Lucky...

It wasn't cherry-picking, it was a generalization. Follow the thread and you will see the point of comparing economies. As for, "...most of us have better health care than the Chinese. " Perhaps thru your rose-colored glasses. Most Chinese have the same HC, Most Americans have such a diversity of HC from none at all to exquisite. To find an average, who knows. Don't think, for a second that I like Communist China's governemnt, it is oppressive, but the distribution of wealth is probably similar to that of ours. That was the original point. One more thing the US and China have in common. Of course not, only Nationalist Neo-cons would say that dissent is bad. Probably, altho minute in some areas. The context of my assertion was that the US distribution of waelth is probably like the Chinese DOW in many respects with virtually all the money and asset up toip, special privilege,etc. W/o a doubt, I was never talking that piont.

Explain to us how over 1B Chinese are doing better first. (no, not the wealthiest 10% there - I know they're doing fine) Oh, so Communist China and fascist US have a lot in common, huh? I will give you that, most Chinese people live in poverty, but at least their country is strong and they have HC. Many in the US live with a low standard and our country is a wreck on the global market, that is the diff. Quite the fantasy you have there. Perhaps you should move to inland China. I made several points, which point are you running from this time?

That may well be the most concise and most accurate post you've ever made, Lucky. The low interest rates were indeed the catalyst, but the deregulation of financial institutions and the lack of regulation of financial derivatives, particularly credit default swaps, were the primary causes. Once catalyzed with low interest rates, a perfect storm began to form. And they're usually not? I need your approval. I appreciate the spelling correction, it also adds to the issue The mess was caused by many elements, but w/o the low int rates it could not have happened. I think it still could have happened with the low int rates and w/o the deregulation. The low rates created the ponzi schemes, everything else was supplemental and probably accellerated the mess, but was not primary.

I guess that avoids you having to address the issues.

Explain to us how over 1B Chinese are doing better first. (no, not the wealthiest 10% there - I know they're doing fine) Oh, so Communist China and fascist US have a lot in common, huh? I will give you that, most Chinese people live in poverty, but at least their country is strong and they have HC. Many in the US live with a low standard and our country is a wreck on the global market, that is the diff.

What factors led to the low interest rates? Tax cuts, my friends. Bush and co cut taxes, so the economy stagnated, it was sputtering anyway, and the tax cuts killed it. So then Greenspan felt the need to keep lowering it ot kickstart it, but it never happened. Int rates fell low, prinicpal replaced interest when people were qualifying for loans, house prices doubled with allowed anyone to buy a house, so sub-primers got in. House prices were accellerating so fast that no one stopped to look at the quality of teh paper. And the economic boom from 2004-2006 was just the circulation of all the inflated house money. Evan at that, tax revenues were still low in spite of what people are saying, so it was a lose/lose.

Better than Bush did? Bush didn't, he went the other way, his first veto in his 1st 5 1/2 years was that of stem cell research that his congress pushed thru and he vetoed. Bush wanted the total culmination of church / state. Sorry.. the way I wrote that came out wrong. I meant that Bush wanted religion in as much as possible. He had zero regard for separation of church and state and if it were up to him christianity would have been incorporated in everything. I definitely did not like that. Sorry... that came out a little backwards in my original reply. Oh yea, I figured that . No need to apologize, I wasn't being

For the purpose of putting to rest incorrect information, such as what you write. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/white-house-fact-checking/ From your 'source': Seems to be exactly what I said...thanks for the support. Right, for the purposes of straightening out the false rumors, not as some consiracy to complie a list of people against them, as you claim. You can't logically take a statement liek: The White House, according to its official blog, is encouraging people to send along any health care rumors or claims, mainly of the "scary" chain e-mail variety, that seem "fishy." And then attach a sinnister motive and expect us all to buy it. But of course you are Mikey, so you will try.

Ditto, or agendas. If it were Hillary there would be the same hatred and some would call it sexist.

Better than Bush did? Bush didn't, he went the other way, his first veto in his 1st 5 1/2 years was that of stem cell research that his congress pushed thru and he vetoed. Bush wanted the total culmination of church / state.

What laws were broken? The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (along with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000) ensured there would be insufficient regulation to prevent the banking crisis. One senator even predicted the bailouts as the legislation was in Congress. The true and ultimate catylist were the low int rates; w/o those there would be no mortgage mess.

It's way early, I'm posturing. It seems likely, but the recession and unemp will be huge factors.

