Lucky...

I think FDR was on the right track in terms of his approach for getting the USA out of the Depression. Unfortunately Hitler was on a very wrong track when it came to his approach for getting Germany out of the Depression, and the resulting events rightly dominate the history books. The USA emerged from the war in a dominant position because the war never touched mainland North American soil, so it is easy to look back and say that the war ended the Depression. The reality, though, is that the war didn't so much destroy the Depression as it destroyed Europe--leaving the USA in a comparatively strong position. However, if Germany had elected a better leader in 1933, I strongly believe that both Europe and the USA could have emerged from the Depression by the mid-to-late 1930's without war being necessary. Possibly, but the US depression picked up again in 37-38 and war spending helpsed pull the US out, so would we have pulled out w/o the war and when? I do agree that we would have been better off w/o the war, and we would have pulled out of the GD, but would it have been as fast? Certainly the depression recovery from 32-37 was all about taxes and New Deals. I don't know a lot about Europe and the impact the war had on it, but I know it ruined their manufacturing base.

The post 911 job losses were long and sustained. WHich social programs threw a wrench in the works when?

Dude, you are so easy. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal 2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern And as my citation in the previous post states, we are the only indust country in the world not to have iniversal care. That is the standard; THE ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD OF INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS. Is that too obscure for you or are we "special?" Even your own cite states the same: Standards don't deviate from norms and vice versa. They are really the same word, a thesaurus would reference both. RUSH, YOU BREAK INTO A SEMANTIC ARGUMENT OVER WHAT A STANDARD IS OVER A NORM, THAT WAY YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADDRESS WHETHER NOT OFFERING HC IS A NORM, STANDARD OR ANY OTHER AFU MESS, OR OFTEN DEFER TO SPELLING ERRORS WHEN YOU GET STUCK; WE ALL SEE IT. But I didn't JUST assert my opinion, I asserted this: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=66 And this: http://zzpat.tripod.com/graphs.htm Those are not my opinion, they reinforce my opinion. Where are your OBJECTIVE citeations that support your assertions? Oh, you have none. I didn't say you were lazy, you made that claim of me. How am I making it personal and why are you once again running from data and evidence and wasting your time playing the victim. Post some dat, make a point, etc. Nope, that's why I use a world standard, norm or whatever you want to call it. So, many countriues change ideologies; it's called adaptation. Also, I want quasi-Socialism. Also, we were founded on slavery, refusal to give women rights and antimiscegenation, we changed all that too. And they say Repubs/Conservatives are regressive It hasn't. Refute this data in this argument. You made an assertion somewhere that giving money to the rich creates growth, I refuted it as compared to both Reagan and GWb in contrast with Clinton. It's right here, go get and quit living on your alleged former victories that never were. Quit playing the victim and pls,pls address this data and don't respond with Heritage Republican sites and the like.

Because for Lucky that would just affirm his suspicion that we were very clever in our lies in order to make them look more truthful. No matter how many facts are produced, nobody is ever going to convince him it is not as he thinks. His mind is made up and that is final, it is all lies unless is supports his beliefs. I've constantly said I go along with the idea that we did land on the moon, where do you read I state otherwise? I realize it's tough to modify your binary mind to that of gray, but pls try.

This explains a lot concerning your viewpoints and your post. You're establishing a pattern of tagging along and not saying anything, just disagreeing. Thx for the valuable input.

That's what I'm saying, the whole thing could be a lie. We had to broadcast it to score a win, as the Russians mooncraft just blew up on the pad. Ultimately tho, I'm not saying it was a ploy, I'm just skeptical.

No, it is a PA. Grow up, child. And your contribution is nothing and possesses nothing substantive, as usual, so we also know what to expect and find it irrelevant.

Better yet, look at the Great Depression and Hoover's reaction. He cut the top brkt 1% for almost 3 years until he almost trippled them to 67% after he realized pandering to the wealthy doesn't create growth. In that case 12 million died of starvation.

Well, let's compare it to kids playing jacks then, whatever works for you. You're right, I am so sorry. Abliged to once again prove you wrong. http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=66 Under your system of tax cuts here's your growth, it's just lovely. ______________________ http://zzpat.tripod.com/graphs.htm This is a great chart that compares Reagan to Clinton in terms of fiscal policy and result. I hope this puts to rest your silly notion that giving the rich more money stimulates growth over increasing taxes and giving the rich more money. What I said was that Reagan was a disater and you ignore that and pipe in with Carter and Clinton. Care to refer to the Reagan didsater? Refer to this chart again: http://zzpat.tripod.com/graphs.htm Technically there was no Clinton recession, as there weren't 2 consecutive quarters of neg GDP growth. And even after 911 the handed-off economy was still string enough to achieve a + following quarter. There was no Clinton recession, even tho people refer to the slowdown as such. But I'll take 3500-9800 DJ growth any day. I don't, I think GHWB was a great president and is a great man and war hero, unlike that scared trash Reagan who used an alleged vision problem to escape going to war. Furthermore, Eisenhower was better than Clinton and/or GHWB. So your silly ad hominem arguments fall flat once again. You have posted nothing but opinion, I have posted data...run along Rushy. And I praise Republicans like GHWB, Eisenhower Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln as the greatest and I'm still partisan. Me thinks someone needs political history lessons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care Good point, let's choose a broader vision of "normal." Universal health care is implemented in all industrialized countries, with the exception of the United States.[1] It is also provided in many developing countries. So there's the standard to which I was referring; why do you make me illustrate fundamental facts? You claim I haven't put in enough effort and you don't know me, hence you are guessing. No, I minimize other's opinions that are not substantiated with external fact or data, or as I call it: yours. No, I substantiate mine. My assertion: the US is fucked up or as I put it, "special" in regard to HC. You claim it is my opinion, I provided already known by most, information that the is the only indust country w/o universal HC of some form. You want to say we're trailblazers, cool, but you can't refute that we are way out there with HC being a privilege.

Love to, if we can't get more socialist here, that is. Well, you're 1/2 right, so you're 100% up from your normal position. http://company.changehealthcare.com/blog/the-fiscal-health-of-us-hospitals/ Hospitals’ fiscal health is eroding. More than 50% of hospitals had a negative margin in Q4 2008. Sounds like the hospitals need wellness and disease management programs to address their ailing health just like patients are getting. The main reason cited in Healthpopuli for the poor fiscal health is that admissions are down. As if we don't know that *some* hospitals must take any emergency care. But that raises more questions than it answers questions. http://www.emtala.com/faq.htm Any patient who "comes to the emergency department" requesting "examination or treatment for a medical condition" must be provided with "an appropriate medical screening examination" to determine if he is suffering from an "emergency medical condition". If he is, then the hospital is obligated to either provide him with treatment until he is stable or to transfer him to another hospital in conformance with the statute's directives. What's an Emergency and what does the hospital have to do in that case? If the patient does not have an "emergency medical condition", the statute imposes no further obligation on the hospital. Oh, how special, your perfect society, not admitting pregnant women for what they guess is false labor. What a country. Yep, vertical and a pulse, get the fuck out. What a country. It is you who stuck it in yours, Mikey. And shall we talk about after the patient is released with a potential multi-1000 dollar bill? Of course they run from collectors and are threfore not as productive as they could be. I hope your nirvana of today's America changes drastically.

You want to compare / analogze the US economy to that of friends eating dinner? Hardly comparable at any level. They do when you give them money and IMMEDIATELY spend it vs giving it to the rich who bank it. That's what Hoover said; how'd that work out? The areas they invest it, when they decide to invest/risk it, are areas that would grow anyway. Many rich don't take excessive risk with their money, they invest it in stocks that are climbing and secure, so this so-called investment isn't into an area of real growth. Investment in people's human capital creates longterm growth. So let's invest in education. What you said makes me think of Reagan and his take, we all know that was a disaster.

The system does not create disparity. People stay in the situation they can handle and want. You want others to pay for what you want without you having to put in any effort. No, I want to adapt to a "normal" world standard of basic medical care guaranteed to all. Yes, teh US is elite and special, so special that we deny medical coverage based upon class. Real special. We are also the greatest debtor nation by a long stretch and we spend 8 times that of #2 on the military, so yes, we are sooooo special. I want to be a little less special as a nation. I've put more effort than most, you are just guessing.

Not at all, I think Moveon and the sort are liberally slanted, Newsmax and the sort are conservatively slanted and Fox is mildly slanted. ABC, NBC and CBS are middle stream and generally not slanted at all. I've heard my local FOX station lauging at Democrats, they are slanted, the 3 mains are careful not to pick a side. Ultimately they all view events as a commodity and would sel their mother off for a story that made them money.

