Lucky...

He's the product of the laft wanting a public option, but the right ressiting, so we get stuck in the middle. I still think a public option, at least a limited one will pass, even if by concilliation.

You mean the parents that HAD insurance for the kid but tried find a Lower Cost policy only to discover that their child did meet the criteria for that particular policy?? TANSTAAFL!! It was the same type policy with a different company the way I understand it. This exposes America's love of insurance co's at a great time.

I see and kicking them to the curb as the right would do is tough love. Meanwhile coddling the rich is nice love. Hmmm, ok, let's let Darwin sort em out. And it's your assertion that soc progs are supported for political gain, not fact or other source. Explain how a millionaire in congress is doing himself a favor by raising taxes. So educational programs hold people in place? Right. Whne I was in college, only 25% of the people were chronic welfare recipients, the rest used it to get off of it.

Ok, you caught us, we were trying to use this kid as the poster child for HC reform when in reality he is a heroin addict, an old habit he picked up while serving in Nam. And then there's all the STD's he picks up from all the hookers he bangs. This infant is really a louse who wants the gov nipple stuck in his mouth, not mommies. Would not put it past Obama! He has done it before. When?

Ok, you caught us, we were trying to use this kid as the poster child for HC reform when in reality he is a heroin addict, an old habit he picked up while serving in Nam. And then there's all the STD's he picks up from all the hookers he bangs. This infant is really a louse who wants the gov nipple stuck in his mouth, not mommies. Why all the hyperbole, . . . from both sides. They had coverage (or at least an option for coverage), didn't like the price, went shopping around, got turned down based on obesity, and then used some connections to force a favorable decision. This baby is not a poster child for any position other than a person should not allow a lapse in coverage while shopping around. Right, damn liberal media, exposing the truth like that....shameful. The fact is the parents were turned down to insure teh kid, don't care about the extraneous circumstances of who found out, ins cos run the country, not the people.

Great, what a country; business before people......and they call us fascist. That's why the gov option, when business gets so corrupt that they disallow infants, or hell, adults for that matter, they need to have a competitor that keeps them in line. Exactly, parents can't afford preventative care or are otherwise disallowed, so we wait until he convulses and theeeeeen take him to the ER so they can try to revive him and theeeeeen pursue the parents until they BK and continue the idiocy over and over again. That's teh main dispute with HC, thanks for pointing it out. Under Ghia BHO's plan, fat babies found in the hopper would be aborted immediately to save these trips to the ER. It's called preventative maintenance. Insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws. They discuss patients among themselves, set prices, and stop people from shopping across statelines. Trouble is, Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana , is in their hip pockets. Imagine that, the chief architect is a liberal social democrat. Lucky, you're lucky to have this guy in your pocket. Yea, death squads....it's tied man, let it go. HMO's are then death squads, an 80 YO person won't get a new heart under either program. Baucus is a real lib, right, and he isn't supporting apublic oiption. You ought to realize when you have a champ in your corner.

Let them live with the choices they have mad in life and stop giving them handouts! Sorry lifes not fair. Deal with it! How ironic, I feel the same way: high taxes for the rich - life's not fair. Cool, we found something we have in common. And so teh children born into that mess; let them live with it. I withdraw my assertion that the right is incomnpassionate.

Gee I dunno, I went into the military when I was 17, was engine run qualified and ran engines at 19, went all over the US and then to Guam when I was 19. Got my pilot's license at 20 and flew to Saipan, visited a lot of te historical WWII sites, never made it to Tinian where the bombs were loaded - wish I had. So unless your ad hominem is over, I guess we can get back to our regularly scheduled argument.

