• Joe's Quote from hell

    From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Mon Feb 20 19:21:32 2023
    that will put to rest his 2024 campaign.

    "When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well," Biden hollered at his Senate colleagues in 1995. "I meant Medicare and Medicaid, I meant veterans’ benefits, I meant every single solitary thing in the government,"
    this entirely foreign fiscally conscious version of Biden continued. "And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time."

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Art Sackman@21:1/5 to ScottW on Mon Feb 20 20:22:06 2023
    On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 10:21:34 PM UTC-5, ScottW wrote:
    that will put to rest his 2024 campaign.

    "When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well," Biden hollered at his Senate colleagues in 1995. "I meant Medicare and Medicaid, I meant veterans’ benefits, I meant every single solitary thing in the
    government," this entirely foreign fiscally conscious version of Biden continued. "And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time."

    ScottW\\


    Unfortunately, not. It will pass by the wayside

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to Art Sackman on Mon Feb 20 20:32:50 2023
    On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 8:22:07 PM UTC-8, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 10:21:34 PM UTC-5, ScottW wrote:
    that will put to rest his 2024 campaign.

    "When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well," Biden hollered at his Senate colleagues in 1995. "I meant Medicare and Medicaid, I meant veterans’ benefits, I meant every single solitary thing in the
    government," this entirely foreign fiscally conscious version of Biden continued. "And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time."

    ScottW\\


    Unfortunately, not. It will pass by the wayside

    Nope, it will be repeated in a debate and Joe will be left speechless.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Art Sackman@21:1/5 to ScottW on Mon Feb 20 21:13:49 2023
    On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 11:32:51 PM UTC-5, ScottW wrote:
    On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 8:22:07 PM UTC-8, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 10:21:34 PM UTC-5, ScottW wrote:
    that will put to rest his 2024 campaign.

    "When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well," Biden hollered at his Senate colleagues in 1995. "I meant Medicare and Medicaid, I meant veterans’ benefits, I meant every single solitary thing in the
    government," this entirely foreign fiscally conscious version of Biden continued. "And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time."

    ScottW\\


    Unfortunately, not. It will pass by the wayside
    Nope, it will be repeated in a debate and Joe will be left speechless.

    ScottW

    It's nothing that matters with voters,
    Concentrate on what horrible things he is doing right now, not a stupid blurb he said in 1995,
    that is inconsequential and irrelevant. And anyway, what he said back then, was freeze it, not cut it
    or eliminate it. He could have been talking about something short term, idk, but ut is not relevant to
    the 2024 election.
    Reps shouldn't get sidetracked on irrelevant gotchya moments from almost 30 years ago. Its actually a distraction
    from the things that can really bring him down.

    And we have to fight for the middle, the independents dissatisfied Dems and swing voters. The 1995 blurb won't move them.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Tue Feb 21 10:05:36 2023
    On 2/20/23 9:21 PM, ScottW wrote:
    that will put to rest his 2024 campaign.

    "When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well," Biden hollered at his Senate colleagues in 1995.
    "I meant Medicare and Medicaid, I meant veterans’ benefits, I meant
    every single solitary thing in the government," this entirely foreign fiscally conscious version of Biden continued. "And I not only tried
    it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a
    fourth time."

    Then Obama offered his Grand Bargain which was refused by Republicans.
    After all that, Biden learned his lesson about negotiating over SS,
    Medicare, etc.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 21 09:19:03 2023
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:05:38 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/20/23 9:21 PM, ScottW wrote:
    that will put to rest his 2024 campaign.

    "When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well," Biden hollered at his Senate colleagues in 1995.
    "I meant Medicare and Medicaid, I meant veterans’ benefits, I meant every single solitary thing in the government," this entirely foreign fiscally conscious version of Biden continued. "And I not only tried
    it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time."
    Then Obama offered his Grand Bargain which was refused by Republicans.
    After all that, Biden learned his lesson about negotiating over SS, Medicare, etc.

    What was that? Let it go insolvent?

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Tue Feb 21 12:45:23 2023
    On 2/21/23 11:19 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:05:38 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/20/23 9:21 PM, ScottW wrote:
    that will put to rest his 2024 campaign.

    "When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social
    Security as well," Biden hollered at his Senate colleagues in 1995.
    "I meant Medicare and Medicaid, I meant veterans’ benefits, I meant
    every single solitary thing in the government," this entirely foreign
    fiscally conscious version of Biden continued. "And I not only tried
    it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a
    fourth time."
    Then Obama offered his Grand Bargain which was refused by Republicans.
    After all that, Biden learned his lesson about negotiating over SS,
    Medicare, etc.

    What was that? Let it go insolvent?

