[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: Trying to use gsub using variables

maestroiut-rubytalk

9/27/2008 12:56:00 PM

----- Original Message ----

> From: jackster the jackle <contact@thirdorder.net>
> To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 2:22:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Trying to use gsub using variables
>
> thanks guys...I'm making progress but what I have been slowly leading up
> to is searching using a variable then replacing it with a variable.
>
> acl = "now is the time"
> x = time
> y = TEST

you meant, didn't you?

x = "time"
y = 'TEST'

>
> acl.gsub(/x/,y)


> How do I get gsub to use the value of x rather "x" itself in my match?


You can use the #{ruby code} notation that evaluates the ruby code and inserts
the value like in double quoted strings.
In your case that would be something like:

acl.gsub(/#{x}/,y)

Though the content of x should not be interpreted, you should write:

acl.gsub(/#{Regexp.escape(x)}/,y)

> thanks

you are most welcome,

Christophe
>
> Jackster
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-....
23 Answers

Jason

2/20/2012 7:18:00 AM

0

In article <7oj2k798hll0lm9f24d5llvek7ufiia2as@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:47:11 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> alt.talk.creationism:
>
> >In article <civ1k79ogit8epsrr7cu50gv6k9vc5o1hb@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 00:38:26 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> >> alt.talk.creationism:
> >>
> >> >In article <oggvj71jnl4aujemsq4tj2lhci93u2j9hk@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 02:12:28 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> >> >> alt.talk.creationism:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >If Obama wins the election in 2012, will you still continue to
> >blame Bush2
> >> >> >> >for any increases in the federal deficit and the National Debt?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> It took the United States over a decade to recover from the Great
> >> >> >> Depression. Sure, we will recover a little faster this time,
but the GOP
> >> >> >> is doing everything it can to keep us from recovery. Will you
ever blame
> >> >> >> the Republicans for their desire to keep our economy from recovering?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What is the answer to my simple question?
> >> >>
> >> >> That you are an ignorant simpleton. It is not my fault that you are
> >> >> completely unwilling to learn anything about economics. You have chosen
> >> >> to be an ignorant fool. Do not whine to me about that. You can choose to
> >> >> stop being ignorant. You can choose to stop being a fool who believes
> >> >> every lie of the right-wing reactionaries. You can choose to stop
> >> >> listening to the immoral lies of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill
> >> >> O'Reilly. You can choose to learn about economics and government. You
> >> >> have chosen to be ignorant. You can choose to be informed.
> >> >>
> >> >> If the federal government balances the budget next year, it will plunge
> >> >> us back into a far more serious recession. Is that what you want?
> >> >
> >> >No--but we should not develop any new programs that are very expensive to
> >> >fund. For example, ObamaCare (ACA program) will cost about $437.5 billion
> >> >to fund for about 5 years. That's a rough estimate. That's a lot of money
> >> >to spend on an entirely new program. We could save that $437.5 billion by
> >> >cancelling the ACA program.
> >>
> >> Where is your estimate from?
> >>
> >> >RomneyCare cost the state of Massachusetts $1.75 billion in 2010. I
> >> >multiplied 1.75 by 50 (the number of American states) and the result was
> >> >$87.5 billion per year. I multiplied 87.5 by 5 years and the result was
> >> >$437.5 billion--to fund ObamaCare for about 5 years.
> >>
> >> State and federal costs are different.
> >>
> >> >The figure will probably be far higher than California and Texas have lots
> >> >more citizens than are in Massacusetts.
> >> >
> >> >As you know ObamaCare is based on the RomneyCare program so the figures
> >> >should be similar.
> >>
> >> There are some reforms in PPACA that Mass. could not do. It will save
> >> money.
> >
> >Since California and Texas each--have far more people than there are in
> >Massachusetts--the total costs will be more than the figure shown above.
> >The figure above was based on the costs in 2010. That means that inflation
> >has had an effect on those above figures. That is another reason, the
> >figures above are lower than the cost of ObamaCare will be.
>
> It is not my fault that you refuse to read anything that we present to
> you. It is not my fault that you are too ignorant to know what portion
> of the US Massachussetts's population represents. It is not my fault
> that you worship your own ignorance and the lies you tell because of
> your ignorance.
>
> Very simply, you are wrong. You are selectively ignoring data that you
> don't want to discuss. You are being a fool for the rich, a liar for
> oppressors.
>
> >My point is that ObamaCare will cost at least $437.5 billion every 5
> >years. The firgure for 10 years would be about $875 billion dollars. That
> >means that due to ObamaCare, we would probably be adding another almost
> >one trillion dollars to the national debt about every 10 to 12 years. Is
> >that what you want to happen? ObamaCare will NOT save money--instead it
> >will cost a trillion dollars every 10 to 12 years. It will only save money
> >for people that presently don't have health insurance. If you don't
> >believe me, learn what an expert has to say:
> >
> >"To start, the federal and state governments between 2010 and 2019, will
> >dish out a mere $6.8 billion. ?That the best determination of Richard S.
> >Foster, chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS),
> >U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Those figures are tucked
> >away in tables accompanying lengthy reports. But they represent only a tip
> >of the potential mountain of outlays that lie ahead."
>
> You have no idea what you are talking about. I have no reason to take
> you seriously when you are intentionally ignorant and foolishly jumping
> to conclusions because of that.