Not to be confused with UCLA saying this, these are 2 UCLA economists claiming this. This was written in 2004 and they say: "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies." However, Obama's stimulus has already turned the GDP +, so their claims are BS to me. Also, this article is their speculation; we know what got us in, they're second-guessing how we got out. Furthermore, even if they were hypothetically right, the New Deals were probably more about relieving the suffering than they were about Depression recovery. It's an elitist that worries strictly about the bottom line and not the peopole dying of starvation along the way. In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933. These guys are obviously elitist pigs with a firm plant on the right. I don't see them criticize Hoover for his massive Relief Act of 1932 tax increase, but FDR was a bastard for being pro-labor and pro-social svs. Then they say, " The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies." FDR watched Hoover pander to his rich buddies and fuck the poor guy, so FDR reversed this and got great results for 5 years. And then, "Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression." This article is just typical RW rhetoric; they refer to some data somewhere, but never actually produce it. In science we have peer-reviewed journals with that data, otherwise it's just another shitty opinion. Alos, they don't talk about the worst years of the GD as that would step on their Republican buddy, Hoover. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data. Again, they guessed what the 10-headed monster *might* have done. In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity. Again, love their guesses. Higher wages = evil to RW elitists. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?" And yet they ignore what happened in 1929 and previous years? That's objective. Here's the basic theme: Keep labor beat down and the millionaires will become multi-millionaires so they will graciously employ the poor. Basic trickle-down, supply-side economics which Hoover had just employed, so FDR thought it would be insane to keep doing it and expect a different outcome. NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. And how are GD unemp rates AT ALL relevant to 2003 numbers? Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years. Here's what blasts their credibility: "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened." Maybe they didn't hear of Hoover's Laissez faire approach that had 12 million people dead from starvation, and his wonderful handling of the Bonus Army. That's an op-ed from a Libertarian group, so that's their opinion; their guess, not objective information. The 1920 recession was basically post WWI industrial shutdown and worked itself out with other industry as the auto boom was doing well. It wasn't caused by any economic anomaly other than the gov military welfare programs ended. Also, it ended in a year or so with no intervention, Hoover tried that with the GD in 2-3 years and 12 million died of hunger, so the old ignore it and it will go away was tried and didn't work, we had to try something else. Trickle-down, supply side economics don't work. They didn't work under Hoover or Reagan and led to disaster, yet you celebrate their losses as victories. WRONG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States Look at the top rate drastic increase in the 19teens to mid 20's. The debt actually fell during this time. Then look at the lowering of the top rate at the latter 1920's and crash. Look at this: http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/DeficitRealDollars1941-2009.gif Other than the war, which caused debt, post WWII the debt fell and we had a top rate of 94%, the highest in history. Then you see it rose in the VN era, war cost, but post VN it rose sharply even exclusive of the Gulf War and Iraq War. Taxes were lowered extremely then other than when GHWB and Clinton raised them, then the deficit dropped to a surplus. Your assertion is statistically absolutely wrong. And the top 20% possess 93% of all cash, so what are you bitching about? The gov taxes the money, not the people. Altho what you wrote is true, explain how wealth disparity is growing. It does benefit them, esp lately: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States Yes, I agree, anarchy is fun; let the rich keep their cash. I almost saw the word, "fair" coming out, glad I didn't. 2001 recession? Didn't know there was one, I define, as do economists, a recession is 2 consecutive quarters of neg GDP growth. Furthermore, GHW Bush raised taxes in the midst of his recession he was gifted from fascist Ronnie and it worked well. Times weren't great when Clinton hammered his massive tax increase and what happened? Well, great success in spite of what the Limbaughs of teh world want; American failure when a Dem is in office. Love your comprehensive myth-busting explanation. Really? http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200 Revenues increased 8% from 2001 to 2009, while spending was 114%. Under those horrible Clinton years revenues increased 72%, while outlays increased 32%. So please, tell me of the great economic growth; I'm just sitting here dying to hear it. Oh, I love Heritage, what happened, was The Onion and Newsmax site down? Come on, I don't post Moveon.org, don't feed me Heritage BS please. I post all objective data, not some op-ed by some RW nutjob organization. Again, this chart at the bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States show me when taxes are raised on the rich how things go to hell. Again, dying to hear this. This is my country, my profile is just for fun, can't you see it's BS? The 1920 crash was over in a year and was just as a result of war spending dropping. Industries adapted and it was over. I don't see how that is relevant to the GD. I realize that's your poster child for laissez faire economics, but it's an anomaly; show me where it worked before or since. And was over in a year so no intervention was necessary. Really? The crash kicked off 10-29-29, Hoover did little but cut taxes, 12 million died, June 1, 1932 he finally raised taxes and so did FDR in 33 and subsequent. They tried it your way for the almost first 3 years of the GD and 12 million died; please tell me your silly argument is over. I've addressed every site and info you've posted, unlike you who have not addressed 1 of the sites I posted. Furthermore, my citations are objective, most or all of yours is from an agenda-based site or persons. Yea, 12 million say otherwise form 1929 to 1932. Well, if they were alive during the GD they would. Is that Republican Darwinian economic success; 12 mill dead? I agree that it was the low interest rate that caused this mess, but what required interest rate cuts: tax cuts. You cut taxes, you have less money circulating, they have to lower the interest rate. Esp stupid cutting taxes in time of war. The mess was long before the foreclosures, foreclosures were a product of the cause: tax cuts my friends which led to low int rates. The market and GDP have gone +, the last thing to ever come around after a recession is employment. I'm sorry and I apologize for Obama that after inheriting the worst mess since the GD he couldn't have it wrapped up in 2 weeks. Look at any recession / depression, unemp is teh last thing out and Obama recoverd from the market crash and GDP in record time. Isn't it fun to watch economics as a microcosm? Any economist would tell you to take the economy as an average over a number of months / years, not in a microcosm of a day or a week as you are doing. The market and economy have responded brilliantly, it will take 1-2 years for unemp to drop to 5% and we'll be out. That's from Heritage, not the WH. Dude, you would shit your pants if i gave you a chart, graph, site from Moveon, don't shove a turd down my throat from some agenda site. Seriously, get that data from the WH and I'm really interested, until then it's BS - you would say the same. It's real hard to find a flaw in the recovery of the mess Obama inherited from Bush and friends with the market near 10k and the GDP + IN JUST OVER 1 QUARTER.

Sigh. Bad "data" is worse than none at all. We declared war on Dec 8, 1941. Which really fucks up your argument as unemployment was still 10% in 1941. I realize that we declared war the day after Pearl Harbor, I just wrote that, not sure if here or in an email. Common fact. So now you're down to a semantics game that Dec 8 of one year is no where near the same as the next? So Dec 31 is waaaaaaay different than Jan 1? Unemp in 1941 was 10% per the chart, unemp in 1942 was 5% per the chart. This is not bad data, what you unsuccessfully tried to say is the interpretation was bad, not the data, but it supports your flawed argument to say the data is bad so you go with it. It's fair to say the unemp was somewhere inbetween at the end of 1941 and it had been tapering off since 1938, some 3 years before Pearl Harbor. But there are really 2 segments to the recovery of the GD: 1933-1937 1938-1942 I see you addressd the second part and left the first alone. I think it's fair to say war funding projects spurred some of the recovery in the second part, whereas not at all in the first. All I see in the first part are massive tax increases and social programs and a quick recovery based upon the depth of the depression. Furthermore, look at the chart at the bottom where tehy show top brackets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States Look at 1920 to 1931. See how the rich get breaks? Then the GD. The same trend can be seen when Reagan took office and we amounted massive debt. Of course teh relief was when GHWB and Clinton raise dit back up and we saw deficit recovery, then your guy came in and undid that and here we are at the Great Recession. I'm still looking for arguments as to how tax cuts help anything? All I see is disaster whenever we do so.

When the gov taxes they don't tax the poor. The bottom 50% pay < 3% of all taxes, so let's understand taxes are almost exclusively for the rich. wow i want to know what fantasy land your in where the gov doesnt tax the poor. kinda sure im no where near the rich life and im getting taxed like mad. It might feel like it, but in reality the entire 50% of all taxpayers could just not file or pay and the gov would spend more pursuing them than they would actually just fogetting about it. Don't get me wrong, they will come after you, butthe entire tax structure wouldn't fiscally miss the lower 50%; let's not flatter ourselves. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html Bottom 50% = 2.89%...IOW's, you and I pay nothing in the grand scheme even tho it feels like a lot to us, so there's YOUR fantasyland, thinking your taxes actually affect the tax pool.

And again, you prove my point. What point is that? I wish you made a point in this thread and left your ad hominem and/or false cries of ad hominems upon you out. ION made a couple points I will merge his 2 repsonses later and answer them, until then just keep misdirecting.

You'd be amazed at how much difference a good (or bad) CEO can make at a company. I'm not saying it's true in every case (hence the word 'generally'), but in most cases it's true. Keep in mind that most people aren't CEO's either. OK, but are they more productive accirding to their pay taht equals sometimes 100's or thousands of workers? I think you just kinda threw that out there. What part of "in general" don't you understand? Don't think they make that much of a difference? Read up on Nardelli at Home Depot. I don't care if you say in general or exclusively, when a CEO's pay = that of 100's or 1,000's of workers, how is it that the CEO is more productive or = to several 100 workers? It was your assertion that the more you earn, the more productive you are, hence you are a better American or something to that effect. You want a stratified America, I don't.

No, but you said we are enabling these welfare recipients by continuing to pay them, right? So is your answer to stop enabling them by stop paying them or to just consiuder them 4th class citizens? Or both? You really can't make a point, can you? People in lower classes probably don't do a lot of planning, so your thought that this is a conspiracy on teh rich from the poor is just funny. Because they have unprotected sex and don't care. What's your resolution? OK, so what's your resolution.

