hunger. And that's just for openers. You Obama supporters will now most likely be told to get behind the age-old Republican goal of balancing the budget. It will become an Obama goal, and he will "save the country" by balancing the budget on the backs of the poor. Between his genocidal Obamacare and the destruction of the safety nets, Obama will kill millions in America, and you will be told he was "progressive" to do so. There is no obstructionism going on here--the banker-controlled Dem/Rep party is looting America and killing its inhabitants in fine fascistic form. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: Bobert Date: 13 Mar 13 - 08:03 PM Bob Woodward is suffering from John McCain Syndrome: old and cranky... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: Stilly River Sage Date: 13 Mar 13 - 07:46 PM Another rancid thread where I had a bet with myself as to who started it. I won. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: pdq Date: 13 Mar 13 - 07:36 PM Obama's sequester deal-changer By Bob Woodward February 22, 2013 Bob Woodward (woodwardb@washpost.com) is an associate editor of The Post. His latest book is "The Price of Politics." Evelyn M. Duffy contributed to this column. Misunderstanding, misstatements and all the classic contortions of partisan message management surround the sequester, the term for the $85?billion in ugly and largely irrational federal spending cuts set by law to begin Friday. What is the non-budget wonk to make of this? Who is responsible? What really happened? The finger-pointing began during the third presidential debate last fall, on Oct. 22, when President Obama blamed Congress. "The sequester is not something that I've proposed," Obama said. "It is something that Congress has proposed." The White House chief of staff at the time, Jack Lew, who had been budget director during the negotiations that set up the sequester in 2011, backed up the president two days later. "There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger," Lew said while campaigning in Florida. It "was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure." The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book "The Price of Politics" shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government. Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved. Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, "We didn't actually think it would be that hard to convince them" — Reid and the Republicans — to adopt the sequester. "It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table." A majority of Republicans did vote for the Budget Control Act that summer, which included the sequester. Key Republican staffers said they didn't even initially know what a sequester was — because the concept stemmed from the budget wars of the 1980s, when they were not in government. At the Feb. 13 Senate Finance Committee hearing on Lew's nomination to become Treasury secretary, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) asked Lew about the account in my book: "Woodward credits you with originating the plan for sequestration. Was he right or wrong?" "It's a little more complicated than that," Lew responded, "and even in his account, it was a little more complicated than that. We were in a negotiation where the failure would have meant the default of the government of the United States." "Did you make the suggestion?" Burr asked. "Well, what I did was said that with all other options closed, we needed to look for an option where we could agree on how to resolve our differences. And we went back to the 1984 plan that Senator [Phil] Gramm and Senator [Warren] Rudman worked on and said that that would be a basis for having a consequence that would be so unacceptable to everyone that we would be able to get action." In other words, yes. But then Burr asked about the president's statement during the presidential debate, that the Republicans originated it. Lew, being a good lawyer and a loyal presidential adviser, then shifted to denial mode: "Senator, the demand for an enforcement mechanism was not something that the administration was pushing at that moment." That statement was not accurate. On Tuesday, Obama appeared at the White House with a group of police officers and firefighters to denounce the sequester as a "meat-cleaver approach" that would jeopardize military readiness and investments in education, energy and readiness. He also said it would cost jobs. But, the president said, the substitute would have to include new revenue through tax reform. At noon that same day, White House press secretary Jay Carney shifted position and accepted sequester paternity. "The sequester was something that was discussed," Carney said. Walking back the earlier statements, he added carefully, "and as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward." This was an acknowledgment that the president and Lew had been wrong. Why does this matter? First, months of White House dissembling further eroded any semblance of trust between Obama and congressional Republicans. (The Republicans are by no means blameless and have had their own episodes of denial and bald-faced message management.) Second, Lew testified during his confirmation hearing that the Republicans would not go along with new revenue in the portion of the deficit-reduction plan that became the sequester. Reinforcing Lew's point, a senior White House official said Friday, "The sequester was an option we were forced to take because the Republicans would not do tax increases." In fact, the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation's debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection. So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: Bobert Date: 13 Mar 13 - 06:55 PM Actually, history does repeat itself... As today, FDR was getting bashed through out the 1936 election for spending and pushed into a little experiment called austerity in 1937... If you look at the economy in terms of GNP for the decade of the 1930s and you'll plainly see how that austerity worked out back then... All but sent the economy all the way back to a fullblown depression... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: Stringsinger Date: 13 Mar 13 - 11:47 AM Songwronger, the reason for the so-called "Sequester" is that the Tea Party Republican Congress put it in place. It's not Obama's fault for creating it but he can be criticized for going along with it. FDR would never have let this happen. There are two dictionary definitions of "sequester" and the first is a hiding away from outside influences as in a juried trial. This hiding away is applicable to the Tea Party Republican propensity for hiding the truth away from the American citizens. The second is setting aside money for a debt unpaid. This debt is a fiction when it is applied to Social Security and Medicare. The Republicans have spent money on war and exempting the wealthy that they have put the country into a financial hole. This is not Obama's fault. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: GUEST,Mrr Date: 13 Mar 13 - 10:25 AM When did this become Obama's sequester? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: Bobert Date: 13 Mar 13 - 09:55 AM Okay, let's do some review here... Over 300 filibusters by Republicans in the last 4 years... $3T in cuts by Obama already over the next 10 years A little over half a trillion in revenues over the next 10 years... A Republican Party entrenched in protecting the upper 1% of wage earners... You can call that pointing fingers... You can call it anything you want... Historians will call is obstructionism... That is reality... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: Rapparee Date: 13 Mar 13 - 09:37 AM Ya know, I'm viewing a lot of this as so much hot air. It's like "Lincoln freed the slaves." It would not have happened without the work and blood of a lot of other people. It's one thing to sign a piece of paper, it's another to make it work, and there was A LOT of division even in the North about the matter. Stop casting blame or praise and solve the problems. Historians can do the former. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: Bobert Date: 13 Mar 13 - 08:55 AM Bottom line??? What is being thrown at Obama by the Republicans is the worst obstructionism the country has seen since 1860 and we all know how that turned out... The Republicans are hell bent to destroy anything they can of the US government and its economy and no matter how badly Obama wishes it weren't so he is all but powerless, regardless of what he says, to stop them from continuing to clog up the workings of the government... That is reality and anyone who sees it differently is either an Obama hater of blind... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 12 Mar 13 - 11:46 PM I think this says it all, about Obama's positionS What else can you say? gfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: GUEST,marks (on the road) Date: 12 Mar 13 - 11:02 PM Darned computer just will not save my cookie! Anyhow The National Institute of Health just awarded Brigham and Womens Hospital in Boston the sum of $ 1,500,000.00 to fund a study about why minority sexual orientation females tend to obesity. In non gov speak, that means why lesbians are fat. I always thought it was for the same reasons I tend to chub up - eating too much, but hey, what do I know. My point is there are lots more silly items out there in addition to this one - maybe enough savings to fund more school lunches? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: Songwronger Date: 12 Mar 13 - 10:11 PM The idea of the sequester came from the Obama white house. Obama has demonstrated again and again that he carries out the policies of the big banks. In this case, he is literally taking food out of the mouths of hungry children. Of course I hate Obama. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: GUEST,999 Date: 12 Mar 13 - 10:00 PM I disagree, respectfully. SW is a good man with whom I share certain views. He is intelligent, well spoken and informed. The fact he disagrees with the 'most of us' don't make him wrong. It just means he disagrees with most of us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: EBarnacle Date: 12 Mar 13 - 09:52 PM Songwronger has at least two things right--He is very right wing and he is wrong, as usual. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: Bobert Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:51 PM First of all, you just had to know that this was going to be the Wrong-man's 100th Obama hate thread here at Mudcat... But let's do a little reality here, can we??? Had the Wrong-man's Obama hating Tea Party not held our country hostage with the debt ceiling then Obama's people wouldn't have come up with such an idea of a sequester... Then, it the Wrong-man's Republicans in the Super Committee hadn't refused to negotiate then we never be where we find ourselves... So, blaming this on Obama is like blaming the indigenous people of the United States for the reservations... Wrong-man, as per usual, is wrong... Hateful??? Yeah... Good and hateful... But wrong but, hey, what else is new??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: Don Firth Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:51 PM Obama's sequester!!??? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: GUEST,999 Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:47 PM Your point is? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: pdq Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:39 PM As long as the News Media spin things the way Obama wants them to, we get spin, not facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's Sequester = Murder From: MarkS Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:34 PM How can this possibly be? Federal spending this year is still higher than last year, just not as much higher as it would have been without the sequester. |