I provided you with a rough estimate of what the ObamaCare will cost. That
rough estimate is about a trillion dollars every 10 to 12 years.

David Fritzinger

2/20/2012 11:37:00 AM

0

In article <Jason-1902122320190001@66.53.221.239>,
Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
[snip]
> I provided you with a rough estimate of what the ObamaCare will cost. That
> rough estimate is about a trillion dollars every 10 to 12 years.

What is the basis of that estimate? Is it something you figured out
yourself? If so, what are the bases for your calculation? Is there a
source you can provide?

Jason

2/20/2012 11:05:00 PM

0

In article <UXp0r.3155$VR6.2016@newsfe14.iad>, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" <goddess@fidemturbare.com> wrote:

> On 2012-Feb-18 06:23, David Fritzinger wrote:
> > In article
> > <Jason-1802120213290001@67-150-121-187.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >> In article<dfritzin-3F8A5C.06551317022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >> David Fritzinger<dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> In article<Jason-1702120129200001@66-53-216-93.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> >>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>>> In article<538rj79mfg9pohg5n2vkul11gd8bfglsm3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
> >>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:02:25 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> >>>>> alt.talk.creationism:
> >>>>>> In article
> >>>>>> <dfritzin-7D0D4D.06313315022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >>>>>> David Fritzinger<dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> <Jason-1502120144380001@67-150-169-183.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> >>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>> <dfritzin-6A6C3C.18363314022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >>>>>>>> David Fritzinger<dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> <Jason-1402121523520001@67-150-174-254.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> >>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>> <dfritzin-6C9494.06422414022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >>>>>>>>>> David Fritzinger<dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>> <Jason-1402120033380001@66-53-214-122.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>> <C6ednW8fE5_LWaTSnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, "ala"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <alackrity@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Jason"<Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:Jason-1302120145100001@67-150-124-116.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> At what point will Obama be responsible for the
> >> money that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>> added to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> national debt?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as soon as you allow Bush to be blamed for his spend
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fest
> >>>> as well
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> congresses that contributed during his reign and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Obama's.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have no problem attributing Obama's share to Obama as
> >>>> long the
> >>>>>>>>>> complicity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the taxpayers who demanded the accretion are also
> >>>> given their
> >>>>>>>> share
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the blame
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that Obama is responsible for the money that is
> >>>> added to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> national debt during the last three years of his time in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> office.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> That is because you are a credulous fool and an idiot. Most
> >>>> of that
> >>>>>>>>>>> spending was because of Bush policies that Obama couldn't
> >>>>>> change. Would
> >>>>>>>>>>> you have supported Obama if he just pulled all the troops
> >>>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>> Afghanistan and Iraq the day he was inaugurated? If not,
> >>>>>>>>>>> then
> >>>>>> you have
> >>>>>>>>>>> to realize that Obama had to pay for those wars, yet you
> >> want to
> >>>>>> blame
> >>>>>>>>>>> him for the money spent. Did you want Obama to end the Bush
> >>>> tax cuts,
> >>>>>>>>>>> which are costing $trillions? Of course not, yet you are
> >> blaming
> >>>>>> Obama
> >>>>>>>>>>> for the income lost through continuing those tax cuts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This has all been explained to you previously, but you still
> >>>> want to
> >>>>>>>>>>> believe the liars at Faux and Limbaugh, despite the fact you
> >>>>>> have been
> >>>>>>>>>>> shown they are liars.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I hope that during the debates that Obama does the same thing
> >>>> that you
> >>>>>>>>>> done above--blames the money that has been added to the
> >>>>>>>>>> national
> >>>>>>>>>> debt
> >>>>>>>>>> during the last 4 years on Bush. He will look like a fool.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Only to fools, such as yourself. Thinking people (which
> >>>> definitely does
> >>>>>>>>> not include you) know the mess Obama was handed, and how the
> >>>> Republicans
> >>>>>>>>> have blocked everything he tried to do.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Don't believe me? See"
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>> <http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/3...
> >>>>>>>>> lames-congress-not-obama-for-sour-economy> or:
> >>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.c...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Congress gets virtually all of the public's scorn for the sour
> >>>> economy
> >>>>>>>>> and Washington gridlock in a new poll obtained by Whispers?a
> >> finding