    Don't let Republicans frame the deal. And "insolvent" overstates the
    problem. Without change, SS will have to lower benefits by 20% or so to
    stay on track. Changes should be made to avoid this but making a deal to
    avoid lowering benefits by agreeing to lower benefits seems problematic.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 21 19:36:12 2023
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 10:45:26 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 11:19 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:05:38 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/20/23 9:21 PM, ScottW wrote:
    that will put to rest his 2024 campaign.

    "When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social >>> Security as well," Biden hollered at his Senate colleagues in 1995.
    "I meant Medicare and Medicaid, I meant veterans’ benefits, I meant >>> every single solitary thing in the government," this entirely foreign >>> fiscally conscious version of Biden continued. "And I not only tried
    it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a
    fourth time."
    Then Obama offered his Grand Bargain which was refused by Republicans.
    After all that, Biden learned his lesson about negotiating over SS,
    Medicare, etc.

    What was that? Let it go insolvent?
    Don't let Republicans frame the deal. And "insolvent" overstates the problem. Without change, SS will have to lower benefits by 20% or so to
    stay on track. Changes should be made to avoid this but making a deal to avoid lowering benefits by agreeing to lower benefits seems problematic.

    Republicans want cuts in other areas so SS can remain solvent but Biden
    is screaming no negotiation. Which just ignores the impending doom
    and makes solution ever more difficult with each passing year.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Wed Feb 22 08:58:01 2023
    On 2/21/23 9:36 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 10:45:26 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 11:19 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:05:38 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/20/23 9:21 PM, ScottW wrote:
    that will put to rest his 2024 campaign.

    "When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social >>>>> Security as well," Biden hollered at his Senate colleagues in 1995.
    "I meant Medicare and Medicaid, I meant veterans’ benefits, I meant >>>>> every single solitary thing in the government," this entirely foreign >>>>> fiscally conscious version of Biden continued. "And I not only tried >>>>> it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a >>>>> fourth time."
    Then Obama offered his Grand Bargain which was refused by Republicans. >>>> After all that, Biden learned his lesson about negotiating over SS,
    Medicare, etc.

    What was that? Let it go insolvent?
    Don't let Republicans frame the deal. And "insolvent" overstates the
    problem. Without change, SS will have to lower benefits by 20% or so to
    stay on track. Changes should be made to avoid this but making a deal to
    avoid lowering benefits by agreeing to lower benefits seems problematic.

    Republicans want cuts in other areas so SS can remain solvent but Biden
    is screaming no negotiation. Which just ignores the impending doom
    and makes solution ever more difficult with each passing year.

    Cuts in other areas is also bad. The only negotiation should be where
    revenue should come from. Maybe from those making over $400k?

    It makes little sense that income over, what? $160? is exempt while
    dollar one is subject to SS/Medicare withholding.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 22 09:07:28 2023
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 6:58:03 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 9:36 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 10:45:26 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 11:19 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:05:38 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/20/23 9:21 PM, ScottW wrote:
    that will put to rest his 2024 campaign.

    "When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social >>>>> Security as well," Biden hollered at his Senate colleagues in 1995. >>>>> "I meant Medicare and Medicaid, I meant veterans’ benefits, I meant >>>>> every single solitary thing in the government," this entirely foreign >>>>> fiscally conscious version of Biden continued. "And I not only tried >>>>> it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a >>>>> fourth time."
    Then Obama offered his Grand Bargain which was refused by Republicans. >>>> After all that, Biden learned his lesson about negotiating over SS, >>>> Medicare, etc.

    What was that? Let it go insolvent?
    Don't let Republicans frame the deal. And "insolvent" overstates the
    problem. Without change, SS will have to lower benefits by 20% or so to >> stay on track. Changes should be made to avoid this but making a deal to >> avoid lowering benefits by agreeing to lower benefits seems problematic.

    Republicans want cuts in other areas so SS can remain solvent but Biden
    is screaming no negotiation. Which just ignores the impending doom
    and makes solution ever more difficult with each passing year.
    Cuts in other areas is also bad. The only negotiation should be where revenue should come from. Maybe from those making over $400k?

    and now you just went where Joe says you can't go and slanders anyone
    who tries. Welcome to the dark side.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Wed Feb 22 12:08:38 2023
    On 2/22/23 11:07 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 6:58:03 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 9:36 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 10:45:26 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 11:19 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:05:38 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/20/23 9:21 PM, ScottW wrote:
    that will put to rest his 2024 campaign.

    "When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social >>>>>>> Security as well," Biden hollered at his Senate colleagues in 1995. >>>>>>> "I meant Medicare and Medicaid, I meant veterans’ benefits, I meant >>>>>>> every single solitary thing in the government," this entirely foreign >>>>>>> fiscally conscious version of Biden continued. "And I not only tried >>>>>>> it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a >>>>>>> fourth time."
    Then Obama offered his Grand Bargain which was refused by Republicans. >>>>>> After all that, Biden learned his lesson about negotiating over SS, >>>>>> Medicare, etc.