That's beccause you're a conservative American; most of the rest of the world loves him and has shown by ranking us quite a bit more friendly in teh GPI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index 97 to 83 in one year. And the Nobel Peace Prize was in anticipation of what was to come. So perhaps the worlds 2% of conservative Americans don't get it, but most of the other 98% do. When you are 2% and you find virtually everyone against you, you should rethink your position. Yes but they sit on the right side of the aisle. I can't say he is, but I can say I was before his election. No, he apologizes for the grosss misdeads of a nation that used to be great and is working to repair them. So the 11.5T as he took office wasn't an issue, but the 800B stimulus and auto bailout is? Considering the recession is 0% his fault, the recovery is 100% his problem, yet he has put us in debt somehow????? We've been a debtor nation before we were a nation and we have never paid it off, so what's your relevant point? 1) He isn't Bush 2) He isn't a Republican 3) He wants HC for all and to make existing policies less restrictive and more comprehensive / less expensive 4) He wants there to be less wealth disparity 5) Did Isay he isn't Bush or a Republican?

Fixed it for ya

Isn't that cute and see, your party is doing the same thing, which is why we will probably have a public option. Fart and joke around and you lose all the way. I was talking to a Republican friend of mine, he calls himself that altho he has the political intellect of a 5th grader, and I asked him if the HC goes thru that he hates so much, will he sign up for it. BTW, he hasn't had it for years like me. He said he would. I asked him if he thinks it is so bad then why would he contribute to its awefulness. He said he feared illegasl would get it. So this dipshit wants himself to go w/o HC so some illegals *might* get it. I just have to shake my head.

Here's a better one - show us an income tax cut that only the rich got. Remember that one? You know, the one you 'answered' with your canned reply about classism? I answered it a page-and-a-half ago. Short memory or not the answer you're looking for so you want to re-ask it? Post 247 I wrote: So if a tax cut helps the poor 1 penny, than it's a neutral tax measure. Brilliant, Binary Mike. With the lower 50% of all filers accumulating to pay 2.89% of all taxes as of 2007 how is it that even a 50% tax cut would matter? You can't help that class by cutting taxes, you have to increase taxes on top and redistribute. Even if you took that entire bottom 50% of filers and made them all tax exempt it wouldn't be that big a deal. However if you do things like establish universal HC and other programs, that is what is real and brings them up. Furthermore, the trhead reads: Do tax cuts for the rich lead to horrible economic times? Since the rich pay most taxes therefore taxes can only be cut where teh money is, tax cuts help the rich. So do they lead to horrible economic times? Yes, they do; pls show otherwise. You want to flip the question around to read: 'Are there tax cuts aimed 100% exclusively at the rich.' I doubt it, but that's irrelevant as taxes for teh poor are irrelevant, only benefits. The rich want a tax cut, the poor want boost in services, so to act as tho these classes have identical needs is ridiculous. Basically I reworded the question as I believe it was Iago or Ion who twisted the previous question, but this question still stands: How can the bottom 50% of all filers get rich from a tax cut when they collectively pay 2.87% of all income tax? Even if you made them tax expempt, they still wouldn't have shit. Poor people get advantage from social service increases, rich people get advantage from tax cuts. I'm not sure how that isn't clear when the lower 50% pay < 3% of all taxes. I could pose the the same inverse question: How do rich people get an advantage with the increase of social services? THEY DON'T. Taxes are for rich people or at least well-off people, they don't affect the poor either way other than by spreading the classes it tends to push them lower. I'm sure this is not the answer you want, so you'll re-ask it, but in short, if you pay virtually no taxes, you can't get a real tax cut.

I've already said a couple times that I snipped your boring stock argument out of the thread and replaced it with that text - what more explanation do you need from me to be able to comprehend that? I asked you about that already, and got the stock 'classist' argument in reply. Planning on answering my question anytime soon, or am I going to have to sit through a few more iterations of the whole 'classist' thing again? Your question about what you changed in my reply? I showed you that unless you have another question. If so, please post.