> >>>>>>>>> that supports President Obama's 2012 reelection strategy of
> >> running
> >>>>>>>>> against Capitol Hill.
> >>>>>>>>> The non-partisan group "No Labels" also found that virtually all
> >>>>>>>>> Americans, 94 percent, say congressional inaction is harming the
> >>>>>>>>> economy. [See editorial cartoons about the economy."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Interesting that you have no comment on this. I'll put it into small
> >>>>>>> words so you may understand. The public blames Republicans for
> >> the lack
> >>>>>>> of action in Congress, for the recession and for the slow recovery.
> >>>>>>>>> "
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Did you see the news story about Obama's new budget plan. The
> >>>> AP story
> >>>>>>>>>> indicated that: "Obama's budget projects that the deficit for
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>> current
> >>>>>>>>>> year will total 1.33 trillion dollars--the fourth straight
> >> year of
> >>>>>>>>>> deficits above 1 trillion dollars."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And next year, it will drop to less than $1 trillion.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No comment?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Obama's budget for 2013 will be 0.2 percent higher than
> >> the 2012
> >>>>>>>>>> budget."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Remember inflation, you idiot.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No comment?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> My comment--He spends a trillion dollars more per year than
> >> we are
> >>>>>>>> taking in.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> He is paying for Bush's wars, Bush's tax cuts, and Bush's
> >> recession.
> >>>>>>>>> What would YOU do to get the economy going?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Do you believe that is a good thing to do or a bad thing to
> >>>>>>>>>> do?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yet, you support the Republicans when they knowingly add $100
> >>>> billion to
> >>>>>>>>> the deficit, just so the rich don't have to get a very small tax
> >>>>>>>>> increase. You really are a credulous fool.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No comment?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> To answer your idiotic question, I believe we have to
> >> stimulate the
> >>>>>>>>> economy now to get people back to work. Then, once the economy
> >>>>>>>>> is
> >>>> doing
> >>>>>>>>> better, we will need to raise taxes and cut expenses (Yes,
> >> both. Not
> >>>>>>>>> like the Republicans want to do and put the whole load on the
> >>>> poor while
> >>>>>>>>> cutting taxes on the rich) to get the budget deficit under
> >> control.
> >>>>>>>>> If
> >>>>>>>>> we do a great deal of budget cutting now, it will cause a
> >> double dip
> >>>>>>>>> recession.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No comment on anything I said above?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Obama is adding a trillion dollars to the national debt each
> >> year and
> >>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>> found out yesterday from the newspaper that he is also adding a
> >>>>>>>> trillion
> >>>>>>>> dollars to the budget deficit each year. Is there a relationship
> >>>>>>>> between
> >>>>>>>> those two numbers?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You really are as ignorant as I thought! Yes, there is a
> >>>>>>> relationship.
> >>>>>>> Deficit=difference between what we take in and what is spent.
> >>>>>>> Debt=accumulated deficits.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If not, that 's a lot of money. We will be leaving it
> >>>>>>>> up to the next generations to pay those huge debts. Is that what
> >>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>> want
> >>>>>>>> to happen?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Try reading for comprehension. No, I don't want that to happen.
> >> However,
> >>>>>>> as has been pointed out to you multiple times (which you ignored
> >>>>>>> multiple times), most of the deficits and most of the debt acquired
> >>>>>>> during Obama's presidency are caused by carryover Bush policies,
> >>>>>>> like
> >>>>>>> tax cuts for the rich (who don't need them), two wars, and
> >> unfunded drug
> >>>>>>> mandates. Yet, in your stupidity, you want to blame Obama for Bush
> >>>>>>> policies. Why don't you go all the way, and blame Obama for the
> >>>>>>> recession that started while he was running for president?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I told you what I want, but you are apparently incapable of reading
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>> simple sentence and understanding what it says. I would suggest you
> >>>>>>> reread what I had written.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Beam me up Scotty. Obama has been in office over 3 years and the
> >>>>>> members
> >>>>>> of his fan club are still blaming the last president for the huge
> >>>>>> amounts
> >>>>>> of money that Obama is spending.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Reality really bothers you. Stop making excuses for Bush's massive
> >>>>> recession (the Lesser Depression).
> >>>>
> >>>> If Obama wins the election in 2012, will you still continue to blame
> >>>> Bush2
> >>>> for any increases in the federal deficit and the National Debt?
> >>>
> >>> If the increases are based on carryover Bush policies (his signature tax
> >>> cuts, his wars, etc), then the answer is yes.
> >>
> >> Will you ever blame Obama for the money that is added to the national debt?
>
> A leading question indeed. Gee, I wonder what this clown's agenda is?
>
> > Yes, when it is caused by his policies. For example, the cost of
> > stimulus belongs to Obama. If it is based on carryover Bush policies,
> > such as the Bush tax cuts, then no, Obama doesn't get the blame.
>
> That answer is reasonable and objective, which is typical of atheists.
> I find it peculiar that people keep asking for opinions here with the
> obvious expectation that they're not going to get a balanced answer.