    What was that? Let it go insolvent?
    Don't let Republicans frame the deal. And "insolvent" overstates the
    problem. Without change, SS will have to lower benefits by 20% or so to >>>> stay on track. Changes should be made to avoid this but making a deal to >>>> avoid lowering benefits by agreeing to lower benefits seems problematic. >>>
    Republicans want cuts in other areas so SS can remain solvent but Biden
    is screaming no negotiation. Which just ignores the impending doom
    and makes solution ever more difficult with each passing year.
    Cuts in other areas is also bad. The only negotiation should be where
    revenue should come from. Maybe from those making over $400k?

    and now you just went where Joe says you can't go and slanders anyone
    who tries. Welcome to the dark side.

    The Republicans are welcome to make a proposal. So far, they haven't
    offered anything to negotiate on.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Art Sackman@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 22 21:11:30 2023
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 1:08:40 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 11:07 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 6:58:03 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 9:36 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 10:45:26 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 11:19 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:05:38 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 2/20/23 9:21 PM, ScottW wrote:
    that will put to rest his 2024 campaign.

    "When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social
    Security as well," Biden hollered at his Senate colleagues in 1995. >>>>>>> "I meant Medicare and Medicaid, I meant veterans’ benefits, I meant
    every single solitary thing in the government," this entirely foreign
    fiscally conscious version of Biden continued. "And I not only tried >>>>>>> it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a >>>>>>> fourth time."
    Then Obama offered his Grand Bargain which was refused by Republicans.
    After all that, Biden learned his lesson about negotiating over SS, >>>>>> Medicare, etc.

    What was that? Let it go insolvent?
    Don't let Republicans frame the deal. And "insolvent" overstates the >>>> problem. Without change, SS will have to lower benefits by 20% or so to >>>> stay on track. Changes should be made to avoid this but making a deal to
    avoid lowering benefits by agreeing to lower benefits seems problematic.

    Republicans want cuts in other areas so SS can remain solvent but Biden >>> is screaming no negotiation. Which just ignores the impending doom
    and makes solution ever more difficult with each passing year.
    Cuts in other areas is also bad. The only negotiation should be where
    revenue should come from. Maybe from those making over $400k?

    and now you just went where Joe says you can't go and slanders anyone
    who tries. Welcome to the dark side.
    The Republicans are welcome to make a proposal. So far, they haven't
    offered anything to negotiate on.

    Bifurcate the fund. Half as it is for everyone, the other half to allow for private investment options, on a voluntary basis.
    If you like your current plan, you get to keep your current plan.100% of it If you want
    to try and do better, you can go 50/50 and opt for opportunity for 50% of your plan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to Art Sackman on Thu Feb 23 09:39:34 2023
    On 2/22/23 11:11 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 1:08:40 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:

    The Republicans are welcome to make a proposal. So far, they
    haven't offered anything to negotiate on.

    Bifurcate the fund. Half as it is for everyone, the other half to
    allow for private investment options, on a voluntary basis. If you
    like your current plan, you get to keep your current plan.100% of it
    If you want to try and do better, you can go 50/50 and opt for
    opportunity for 50% of your plan

    Yes, that's a proposal. What happens when the next recession hits and we
    have to bail out the 50% playing the market?

    And the business interests who see the SS fund as an untapped source of management and investment fees won't settle for half.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Art Sackman@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 23 15:42:58 2023
    On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:39:36 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 11:11 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 1:08:40 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:

    The Republicans are welcome to make a proposal. So far, they
    haven't offered anything to negotiate on.

    Bifurcate the fund. Half as it is for everyone, the other half to
    allow for private investment options, on a voluntary basis. If you
    like your current plan, you get to keep your current plan.100% of it
    If you want to try and do better, you can go 50/50 and opt for
    opportunity for 50% of your plan
    Yes, that's a proposal. What happens when the next recession hits and we have to bail out the 50% playing the market?

    And the business interests who see the SS fund as an untapped source of management and investment fees won't settle for half.

    "The year-over-year growth rate for private investments (6.38% average real returns on investments in the S&P 500 between 1984-2014) was much higher than the return gained by retired workers in the current Social Security program (between 2.67% and 3.91%
    return on the contributions made by a medium income, two-earner couple as of Dec. 2014)."
    from Britannica ProCon

    Its a long term investment accumulated over 25 or more years.
    The accumulated increase in investment value will be greater than a temporary recessionary dip.