For example, let me hear your take on this: Reagan and GWB cut taxes and spent massive amounts, that's where the chart that has to do with spending as a ratio of GDP comes in. IOW's, if the economy is doing well, you can spend more. http://carriedaway.blogs.com/...ation%20To%20GDP.GIF Look at the center pair of orange/blue lines. The top (orange) line represents spending, see how it climbs under Reagan and dips, then peaks in 1992, then falls drastically? That is spending under Reagan/Bush, Bush had to spend in the Gulf War and had the recession to deal with, but he did cut military spending otherwise. Mow, see the blue line that represents tax revenues. It peaks in 1981 as Reagan takes office, then falls drastically, that represents his tax cuts from a 70% brkt to a 50% brkt, making the rich very rich. It meanders along until 1992 when it starts to climb, that was Bush's tax increase no doubt, it then carries a straight line in a nice upward angle until 200, when we had a downturn in the economy. Now, to culminate the 2 lines and data they represent. See how in 1997 they cross and the blue line is on top of the orange? That's a good thing, that's when we started to create a surplus and the debt started to level off. If you go back you can see when the blue is on top of the orange, a healthy economy. In 1969 when taxes were 77% as I recall for a top brkt. Look atthe Eisenhower years, the lines criss-crossed, but the blue was on top a lot, the debt actually fell at this time and the top tax brkt was 91%. Now for GWB. Tax revenues were falling anyway as the economy was sputtering. So what did Bush do? He cut taxes and really smoked it. And spending was on the upswing, so what did Bush do? He spent more. The idea is Bush should not only have maintained the Clinton tax brkt at 40% max, he should have increased them to keep up with spending, the orange line. Here's another chart, set the dates from 1980 to 2010 if it doesn't translate that way: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...;color=c&local=s Look at after Clinton how it went thru the roof and how Obama inherited that mess. Since revenues are down so low, the chart peaks. Bush should have raised taxes and the result would be a smaller hump instead of a dagger, but he had commitments to his rich buddies, as well he had no clue. In fact, the graph actually shows the peak falling down again after 2010, I wonder if that's an est? So when people say it's the spending, not the taxing, you understand that is ridiculous. Now, for Obama. He inherited a total pile of shit, how can you blame him for spending for a recovery? Do you want another Great Depression? No, so he has no choice. And remember, the 700B bank bailout occurred under Bush and he released the first 317B, so how do you blame ANY of that on Obama? You wanted an explanation of my charts, give me a detailed explanation of how this is Obama's mess and he's handling it all wrong when the DJIA is WAY ahead of schedule and the GDP just broke + ground from a -6.4% the quarter Obama took office after having 4 of the last 5 quarters negative. I've come to the table, why don't you?

So sorry - you were supposed to be answering a question, remember? No, you need to answer the question. Do I need to restate it for you, since you seem to have problems staying on-task? I told you which statements of mine you made as yours, why are you so excited about avoiding the issue of: Do tax cuts for the rich lead to horrible economic times? Is this your tangent. I posted your quote that wasn't mine, deny it or whatever, let's talk tax cuts, unless that is a sore issue for you.

For the purpose of putting to rest incorrect information, such as what you write. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/white-house-fact-checking/

Here's a better one - show us an income tax cut that only the rich got. So if a tax cut helps the poor 1 penny, than it's a neutral tax measure. Brilliant, Binary Mike I didn't say that, Strawman Lucky. Translation: I can't answer the question, so I'm going to fall back on my threadbare 'class' argument and forget I ever asked the question in the first place. So now you have to modify previous posts to make a point, my aren't you especially dishonest? What did I modify, besides snipping out your argument and replacing it with a statement? Show me. Seeing as how it's the same tired thing you say in every post in this thread, I figured I'd save some server space. Guess what? You *didn't* (Still haven't, for that matter) Yup, that's pretty much all your 'classist' threads. Feel free to show examples of what I modified (besides the deletion of the 'classist' bullshit, that is). You replied to your assertion: Same old tired 'classist' argument snipped SO let's quit this pettiness and address my points. Do I need to enumerte them for you?

Which, of course, explains the massive exodus of people fleeing to Cuba on homemade rafts. There ya go, did you forget Africa? Instead of the rhetoric, explain how Communist China is doing FAAAAAAAAAAAR better than Capitalist US. How are most W European nations doing better than the US? Or just keep choosing the worst places on earth to make you feel better about the US.

all of the money you have should be taken to pay the bills. when the bills are paid, you get what is left. Bunkrupcy court doesn't do this and therefore when a company goes under the ceo(and others in control) move as much as they can out of the company and protect it. This is all unclear. What Bill gave you was basically a loose Enron scenario; creating a shell corporation to absorb the bad debt while running away with the loot, his was more innocent tho. All of the money that you removed from the company before and as it was tanking should be given to the company's creditors? Is that what you're saying? Per the scenario, there would be none. BK court doesn't do what? HUH? Too many it's and they's; clarify.

Everyone? I think guys like Kallend, Bill and many others follow easily, perhaps people with educations understand critical thinking moreso than those who have never been to college. Well then go back to each chart or other data and LMK what you don't understand. BTW, I have never been accused of brevity; I think you know that's not true. Reagan and GWB cut taxes and spent massive amounts, that's where the chart that has to do with spending as a ratio of GDP comes in. IOW's, if the economy is doing well, you can spend more. http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/images/economics/u.S.%20Spending%20And%20Revenue%20In%20Relation%20To%20GDP.GIF Look at the center pair of orange/blue lines. The top (orange) line represents spending, see how it climbs under Reagan and dips, then peaks in 1992, then falls drastically? That is spending under Reagan/Bush, Bush had to spend in the Gulf War and had the recession to deal with, but he did cut military spending otherwise. Mow, see the blue line that represents tax revenues. It peaks in 1981 as Reagan takes office, then falls drastically, that represents his tax cuts from a 70% brkt to a 50% brkt, making the rich very rich. It meanders along until 1992 when it starts to climb, that was Bush's tax increase no doubt, it then carries a straight line in a nice upward angle until 200, when we had a downturn in the economy. Now, to culminate the 2 lines and data they represent. See how in 1997 they cross and the blue line is on top of the orange? That's a good thing, that's when we started to create a surplus and the debt started to level off. If you go back you can see when the blue is on top of the orange, a healthy economy. In 1969 when taxes were 77% as I recall for a top brkt. Look atthe Eisenhower years, the lines criss-crossed, but the blue was on top a lot, the debt actually fell at this time and the top tax brkt was 91%. Now for GWB. Tax revenues were falling anyway as the economy was sputtering. So what did Bush do? He cut taxes and really smoked it. And spending was on the upswing, so what did Bush do? He spent more. The idea is Bush should not only have maintained the Clinton tax brkt at 40% max, he should have increased them to keep up with spending, the orange line. Here's another chart, set the dates from 1980 to 2010 if it doesn't translate that way: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1980_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy10&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=Spending As Percent Of GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s Look at after Clinton how it went thru the roof and how Obama inherited that mess. Since revenues are down so low, the chart peaks. Bush should have raised taxes and the result would be a smaller hump instead of a dagger, but he had commitments to his rich buddies, as well he had no clue. In fact, the graph actually shows the peak falling down again after 2010, I wonder if that's an est? So when people say it's the spending, not the taxing, you understand that is ridiculous. Now, for Obama. He inherited a total pile of shit, how can you blame him for spending for a recovery? Do you want another Great Depression? No, so he has no choice. And remember, the 700B bank bailout occurred under Bush and he released the first 317B, so how do you blame ANY of that on Obama? You wanted an explanation of my charts, give me a detailed explanation of how this is Obama's mess and he's handling it all wrong when the DJIA is WAY ahead of schedule and the GDP just broke + ground from a -6.4% the quarter Obama took office after having 4 of the last 5 quarters negative. I've come to the table, why don't you? Go back to this chart: http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/images/economics/u.S.%20Spending%20And%20Revenue%20In%20Relation%20To%20GDP.GIF Look at 1977 to 1981. The chart is moving around as for the blue and orange lines, but they virtually touch in 1979 (balanced budget) and aren't far away in 1981 until Reagan cut taxes and smoked spending, making the lines spread HUGELY thru the 80's. So what mess did Reagan inherit? The interest rate was high, but that was thru the 70's as a result of OPEC and general energy issues. The 70's weren't great, Ford was a spender, but taxes were high enough to offset that. This is basically babbling rhetoric. You just get emotional and act as tho your money goes to some welfare house immediately. There is no connect between taxes and spending other than the deficit/debt, so quit acting as if welfare is going to cost you a nickel. Yes, he cut spending and raised taxes, the best things to do. Also he didn't get stupid with some proxy war, something I accredit Reagan, GHWB and Clinton for not doing. Actually Clinton did deficit spend the first few years, but you can't flip it in a day; NOR CAN OBAMA. And if you want to act as tho the sluggish economy Clinton inherited was ANYTHING like what Obama inherited, you're not watching very closely. Would you like data-based comparisons? Clinton's inherited economy was mostly recovered, but jobs were scarce at 7.2% unemp. Obama's inheritance was about 8% and nose-diving, not to mention all the other factors like the banks, the mortgage mess and auto disaster/shutdown.

This is the best you can do for that long reply? Rush, you're slipping, man. I dont have to do anything. Your post shows you feel about things, as compared to think Go to the 2nd post and answer it, recover a modicum of respect.