You'd be amazed at how much difference a good (or bad) CEO can make at a company. I'm not saying it's true in every case (hence the word 'generally'), but in most cases it's true. Keep in mind that most people aren't CEO's either. OK, but are they more productive accirding to their pay taht equals sometimes 100's or thousands of workers? I think you just kinda threw that out there.

Data? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data It's right there, numbers, information. I'm not talking nationalist rhetoric about how the the US is the best ever and how tax cuts, my friends, are the answer for everything. I'm talking numerically-based information. And more generalizations. I wasn't even being serious. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk Obviously, if you were you would actually create an argument for your side. I know your take on this, it's just quite obvious that you are anable to make a solvent reply to support, "Tax cuts, my friends."

With you? No. I'm not in the mood to waste my time. If it was coming from lawrocket or Tom A. I might. They'll actually discuss a topic as opposed to making partisan generalizations and resorting to name-calling. You're so convinced of your own moral superiority you think no one's arguments have any merit no matter their content, you've shown that in other threads. It's a waste of my time. Personally I think you're on here just because you're entertained by the sound of your own voice, so to speak. I did discuss it - I posted data. Partisan? I stated Hoover, a president I despise, finnally raised taxes, how am I being partisan by stating his deeds good and bad? Where did I call you a name? Moral superiority? I don't see that in here, show me the way. If you actually had an argument you would make it. It's quite obvious that tax increases, New Deals and social programs enabled the relief from 33 to 37, after that is up for grabs. lawrocket or Tom A: These guys believe virtually as you do, how is there ever an argument but an affirmation of your own beliefs. You have to venture outside to learn and to teach.

Except where is the line drawn between 'Assistance' and 'Enabling' ? Given that there are generations of welfare-dependent families, is it possible that these programs are enabling the very problems they seek to eliminate? If you reward something, do you usually get more of it? And so if we refuse to enable then we let the kids die so they don't grow up to be sponges, according to you. It's not as easy as saying to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. It would be nice if these people got off the nipple, but some won't and we have to protect their kids from welfare and even help them to not be homeless.

While I think taxes are a separate issue, I'd say generally, yes. Earning more usually means you're more productive. Oh that's laughable. CEO's are teh most productive people in teh US. Or should we look at athletes and actors, etc.... Feel free to withdraw that assertion.

If you can't see the difference between getting something back and getting something you never paid in the first place I'm not sure there's anything anyone can do to help you. We've all had the math done, what I'm saying is that with stimulus checks and with EIC they can both be matters of getting back more than you pay in. LMK when you grasp that concept.

I qualified for EIC one year when I was in school and only working part time. No kids. The original premise you are complaining about is false. Fair enough. When I have some more time I'll look at what does and doesn't qualify so I have a better idea of how it works. I've made the assumption that kids play a large factor in being eligible for EIC, and that may be false. Largely true, but not absolute. Either way, I brought it in to establish to Doug that with his logic, stimulus checks and EIC can be a matter where you get back more than you pay in, so with the element he proposed tehre isn't necessarily a diff.

I qualified for EIC one year when I was in schoool and only working part time. No kids. The original premise you are complaining about is false. Yea, that's why I said 'generally' have kids. Altho a single person doesn't get much, they can be eligible.

Paying poor people to have kids is just about the most idiotic idea ever. Only in government.... I'm not saying I advocate it either, I was simply using it as an extension of Doug's logic. However, somethin has to be done to keep poor people and their kids out of poverty.

So you're saying you're amore worthy citizen if you earn more and pay more in taxes? Right, EIC.

I said nothing about the merit or worth, and my approval or dissaproval of EIC, or other refundable tax credits. Let me try again. At the end of the year you either: A. Contributed more tax revenue to the government, than the payments you received from the goverment. or B. Received more from the government than the tax revenue that you contributed. Once you figure out the simple math, let me know. EIC is given to people who generally have kids and really low income. They take more than they put into the system, the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT you are making with stimulus checks, you justify cashing yours by saying that you had put more in than you git back, so you deserved yours, unlike people who receive more than they pay in. ---->EIC recipient earns let's say 8k. Pays in $300 in withholding. ----->They write off their kids and themselves and get back all $300 plus $4k in EIC ----->They pay zero and get $4k back that they didn't put in. LMK when you have done the math.