Sounds like someone we all know

[GIMNEPIWO]

What was it P T Barnum said......

Something about a sucker and how often they are hatched????

He also said you'll never go broke underestimating the taste of the American public.

For coolstuff and carolina: have you considered that Obama has already committed to spending more additional money over the next 9 years than was spent, in inflation-adjusted dollars, on WWII, the Louisiana Purchase, the Vietnam War, both wars on Iraq, the New Deal, and the Marshall Plan, combined?

The preposterously huge bailout/stimulus plan has, by the administration's own admission, already done about as much as it's going to do. Is the country doing well? Was that smart, in retrospect? Are you comforted by the fact that the government can't even adequately account for how over 300 billion of that money was used?

These guys are spending us into oblivion, trashing the constitution and the concept of limited government that it embodies, and putting us more and more under the government's thumb in the process. (See Barney Frank's recent quote: "We are trying to expand government involvement on all fronts."). The spending is unsustainable even before you factor in all of the additional spending that Obama proposes. The impositions on liberty are unconscionable.

But hey, if it feels good, do it. In this country even the ignorant and delusional get a vote.

Wasn't the first round of 'bailout' money already passed out and spent without the recipients being held accountable for how or where they put that money to use prior to Obama taking office ?.... I may be wrong ... please correct me ...
Several local banks in VA refused bailout money, chosing to find local investors instead .... so far-so good ...

[Dugout Dad]

What was it P T Barnum said......

Something about a sucker and how often they are hatched????

He also said you'll never go broke underestimating the taste of the American public.

For coolstuff and carolina: have you considered that Obama has already committed to spending more additional money over the next 9 years than was spent, in inflation-adjusted dollars, on WWII, the Louisiana Purchase, the Vietnam War, both wars on Iraq, the New Deal, and the Marshall Plan, combined?

The preposterously huge bailout/stimulus plan has, by the administration's own admission, already done about as much as it's going to do. Is the country doing well? Was that smart, in retrospect? Are you comforted by the fact that the government can't even adequately account for how over 300 billion of that money was used?

These guys are spending us into oblivion, trashing the constitution and the concept of limited government that it embodies, and putting us more and more under the government's thumb in the process. (See Barney Frank's recent quote: "We are trying to expand government involvement on all fronts."). The spending is unsustainable even before you factor in all of the additional spending that Obama proposes. The impositions on liberty are unconscionable.

But hey, if it feels good, do it. In this country even the ignorant and delusional get a vote.

Wasn't the first round of 'bailout' money already passed out and spent without the recipients being held accountable for how or where they put that money to use prior to Obama taking office ?.... I may be wrong ... please correct me ...
Several local banks in VA refused bailout money, chosing to find local investors instead .... so far-so good ...

The whole concept of bailout by the government is flat out wrong. A bankruptcy is not terminal. Many successful companies have suffered bankruptcies, H.J. Heinz creditors forced him into bankruptcy; Walt Disney suffered through a bankruptcy along with a nervous breakdown and Milton Hershey went bankrupt before he dominated the chocolate industry, and they survived! "Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell" Frank Borman, chairman of Eastern Airlines said this, but Eastern Airlines didn't survive.

[Skarp]

Wasn't the first round of 'bailout' money already passed out and spent without the recipients being held accountable for how or where they put that money to use prior to Obama taking office ?.... I may be wrong ... please correct me ...
Several local banks in VA refused bailout money, chosing to find local investors instead .... so far-so good ...

Yes, TARP was passed under Bush, and large distributions were made while he was still in office (although they pale in comparison to Obama's largesse). Real conservatives had a problem with that too.

Anyone with a brain would refuse government money these days, because Obama has perverted the initial intent of the funds (which was to purchase so-called "toxic assets," in Obama's words) into a license to take equity positions in private firms in order to control them.

Oh, as an aside, a recent report showed that average profit margins for the 1300+ insurance companies in this country is just over 3%, with the really big ones making even less. If I remember correctly, you've made reference to insurance company profits and supposedly rampant bad conduct in pursuit of those profits. Could you survive in your business on a 3% return? Would you invest in a business that promised 3% returns?

[Dugout Dad]

barack has tied George in one area...............
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0910/obama_ties_bush_on_golf.html

Maybe the Masters can "award" him a Green Jacket without earning it.

[GIMNEPIWO]

Wasn't the first round of 'bailout' money already passed out and spent without the recipients being held accountable for how or where they put that money to use prior to Obama taking office ?.... I may be wrong ... please correct me ...
Several local banks in VA refused bailout money, chosing to find local investors instead .... so far-so good ...

Yes, TARP was passed under Bush, and large distributions were made while he was still in office (although they pale in comparison to Obama's largesse). Real conservatives had a problem with that too.

Anyone with a brain would refuse government money these days, because Obama has perverted the initial intent of the funds (which was to purchase so-called "toxic assets," in Obama's words) into a license to take equity positions in private firms in order to control them.

Oh, as an aside, a recent report showed that average profit margins for the 1300+ insurance companies in this country is just over 3%, with the really big ones making even less. If I remember correctly, you've made reference to insurance company profits and supposedly rampant bad conduct in pursuit of those profits. Could you survive in your business on a 3% return? Would you invest in a business that promised 3% returns?

Well ... I may have made a statement like that ... my problem is that I don't listen to anything I say or believe what anyone else says ... but profits are directly related to expenditures ... so, if bonuses, salaries, junkets, deep sea fishing and business lunches at Hooters are deducted ... any business can show whatever profit ... granted, publicly held companies have more watch dogs ... but we would all be hard pressed to justify some of the crapola cruncheez that they are dusting our corn flakes with ...

[Skarp]

Wasn't the first round of 'bailout' money already passed out and spent without the recipients being held accountable for how or where they put that money to use prior to Obama taking office ?.... I may be wrong ... please correct me ...
Several local banks in VA refused bailout money, chosing to find local investors instead .... so far-so good ...

Yes, TARP was passed under Bush, and large distributions were made while he was still in office (although they pale in comparison to Obama's largesse). Real conservatives had a problem with that too.

Anyone with a brain would refuse government money these days, because Obama has perverted the initial intent of the funds (which was to purchase so-called "toxic assets," in Obama's words) into a license to take equity positions in private firms in order to control them.

Oh, as an aside, a recent report showed that average profit margins for the 1300+ insurance companies in this country is just over 3%, with the really big ones making even less. If I remember correctly, you've made reference to insurance company profits and supposedly rampant bad conduct in pursuit of those profits. Could you survive in your business on a 3% return? Would you invest in a business that promised 3% returns?

Well ... I may have made a statement like that ... my problem is that I don't listen to anything I say or believe what anyone else says ... but profits are directly related to expenditures ... so, if bonuses, salaries, junkets, deep sea fishing and business lunches at Hooters are deducted ... any business can show whatever profit ... granted, publicly held companies have more watch dogs ... but we would all be hard pressed to justify some of the crapola cruncheez that they are dusting our corn flakes with ...

Assuming that the items you mention could materially impact the bottom line of a multi-billion dollar company, if the shareholders of these companies are okay with them, that's their business. Or do you disagree with that?

As for companies declining to cover insured procedures, I have yet to see any statistics that show that such is a regular industry practice. All I've heard are biased anecdotes. And I personally know for a fact that insurance companies take denial and rescission decisions extremely seriously, because unjustified denial or rescission exposes them to massive liability. Where plaintiffs have even a colorable claim, the companies typically elect to settle rather than defend, so they want to make sure that their decisions will be legal slam-dunks (and thus cheap to defend) if challenged. It's a BIG deal in the industry.

Bottom line: the "big profits" line used by the administration and others is a bunch of hooey, and so is the claim that insurance companies are bad actors rampantly denying coverage. Big insurance companies are just foils for the massive governmental power grab currently underway, just like any number of other industries have been foils for prior power grabs.

[GIMNEPIWO]

Wasn't the first round of 'bailout' money already passed out and spent without the recipients being held accountable for how or where they put that money to use prior to Obama taking office ?.... I may be wrong ... please correct me ...
Several local banks in VA refused bailout money, chosing to find local investors instead .... so far-so good ...

Yes, TARP was passed under Bush, and large distributions were made while he was still in office (although they pale in comparison to Obama's largesse). Real conservatives had a problem with that too.

Anyone with a brain would refuse government money these days, because Obama has perverted the initial intent of the funds (which was to purchase so-called "toxic assets," in Obama's words) into a license to take equity positions in private firms in order to control them.

Oh, as an aside, a recent report showed that average profit margins for the 1300+ insurance companies in this country is just over 3%, with the really big ones making even less. If I remember correctly, you've made reference to insurance company profits and supposedly rampant bad conduct in pursuit of those profits. Could you survive in your business on a 3% return? Would you invest in a business that promised 3% returns?

Well ... I may have made a statement like that ... my problem is that I don't listen to anything I say or believe what anyone else says ... but profits are directly related to expenditures ... so, if bonuses, salaries, junkets, deep sea fishing and business lunches at Hooters are deducted ... any business can show whatever profit ... granted, publicly held companies have more watch dogs ... but we would all be hard pressed to justify some of the crapola cruncheez that they are dusting our corn flakes with ...

Assuming that the items you mention could materially impact the bottom line of a multi-billion dollar company, if the shareholders of these companies are okay with them, that's their business. Or do you disagree with that?

As for companies declining to cover insured procedures, I have yet to see any statistics that show that such is a regular industry practice. All I've heard are biased anecdotes. And I personally know for a fact that insurance companies take denial and rescission decisions extremely seriously, because unjustified denial or rescission exposes them to massive liability. Where plaintiffs have even a colorable claim, the companies typically elect to settle rather than defend, so they want to make sure that their decisions will be legal slam-dunks (and thus cheap to defend) if challenged. It's a BIG deal in the industry.

Bottom line: the "big profits" line used by the administration and others is a bunch of hooey, and so is the claim that insurance companies are bad actors rampantly denying coverage. Big insurance companies are just foils for the massive governmental power grab currently underway, just like any number of other industries have been foils for prior power grabs.

Well ... sorry ... more anectdotes ... small lawn care guy takes a customer out to the go go bar every day ... it efffects his bottom line ... Slightly larger company takes their clients deep sea fishing once a month ... bigger company has their quarterly meetings in Vegas ... same stuff, different level ...

Isn't settling what companies do as a business decision ?... If we settle it will cost us 1x and no one will notice ... If we fight it it will cost us 2x and the media will pick up on it .... AND, of course, the lawyers would not recomend anything that could possibly be good for their pockets.... because they are in that "soul sucking" ( ) job because they love their clients ...

[GSB]

With all the spending Obama has been doing (more then every President of the United States combined in only 10 months), the printing presses have overheated and green ink has become a rare commodity. In an effort to reduce the amount of green ink used, the $100 dollar bill will now look like this.

[GIMNEPIWO]

Interesting GSB ... I think when Dubya took office the National Debt was 5.7 trillion ... under his watchful eye it grew to around 10 trillion ... built into the Dubya's bailout plan the ceiling was raised to 11.3 trillion which it has now surpassed to 11.8, I think ... I am not saying money is being spent wisely now ... & Obama may be digging us a bigger hole ... but you can't blame your $35,000 + or - share of the national debt on his administration .... yet

[coolstuff]

lol. Okay professor, when was the last time the government "slowed down spending" during times of plenty in any appreciable way? And which other capitalist countries ran up huge national debts and then paid them back down? The countries you speak of (that you must be speaking of, because there aren't any others) are all now essentially socialist democracies, with high debt and the endemic economic problems present in all socialist states. Be mindful of your history my friend.

Deficit spending is healthy, to a point, when debt isn't already roughly equivalent to the entire GDP, and when debt plus unfunded obligations isn't already equal to 5-7 times GDP. Continuing to run up deficits--especially record-setting deficits--under those circumstances is idiotic in the extreme.

If Obama plans to slow down spending when better times return, he must be expecting a hell of a protracted recession...because his spending policies, mostly in the form of entrenched entitlement programs, seek to put us on the hook for record budgets and record deficits for the indefinite future.

Well, the Republican slowed down spending, didn't they? Or not? I can't keep track. Anyway, tax revenues will rebound soon, stimulus spending will stop (which is what I meant). And your warning call about deficits into infinity has been said before, everytime the govt. ran up the debt. It's an old song and God bless the American economy just keeps rolling along, and we're still the wealthiest country on the planet. Yet we still whine about how "bad" we have it...

Funny you should try to categorize European countries as strictly socialist. They certainly lean that way, but have a lot of capitialism in 'em too. Just as American leans towards capitalism, but still has a lot of socialism in our system, some of which you might complain about if it ever went away.

You know, the American people aren't as dumb as everyone thinks. We don't like it when one party controls the White House and Congress, or when one party throws its weight around in either arena. I predict that the Republicans will take control of Congress during Obama's presidency, Obama will be elected for one more term, then a Republican will be elected to the White House. Sometimes I think the whole thing is rigged to turn out that way....