Official Stop OBAMA Express!!!

 

self appointed PROFESSOR . . . . as pointed out some time ago, no other Italian American has reached her political heights. She was once third in line for the Presidency. She will be again soon enough as well.  

So a lot of it is tribal, i'll grant that.

I also have yet to find a position on which we wildly disagree, and i feel she fights for the average working person much more than other politicians.

  You are being SOOO Racist in that comment. The ONLY reason you are giving my comment hell is because of her ethnicity?

  I have seen ignorant White people,  ignorant Black people,  ignorant Hispanic people and ignorant Italian people, the race does not put one above the other. Some of Nancy's comments as Obama was shoving the Health Care down our throats was just that, IGNORANT. "We have to pass the Bill so you can find out what is in it". That was one of the Dumbest pollitical staterments in recent history. 

Hey TS how's it going?  I hope you and your's had a very Merry Christmas and have a safe and Happy New Year.  Take care my friend and keep the radicals on these boards in line for  me. 

Hey TS how's it going?  I hope you and your's had a very Merry Christmas and have a safe and Happy New Year.  Take care my friend and keep the radicals on these boards in line for  me. 

Been well! Thanks!

I think we are entering a new era of civil discussion here...I have hope!

Be good and see you on the NASCAR board!

as pointed out some time ago, no other Italian American has reached her political heights.

Oh, so it's because she is both Italian-American and a former Speaker of the House. 

She was once third in line for the Presidency. She will be again soon enough as well.  

I hope not.  Imo, she was one of the biggest problems in our govt in the past 4 years.

well that is your opinion and you are entiltled to it.
I read it a different way.

Ok.

I'm sure UFDon can speak for hinself.

What on earth has he said that would give you that indication?

LOL.

Imo, she was one of the biggest problems in our govt in the past 4 years.

how, nathan?  As a speaker, she got legislation passed that her party wanted.  You might think some of the legislation was bad but she certainly did her job for her party.  What the hell has Boehner done during his time.  He cannot get his own caucus to follow him.

how, nathan?  As a speaker, she got legislation passed that her party wanted. 

Uh, sort of.  She got a stimulus passed, just not the one Obama wanted.  She got HC passed, in the House anyhow, where she had more than enough votes, and had to give up all kinds of crap to even get that.

You might think some of the legislation was bad but she certainly did her job for her party.  What the hell has Boehner done during his time.  He cannot get his own caucus to follow him.

LOL, that's the standard we want to use?

Sure, I'll give you that.  She did a better job than John Boehner.

So she's got that going for her.

She got a stimulus passed, just not the one Obama wanted.  She got HC passed, in the House anyhow, where she had more than enough votes, and had to give up all kinds of crap to even get that. 

Here we go with nathan's non-arguments.  She passed legislation in the last 4 years.  Boehner has failed over and over.  And nathan thinks that Pelosi is the worst problem in the last 4 years.  Not McConnell, not Boehner, not the current GOP-controlled House, not McCain, not any other Senator or Representative.

nathan says Pelosi and he will beat this issue to death.

nathan says Pelosi and he will beat this issue to death


Yes, beat it he will do.

Oh my, a Stealth Bomber just flew over the Rose Bowl.  Where there be goose-step'n later?

Here we go with nathan's non-arguments.

Ironically you follow this with lot's of non-arguments.

She passed legislation in the last 4 years.

Your powers of perception are beyond reproach, capt obvious.

 Boehner has failed over and over.

Which has nothing to do with Pelosi's performace as majority leader.

And nathan thinks that Pelosi is the worst problem in the last 4 years.

You shouldn't lie so much, you aren't even any good at it.

Imo, she was one of the biggest problems in our govt in the past 4 years.

Not McConnell, not Boehner, not the current GOP-controlled House, not McCain, not any other Senator or Representative.

nathan says Pelosi and he will beat this issue to death.

One day you'll get it right.  Or maybe not.

Which has nothing to do with Pelosi's performace as majority leader.

And nathan thinks that Pelosi is the worst problem in the last 4 years.

You shouldn't lie so much, you aren't even any good at it.

So Ive got this million dollar idea...

So if you made paper targets with Pelosi's face but paint her eyes black or something and sell them as "zombie targets"  right wingers would buy them by the gross. 