    Right now business interests are settling for zero
    and the government can control which firms will admiinster that part of the program.
    here is my view: options can be held to about twelve different investment funds of varying focus.
    Tha participant can be limited in putting more thna 20% of the private portion to any one fund.
    Investment diversification will be required,

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 23 17:02:45 2023
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:08:40 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 11:07 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 6:58:03 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 9:36 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 10:45:26 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 11:19 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:05:38 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 2/20/23 9:21 PM, ScottW wrote:
    that will put to rest his 2024 campaign.

    "When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social
    Security as well," Biden hollered at his Senate colleagues in 1995. >>>>>>> "I meant Medicare and Medicaid, I meant veterans’ benefits, I meant
    every single solitary thing in the government," this entirely foreign
    fiscally conscious version of Biden continued. "And I not only tried >>>>>>> it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a >>>>>>> fourth time."
    Then Obama offered his Grand Bargain which was refused by Republicans.
    After all that, Biden learned his lesson about negotiating over SS, >>>>>> Medicare, etc.

    What was that? Let it go insolvent?
    Don't let Republicans frame the deal. And "insolvent" overstates the >>>> problem. Without change, SS will have to lower benefits by 20% or so to >>>> stay on track. Changes should be made to avoid this but making a deal to
    avoid lowering benefits by agreeing to lower benefits seems problematic.

    Republicans want cuts in other areas so SS can remain solvent but Biden >>> is screaming no negotiation. Which just ignores the impending doom
    and makes solution ever more difficult with each passing year.
    Cuts in other areas is also bad. The only negotiation should be where
    revenue should come from. Maybe from those making over $400k?

    and now you just went where Joe says you can't go and slanders anyone
    who tries. Welcome to the dark side.
    The Republicans are welcome to make a proposal.

    Exactly how does demands for "no negotiation"
    welcome a proposal?

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to Art Sackman on Fri Feb 24 09:15:06 2023
    On 2/23/23 5:42 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:39:36 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 11:11 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 1:08:40 PM UTC-5, mINE109
    wrote:

    The Republicans are welcome to make a proposal. So far, they
    haven't offered anything to negotiate on.

    Bifurcate the fund. Half as it is for everyone, the other half
    to allow for private investment options, on a voluntary basis. If
    you like your current plan, you get to keep your current
    plan.100% of it If you want to try and do better, you can go
    50/50 and opt for opportunity for 50% of your plan
    Yes, that's a proposal. What happens when the next recession hits
    and we have to bail out the 50% playing the market?

    And the business interests who see the SS fund as an untapped
    source of management and investment fees won't settle for half.

    "The year-over-year growth rate for private investments (6.38%
    average real returns on investments in the S&P 500 between 1984-2014)
    was much higher than the return gained by retired workers in the
    current Social Security program (between 2.67% and 3.91% return on
    the contributions made by a medium income, two-earner couple as of
    Dec. 2014)." from Britannica ProCon

    Its a long term investment accumulated over 25 or more years. The
    accumulated increase in investment value will be greater than a
    temporary recessionary dip.

    Unless it's not. What if you retired in the Great Recession? You put
    retirement at the mercy of the market.

    Right now business interests are settling for zero and the
    government can control which firms will admiinster that part of the
    program. here is my view: options can be held to about twelve
    different investment funds of varying focus. Tha participant can be
    limited in putting more thna 20% of the private portion to any one
    fund. Investment diversification will be required,

    All backed by the government should things go wrong.

    The biggest problem is Social Security depends on the current method of
    funding to pay for future outlays already committed. Diverting half or
    all of that income to private will endanger that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Fri Feb 24 09:28:54 2023
    On 2/23/23 7:02 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:08:40 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

    The Republicans are welcome to make a proposal.

    Exactly how does demands for "no negotiation"
    welcome a proposal?

    They have the House. Propose away!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 25 09:37:20 2023
    On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 7:28:57 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/23/23 7:02 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:08:40 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

    The Republicans are welcome to make a proposal.

    Exactly how does demands for "no negotiation"
    welcome a proposal?
    They have the House. Propose away!

    I expect they will....and dems will scream...."No negotiation".
    And the situation will only get ever more dire.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sat Feb 25 12:47:08 2023
    On 2/25/23 11:37 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 7:28:57 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/23/23 7:02 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:08:40 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

    The Republicans are welcome to make a proposal.

    Exactly how does demands for "no negotiation"
    welcome a proposal?
    They have the House. Propose away!

    I expect they will....and dems will scream...."No negotiation".
    And the situation will only get ever more dire.

    "Scream"? Maybe you should put your skepticism towards modeling to work
    here on the CBO. Do you think life spans will continue to increase
    despite the recent downward trend? Will health care continue rise at yesterday's rates?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)