I just find it interesting that Obama is the president that is adding
about 1 trillion dollars to the national debt each of the years that he
has been president but most liberal democrats don't blame him for any of
those trillions of dollars that he has added to the national debt. It must
be great to be Obama.

Jason

2/20/2012 11:09:00 PM

0

In article <dfritzin-233EB4.06370220022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <Jason-1902122320190001@66.53.221.239>,
> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> [snip]
> > I provided you with a rough estimate of what the ObamaCare will cost. That
> > rough estimate is about a trillion dollars every 10 to 12 years.
>
> What is the basis of that estimate? Is it something you figured out
> yourself? If so, what are the bases for your calculation? Is there a
> source you can provide?

I have wondered how much is will cost to fund ObamaCare for one year.

The figure is about $87.5 billion per year and about $437.5 billion for
five years.

You may wonder how I came up with those above figures.

My source was this website:

The approx. cost of ObamaCare for one year.

http://tinyurl.c...

If that does not work, try: http://tinyurl.c...

If that does not work, try:
www.insurancequotes.com/health-insurance-massachusetts/

As you know, ObamaCare is based on the RomneyCare program.


This is the sentence that I found at that above site:

"An analysis from the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation found that the
state spending on health care reform grew from $1.04 billion in 2006 to
about $1.75 billion in 2010."

My calculations:

$1.75 billion times 50 (for 50 states) is equal to 87.5 billion dollars
per year.

$87.5 billion times 5 years is equal to $437.5 billion.

Since ObamaCare is based on the RomneyCare program in Massuchusetts--the
costs for both programs will be similar.

I multiplied 437.50 by 2 and the result was 875 billion dollars.

The rough estimate is about 1 trillion dollars every 10 to 12 years.

David Fritzinger

2/20/2012 11:15:00 PM

0

In article
<Jason-2002121504380001@67-150-168-157.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
[snip]
> I just find it interesting that Obama is the president that is adding
> about 1 trillion dollars to the national debt each of the years that he
> has been president but most liberal democrats don't blame him for any of
> those trillions of dollars that he has added to the national debt. It must
> be great to be Obama.

Stop lying, Jason. This has been explained to you multiple times, but
you continue to tell the same lies over and over again. So far as I
know, Christians shouldn't lie.

Remember, about 80% of the deficits during the present administration is
paying for policies started by the last administration, particularly the
ridiculous Bush tax cuts and the 2 wars that Bush started.

This is shown graphically on the following site:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/07/sources-of-our-current-de...

Free Lunch

2/20/2012 11:29:00 PM

0

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:04:38 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
alt.talk.creationism:

>In article <UXp0r.3155$VR6.2016@newsfe14.iad>, "Fidem Turbare, the
>non-existent atheist goddess" <goddess@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
....
>> That answer is reasonable and objective, which is typical of atheists.
>> I find it peculiar that people keep asking for opinions here with the
>> obvious expectation that they're not going to get a balanced answer.
>
>I just find it interesting that Obama is the president that is adding
>about 1 trillion dollars to the national debt each of the years that he
>has been president but most liberal democrats don't blame him for any of
>those trillions of dollars that he has added to the national debt. It must
>be great to be Obama.

The alternative is to plunge us back into a severe recession. Why do you
support another recession just to cut the deficit? How many millions of
people need to be thrown out of work to suit your commitment to a
balanced budget? Why didn't you whine about this when Reagan and the two
Bushes were running huge deficits? It's as if you are a complete
hypocrite about this.