So if you made paper targets with Pelosi's face but paint her eyes black or something and sell them as "zombie targets"  right wingers would buy them by the gross.

maybe - but today's doomsday prepper uses simple software to print their own targets. add her face to the database to increase sales of the program :)

Any doomsday prepper worth their salt knows to stay off the grid, man.

lol. using that as a astandard, i'd have to say that most preppers are not worth their salt. :)

a astandard. nice.

Since we will start talking about cuts to entitlements, here are some suggestions.

On Medicare/Medicaid, I would look at reimbursements to health care medical equipment suppliers.  The number of commercials on scooters, diabetic supplies, catheters and other equipment says that these are lucrative issues.  We have cut reimbursements for Medicare Advantage.  Now we should look at these reimbursements for equipment.  Raising the eligibility age just shifts health care costs onto seniors who would have to pay for expensive plans.  Raising Medicare premiums based on income would bring savings.  A raise in the Medicare tax should also be looked at.  Specific areas should be looked at for cuts and not do sweeping cuts on everything.

On SS (which is solvent), we have talked about income based eligibility and eliminating the wage limit for taxing.  I believe that would be enough fixes.  Let's get a CBO report on those changes before trying to reduce benefits or another method to save for retirement.  People already have many options for saving for retirement.  The Social Security program is a safety net for those who were not lucky enough to set up their own retirement plan.  We had seniors living on the streets and not enough charities to help them.  The SS program was set up because the private sector could not handle the problem.

Any savings in entitlements should be, at least, matched by military cuts.  Congress has continues to add military toys for their districts that the military has not asked for.  Let's start there.

We still need more revenues and every lobbyist's loophole should be looked at and eliminated where needed.  Capital gains should be treated as income.  I do not know that, after last night's vote, we can still do that but it should be looked at.

Any savings in entitlements should be, at least, matched by military cuts. 

While I agree there is lot's of room for cuts in the military budget, demanding a dollar-for-dollar (or even more) ratio on cuts from the military budget and entitlements might be a good bit more than could be hoped for.  

Medicare and SS are each as large as our military budget (a little bit bigger even), so that you are asking for 1:1 ratio on cuts, when the pool from which the money will be cut is more like 2:1, entitlements:military.

Medicare and SS are each as large as our military budget (a little bit bigger even), so that you are asking for 1:1 ratio on cuts, when the pool from which the money will be cut is more like 2:1, entitlements:military.


Block grant SS and Medicare to the states, let them deal with it.  The feds always puck these things up, it's just too big to manage.

Block grant SS and Medicare to the states, let them deal with it.

ru, I cannot agree.  SS/Medicare are national programs that provide benefits to every citizen regardless of where they live.  The adminstrative costs are around 3%.  Setting up 50 SS/Medicare admins will definitely increase those costs.  Besides, we know some states hate the lower income people.  Just as we could not rely on states to handle the civil rights of blacks, we cannot rely on states to handle other civil rights.

ru, I cannot agree.  SS/Medicare are national programs that provide benefits to every citizen regardless of where they live.  The adminstrative costs are around 3%.  Setting up 50 SS/Medicare admins will definitely increase those costs.  Besides, we know some states hate the lower income people.  Just as we could not rely on states to handle the civil rights of blacks, we cannot rely on states to handle other civil rights.

I agree 100% on Civil Rights as it is guarenteed by the Constitution (as it should be).  However, I don't see the feds managing their way out of this SS/Medicare problem.  I do see it going belly-up in a couple decades.  I could be wrong.....in fact I hope I am (I know they'll never give it up to the states anyway).  

demanding a dollar-for-dollar (or even more) ratio on cuts from the military budget and entitlements might be a good bit more than could be hoped for. 

nathan, nathan, always there to argue.  Most people look at our military spending in comparison to other countries and say that we spend way too much.  We generally think that we only need halve that spending by making "allies" pay more.  Many of us think that there are too many military toys.  Many of us believe that cutting military spending by cutting waste should be done.  SS and Healthcare has waste that can be cut but there is a limit to those cuts before you start hurting people.

Sorry, I see more waste in Military than in SS/Medicare.

Sorry, I see more waste in Military than in SS/Medicare

And it ain't even close.  

Sorry, I see more waste in Military than in SS/Medicare.

Not only that that but the increases in military spending over the last 12 years (300%) far exceeds any increses in the so-called "entitlements" which taxpayers pay into.