I didn't make it say anything fucked up, I'm just stating that GI kids for the most part have no idea what they're swearing to. I'm calling most 17-20ish kids ignorant to most things. At 17 I had no idea or interest what the US Const was. My parents were AFU, so I was just concerned with getting away, I didn't hear people talking about that shit either, we were all talkling chicks, drinking, etc. In general kids just don't care about history and government. It's not stupid, it's naive and ignorant based upon age. Don't pop a vein. At 17 it's really not stupid, it's naive and ignorant, which I think virtually all people are at 17. They taught it then, it was the 70's, we were more about partying and whatever else. And the kids that did know what the US Const was, well most didn't go into the military, they went on to college, so perhaps they sat around and bantered about the nuances of teh 4th, but I doubt it; colleges are about partying too. It's utopian and ignorant to think kids like Michael J Fox's role on Growing Pains was it, that were so politically educated it made adults look naive. It's just not reality. And to swaer to something I think you have to have a real understanding, not just a casual knowledge of something. Pulse 145 and climbing. Really, grab a bag and breate into it. Good, because I'm not really a liberal. I'm left of center, but I'm not some extreme liberal based upon the sum total of my beliefs. Your ornate little word implanted to show us how smart you are is so off target. I was in, around the world and out by age 21. Did you get your pilot's license by age 20 by flying accross small islands 120 miles over open ocean? Did you suck it up and take shit as a scared 17 YO kid, traveling 2,000 miles from home. Did you have your 18th Bday in basic? I doubt it, yet you want to refer to me as inexperienced and book-educated only.

Quelle surprise... Nor so I think they did 30 years ago.

But you have news that is really obscenely slanted and news that is generally without an agenda. I think ABC, NBC, CBS is generally the latter. I like Jeese Ventura's take on it, he says basically that news media is a business, so they make a commodity out of events.

Fixed it....that was my point, young GI's don't know what it means, how can they uphold it? Not an insult to anyone, hell, I took teh oath too and I can remember thinking, "what is the Constitution?" Sounds like you should have paid more attention in school, then. Prolly, I dropped out as many of my GI buddies did. I don't think even HS grads knew taht much, think back to then and realy ask yourself what you knew. I talk to kids today and they don't know shit about it.

I don't claim it's fake, I just question its legitimacy. But as it stands, we have to go on what we know, not what we conspire. Our space race was so intense, if we didn't lie we would have. As for teh films, they could be faked. Anyway, I'm not saying it is fake, I'm somewhat skeptical.

Fixed it....that was my point, young GI's don't know what it means, how can they uphold it? Not an insult to anyone, hell, I took teh oath too and I can remember thinking, "what is the Constitution?"

The ridiculous thing about the oath for military members is that most don't understand the slightest thing about it. Not only that, but once you're sworn in and go to basic, you have far fewer US Const rights than the people you are sworn to defend. The whole thing is a silly formality.

OK. Obviously, physical knowledges did improve a lot since JFK's dead but, what exactly did those 3 (or more?) shots change in the US? BTW: In my corner of the world, there still are circulating several conspiracy therories. Most folks do NOT believe it was just a single deed of a single person. As well as the action of next single person killing the first one ..... The physiology didn't change, just the understanding of it and terminology. As for the conspiracy or not, I dunno. I'm not sure the US actually landed on the moon in 69, but we have to go from what we know or what is discovered, not some conspiracy; the byrden falls upon the purveyor of the conspiracy. Is it possible that any or these conspiracies of JFK are true? Certainly.

Or you choose tax brkts that allow people to keep most of what they make and coincidentally provide no social svs, that makes for a system that creates disparity. Basic svs being taken care of by the gov allows for the lowest class to get a start versus wealthy people who have highertaxes not being allowed to become wealthy as easily or quickly. It's really a culmination of personal effort, the tax system and social svs. It's not one or the other. Some environments favor class mobility and others favor social equity/harmony.

People certainly have to start by getting educated, but once they start earning, the tax brackets have a lot to do with it. And with little to no svs pays all that into basic maintenance and none into savings. Not as compared to other countries. There is a very real correlation; the money they make undergoes taxation scrutiny. The difference is the money they keep.

The problem with any system is that as soon as there is a rules-based system which uses specific criteria to determine who to enroll, you'll have freeloaders fooling the system by faking or artificially putting themselves under those criteria. Oh yea, and we need to deny them by denying all people any social welfare, even the vastly legitimate ones. Kinda like executing all guilty and innocent on death row so we can ensure we get the guilty ones. You, my freind, have defined what it is to be a contemporary conservative......or we could be compassionate and provide welfare and try to stomp out all abuse that we can. I know several conservatives down on their luck that put themselves there and then when they are doing better and can no longer fake it, decry welfare. Plenty. One had a kid on access, maybe his 2nd, not sure, but at least one on the gov nipple and receievd foodstamps, etc, then < 3 years later had his own A/C business and decried welfare and access.