Jason

2/21/2012 5:26:00 AM

0

In article <bll5k7h4efusbarkukv724jmkl8abgv8kg@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:04:38 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> alt.talk.creationism:
>
> >In article <UXp0r.3155$VR6.2016@newsfe14.iad>, "Fidem Turbare, the
> >non-existent atheist goddess" <goddess@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> ...
> >> That answer is reasonable and objective, which is typical of atheists.
> >> I find it peculiar that people keep asking for opinions here with the
> >> obvious expectation that they're not going to get a balanced answer.
> >
> >I just find it interesting that Obama is the president that is adding
> >about 1 trillion dollars to the national debt each of the years that he
> >has been president but most liberal democrats don't blame him for any of
> >those trillions of dollars that he has added to the national debt. It must
> >be great to be Obama.
>
> The alternative is to plunge us back into a severe recession. Why do you
> support another recession just to cut the deficit? How many millions of
> people need to be thrown out of work to suit your commitment to a
> balanced budget? Why didn't you whine about this when Reagan and the two
> Bushes were running huge deficits? It's as if you are a complete
> hypocrite about this.

At the very least, Obama should NOT have started any new programs that
will add about a trillion dollars to the national debt every 10 to 12
years. Obama done that in regard to developing the ObamaCare program.

Jason

2/21/2012 5:27:00 AM

0

In article <dfritzin-0B7F54.18151120022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article
> <Jason-2002121504380001@67-150-168-157.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> [snip]
> > I just find it interesting that Obama is the president that is adding
> > about 1 trillion dollars to the national debt each of the years that he
> > has been president but most liberal democrats don't blame him for any of
> > those trillions of dollars that he has added to the national debt. It must
> > be great to be Obama.
>
> Stop lying, Jason. This has been explained to you multiple times, but
> you continue to tell the same lies over and over again. So far as I
> know, Christians shouldn't lie.
>
> Remember, about 80% of the deficits during the present administration is
> paying for policies started by the last administration, particularly the
> ridiculous Bush tax cuts and the 2 wars that Bush started.
>
> This is shown graphically on the following site:
> http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/07/sources-of-our-current-de...

Good points but he has also added ObamaCare and that program will add
about a trillion dollars to the national debt every 10 to 12 years.

David Fritzinger

2/21/2012 11:21:00 AM

0

In article
<Jason-2002122127250001@66-53-211-151.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-0B7F54.18151120022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <Jason-2002121504380001@67-150-168-157.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > I just find it interesting that Obama is the president that is adding
> > > about 1 trillion dollars to the national debt each of the years that he
> > > has been president but most liberal democrats don't blame him for any of
> > > those trillions of dollars that he has added to the national debt. It must
> > > be great to be Obama.
> >
> > Stop lying, Jason. This has been explained to you multiple times, but
> > you continue to tell the same lies over and over again. So far as I
> > know, Christians shouldn't lie.
> >
> > Remember, about 80% of the deficits during the present administration is
> > paying for policies started by the last administration, particularly the
> > ridiculous Bush tax cuts and the 2 wars that Bush started.
> >
> > This is shown graphically on the following site:
> > http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/07/sources-of-our-current-de...
>
> Good points but he has also added ObamaCare and that program will add
> about a trillion dollars to the national debt every 10 to 12 years.

You are wrong, as I have shown. The ACA will *SAVE* about 125 billion
over 10 years. Stop lying.

Mitchell Holman

2/21/2012 2:03:00 PM

0

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:Jason-2002122127250001@66-53-211-151.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

> In article
> <dfritzin-0B7F54.18151120022012@news.eternal-september.org>, David
> Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <Jason-2002121504380001@67-150-168-157.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > I just find it interesting that Obama is the president that is
>> > adding about 1 trillion dollars to the national debt each of the
>> > years that he has been president but most liberal democrats don't
>> > blame him for any of those trillions of dollars that he has added
>> > to the national debt. It must be great to be Obama.
>>
>> Stop lying, Jason. This has been explained to you multiple times, but
>> you continue to tell the same lies over and over again. So far as I
>> know, Christians shouldn't lie.
>>
>> Remember, about 80% of the deficits during the present administration
>> is paying for policies started by the last administration,
>> particularly the ridiculous Bush tax cuts and the 2 wars that Bush
>> started.
>>
>> This is shown graphically on the following site:
>> http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/07/sources-of-our-current...
>> tml
>
> Good points but he has also added ObamaCare and that program will add
> about a trillion dollars to the national debt every 10 to 12 years.


Wrong.


"As of the bill's passage into law, the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) estimated the legislation would reduce the deficit
by $143 billion over the first decade"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordabl...