Really, guys, I'm trying to get on-board with Obama, but...

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:52:51 -0800 (PST), "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:

ha!! you must be a racist...he, he, he......

comrade hussein is a clown...

No, he isn't...either of the above. He has his faults (and I think he has his
fair share), but he is neither a "comrade" nor a clown, either in his personal
life or as President, and calling him such doesn't help the situation one little
bit. Reasonable, debatable (or arguable, if one prefers) criticism is one
thing, silly-assed ad hominem attacks are another. From what little of your
posting I've read, you're only capable of the latter...

Don't really give a **** if this helps,
R






On Nov 1, 5:27*am, wrote:
I mean, I don't hate the guy, or even dislike him, esp. personally, but really -
where is the change, the hope, yada-yada-yada...? *It's still the same ol'
bull****...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...per-stimulus-j...

If anyone can, please explain/defend how 160 billion divided by 1 million equals
160 thousand is "calculator abuse." *They even gave them their own numbers -
well, they gave them the inflated numbers above what they originally said the
number - a very precise 640,329 - was, and didn't hold them to the other
800-plus billion to which they pointed (and who the hell knows what of that has
been spent as opposed to proposed/budgeted/etc.).

IAC, even if the admin's unabused calculator is the one to use, please
explain/defend how it is good economics to spend even 90-something thousand
dollars so a waitress can keep a job - the admin's own example - that doesn't
pay anywhere near per annum what it cost the US taxpayer for her to keep. *And
which likely has very limited benefits, such as health care, which will wind up
costing even more in tax dollars. *

I understand that it isn't a direct route from dollars spent to X number of
annual paychecks, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere near even the 640
thousand jobs created OR saved, either. *It's like the whole Cash for Clunkers
fiasco - when an apparently apolitical Edmunds ran the numbers and got 24K per
sale, the administration went bat**** and made all sorts of stammering defenses
- again, same ol', same ol' - IOW, "our **** don't stink like the OTHER guy's
does...."

And they've (...to be sure, Congress, of all flavor, has had its trotter in on
this. too...) used, what, nearly a trillion, close to the increase in deficit,
to get about 425 billion in GDP growth. *And supposedly, all of this because
some sub-prime mortgages went, as they were destined to do, into the crapper?
Er, no.

Sheesh,
R

Don't really give a **** if this helps,



same here.......