US Health Care Plan

by **jackspratt** » April 25, 2010, 9:11 pm

Interestingly I have googled "bobo", and it comes up (in the first 5 or 6 pages at least) without any reference to "Obama", "cut", "scrape" or "accident".

Same same in the Online and Urban Dictionaries.

I do wonder what Tex meant - given that he has now used the pejorative in 2 different threads?

by **jackspratt** » April 25, 2010, 9:34 pm

WBU ALUM wrote:It's not my job to be balanced.

Nor, it appears, fair.

by **polehawk** » April 25, 2010, 10:35 pm

Bobo is a euphemism for clown where I come from. Apply where needed. :lol:

by **polehawk** » April 25, 2010, 10:59 pm

No editing capability......

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... obo&page=2

Item #14. Bobo is an adjective describing anything or anyone that constantly is ridiculous and looks or acts like a fool, clown, etc.
Gaudy, bright clothing, getting blackout all the time and making a fool of yourself, being a fat scrub.

Boo boo = cut, scrape or accident. :lol:

by **WBU ALUM** » April 26, 2010, 6:22 am

polehawk wrote:Bobo is a euphemism for clown where I come from. Apply where needed.

I've heard 'bozo' used for clown.

I guess different parts of the world use different words for different things.

by **Farang1** » April 26, 2010, 7:25 am

This article was printed in The Spokesman, a paper in Washington state.
Most of the issues have been gone over in this thread. This article puts it in a nut shell.

One of the things that gets me is the quote of Speaker Pelosi in the 1st paragraph.

We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.

Aren't you suppose to know what's in it before you vote on something? :-k

by **UdonExpat** » April 26, 2010, 9:38 am

As usual, a little information, and hidden agendas lead to misconceptions.

Q: Does the new health care law impose a 3.8 percent tax on profits from selling your home?

A: No, with very few exceptions. The first $250,000 in profit from the sale of a personal residence won’t be taxed, or the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple. The tax falls on relatively few — those with high incomes from other sources.

http://factcheck.org/2010/04/a-38-perce ... your-home/

by **UdonExpat** » April 26, 2010, 9:50 am

Footnote: Some of the chain e-mails that claim ordinary home sales will be taxed include a copy of an article written by Paul Guppy, a policy analyst with the conservative Washington Policy Institute (that’s Washington state, not Washington, D.C.). The article appeared March 28 as an op-ed in the Spokane, Wash., Spokesman-Review, and Guppy claimed that "[m]iddle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are ‘rich’ for only one day." That brought a quick rebuttal from Sara Orrange, the government affairs director of the local Realtors association. She wrote a letter to the newspaper calling Guppy’s article "inaccurate" and saying, "Most people who sell their homes will not be impacted by these new regulations. This is not a new tax on every seller, and that correction needs to be made." In a news article the next day, business reporter Bert Caldwell confirmed that only "a very few" home sellers would pay the 3.8 percent tax

http://factcheck.org/2010/04/a-38-perce ... your-home/

by **nkstan** » April 26, 2010, 10:36 am

It is a redistribution of Wealth,the basic Obama plan!Those that have hate it and those that don't like it.The labeling of ''Consevative'' and ''Liberal'' as rebuttals is really tiring!

My main problem with wealth distribution,is how to control the growing bureucracies and costs associated with the lack of motivation to acheive for whatever reasons perceived or actual roadblocks.As it is my experience,with perseverence,desire and effort,any and most all can acheive a higher standard of living if they truly strive for it!Problem is they don't want to give up the relative comfort zones and spend most of their time trying to collect compensation for the ills imposed on their forefathers and kin,belittling any that rise above that folly!

Once they get a nanny,there is no going back and implosion for all is the future!

by **WBU ALUM** » April 26, 2010, 11:19 am

nkstan wrote:My main problem with wealth distribution,is how to control the growing bureucracies and costs associated with the lack of motivation to acheive for whatever reasons perceived or actual roadblocks.

My problem with it is that it gives government the power to steal from the productive and then reward whomever they wish -- themselves, their cronies and/or the unproductive.

by **old-timer** » April 26, 2010, 6:02 pm

WBU ALUM wrote:My problem with it is that it gives government the power to steal from the productive and then reward whomever they wish -- themselves, their cronies and/or the unproductive.

not much you can do about it.

OT........ $\:D/$

by **Farang1** » April 27, 2010, 12:57 am

old-timer wrote:
WBU ALUM wrote:My problem with it is that it gives government the power to steal from the productive and then reward whomever they wish -- themselves, their cronies and/or the unproductive.

not much you can do about it.

OT........ $\:D/$

Quite the contrary there, OT. The US Constitution give the power to the people. "A government of the people, for the people, and by the people." The legislative branch is suppose to represent the people. They are not the only ones with the power to pass laws. Laws can be passed and repealed at the grass roots level, also. So, if the people want to repeal this health care bill and any other law, all they would have to do is get the repeal on the ballet and get a 2/3rd majority. If the people want to add an amendment to the constitution, they need a 3/4th majority.

But, it seems the schools don't teach basic government and constitution anymore so the people have forgotten they have the power and now we have a government "of the lobbyists, for the special interests, and by the courts."

by **KHONDAHM** » April 28, 2010, 1:25 am

Yet another example of socialism and wealth distribution programs: Public School system. How dare they use tax dollars to educate those who would otherwise be unable to afford a private education! How dare they, I say to thee!

(some of you guys are ridiculous, but at least please try to be consisitent when you bash government programs) :roll:

by **cookie** » April 28, 2010, 8:44 am

KHONDAHM wrote:Yet another example of socialism and wealth distribution programs: Public School system. How dare they use tax dollars to educate those who would otherwise be unable to afford a private education! How dare they, I say to thee!

(some of you guys are ridiculous, but at least please try to be consisitent when you bash government programs)