Sorry, I see more waste in Military than in SS/Medicare.

Before my grandmother passed she was in and out of the hospital seemingly every week.  And when I would come in to see visit I always thought it odd that the doctor (not a nurse) would pop his head in and say;

 Miss Twisteds granny....how are you feeling? 

Oh Im fine thank you. 

Until I saw the paperwork that she needed to submit to the gubment and found out every single one of those was billed to medicare at $1000 a pop. 




Now that should be corrected.

nathan, nathan, always there to argue.

Yeah, that's it - and you're just here to make friends, LOL.

Most people look at our military spending in comparison to other countries and say that we spend way too much. 

Nothing I said is counter to this.  I very much agree that we spend too much.  Of course, that has nothing to do with your demand of dollar-for-dollar cuts from military and entitlement spending.

We generally think that we only need halve that spending by making "allies" pay more.  Many of us think that there are too many military toys.  Many of us believe that cutting military spending by cutting waste should be done.  SS and Healthcare has waste that can be cut but there is a limit to those cuts before you start hurting people.

So I'm waiting for you to make a relevant point.  None of this has anything to do with your point that there should be 1:1 cuts from military:entitlements, nor my response that this is likely a bit too much to hope for.

Sorry, I see more waste in Military than in SS/Medicare.

I'm sure you've really poured over the numbers, and aren't just talking in vague generalities.

While I agree there is lot's of room for cuts in the military budget, demanding a dollar-for-dollar (or even more) ratio on cuts from the military budget and entitlements might be a good bit more than could be hoped for. 

Depending on which so called entitlements you are talking about.  The payroll tax will put off SS endangerment for a long long time--even Paul Ryan voted for the fiscal cliff bill as it now stands--which must mean he realizes that his BS voucher system wan't going to be bought by the American public.  So there are some entitlements that have no reason to be touched.  
 
I truly believe that Republicans by and large do not trust nor for the most part do they emprace our computer age especially when it comes to using computers to be able to ferret out needless waste for any type of entitlement.  I'm convinced they all believe that computer programming is run/manipulated by liberals and therefore cannot be trusted to give viable results to/for our government to provide significant cost cuts for all government programs. 

Case in point---medicare/medicaide--Case iin point, the current administration has used computers to save or eliminate around 700 billiion in savings/waste for this very program--medicare/medicaide.  And yet some Republicans won't be happy unless both programs are eliminated.  And this is just the tip of the iceberg.  More can probably be restructured in both programs to again shrink costs, but if the only thing Republicans want is to eliminate the program---ain't gonna happen. 

Now that we have found out that drones can be effective (and again I don't believe most Republicans have bought into this),  do we need the "standing active duty" numbers that we have? 

How many issues that congress votes on/approves/disapproves, have riders attached that add billions to the budget?  Wouldn't it be wise to filter all that BS through a computer program to avoid all that unnecessary spending?  Whether it's dollar for dollar cuts or a differeent ratio, I would think we would be advised, as a nation, to "electronically (with programs), to review what waste and riders we can and should eliminate BEFORE we start cutting. 

I have nothing against cuts but let's go on record to eliminate waste first.  Get that on the books and then talk about cuts.         

Nathan, are you really arguing that john boner has been an effective speaker?  Or that he has been as successful as San Fran Nan?  

I hope not because...well that would just be silly. 

Nathan, are you really arguing that john boner has been an effective speaker?

What?  Are you really going to argue that I am? 

Not once have I posted a single complimentary thing about Boehner.

But maybe you can tell me what he has to do with how well Pelosi did her job as speaker...

Or that he has been as successful as San Fran Nan?  

I think they were both woefully unsuccessful as speaker.

What?  Are you really going to argue that I am?  

I think they were both woefully unsuccessful as speaker.Not once have I posted a single complimentary thing about Boehner.

But maybe you can tell me what he has to do with how well Pelosi did her job as speaker...

Ok, so what's this thing you've got going with bb about boner?

I wouldn't say that he has anything to do with pelosi.  Why would I?


I think you just like to argue.   

I think they were both woefully unsuccessful as speaker.

Not really a matter of opinion but, whatever.   You may not like the legislation she passed but she did get it passed.  Her party's agenda was pushed through with the neccessary compromises.