Lucky...

Brother, I didn't even click on it, if you can't take more than 20 seconds to post a URL and run, I can't address it. Make a point, love to address it. You should probably click on it before criticizing the poster. You might be surprised at what you find. And you're doing the same thing. I'm asking someone here to make a point, hell, cut-n-paste some dialogue from the writings, but shit, if I wanted to have a conversation with the author of that article I could write them and do that. If there is such great content in there, bring it in, it's only a cut-n-paste away, but don't paste a book, hit the high points. Basically I'm looking for data, as anyone can recite the virtues of trickle-down, supply-side economics. I can then recite the dangers of supply-side economics and then we play outthe experiment; I'm more interested in the results than the rhetoric along the way. Please, make a point, someone. Even if it's a point in support of my position, I would like to read another perspective.

Even before that, what money is expended on the military. Are you getting where everyone is goijng with this? We don't choose the 600B + 200B Iraq funding every year, but we should be able to shoot down a 1-time 850B HC proposal as too expensive? Exactly, GHWB and Clinton did just that, as well as they increased taxes, this created a 12-year recovery that was blown to hell by GWB.

Do you believe that each individual taxpayer should have the right to choose whether or not to contribute funding for the military? Why or why not? And that was my piont, kbordsen must have missed it and directed to the brave troops no one claims are part of any fault here.

TRANSLATION TO HC: It's a service that is provided as health and quality of life protection for the people of a country by a smaller portion of the populous. Why can't that translate? Were off the point of 'free gov svs.' Who demonizes the troops? PLease. We were at the government level, the gov providing 'free' military protection versus the gov providing 'free' HC protections; let's not reconnect the gov to the troops, the troops have no place in this argument, they are part of the populace. Do you think the gov verspends on the military? I seee you think the gov would be overspending on medical if it passes.

Yep, that was my point. The same people shooting down HC are teh same ones pumping up more $$$ for the military, or at least they're not denoucing what we have, so their cries of spending money so everyone can have HC has more to do with 'everyone having HC' than it does the money aspect.

The American people don't have a say in either. That's honestly great and I've served too, but that doesn't address government control over the military and healthcare and any say the people might have.

Brother, I didn't even click on it, if you can't take more than 20 seconds to post a URL and run, I can't address it. Make a point, love to address it.

It can be as simple as making a claim that cutting taxes is good, posting an objective, data-based website that shows post-tax cut performance is positive and letting it go. Oh, what's that? That data doesn't exist? Yes, I know. Oh, I see: Operant behavior "operates" on the environment and is maintained by its consequences,... So if I were to say, 'cut taxes and the debt will triple in 8 years,' as with Reagan, then I am succombing to operate conditioning if I think that's bad and I don't want taxes cut? Whereas if I throw caution to the wind, don't worry about the ultimate state of our economy: Behaviors conditioned via a classical conditioning procedure are not maintained by consequences. Then I am, according to your inferrence, doing the smart thing. This really supports my theory that conservatives are somewhere between a sociopth (no conscience) and a teenage boy (no consideration for consquence). Not that I need it to be supported

I see, 'cut taxes my friends' fixes everything? You want to say the largest GDP in the world isn't tough to manage and complex? OK. How about when the corporations are allowed to handle our money, that's the 3rd wheel that's rarely mentioned. They are the real problem here and we need to overregulate them. How are they taking money out when they are 12T in debt; they are obviously having to put too much in. My argument, and I will refine this later, is that they put too much in toward the top and it gets stuck there, versus giving it low and it immediatley circulates, overcirculation can be remedied by increasing the interest rate which appreciates the value of the dollar, undercirculation is remedied by lowering the interest rate,but as we see with the housing crunch that doesn't always work.

1. Offended the Queen of England. - She wasn't offended but how is this substantive? 2. Bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. - How is this substantive? 3. Praised the Marxist Daniel Ortega. - For what? How is this substantive? 4. Kissed Socialist Hugo Chavez on the cheek. - How is this substantive? 5. Endorsed the Socialist Evo Morales of Bolivia. - Endorsed for what? How is this substantive? 6. Sided with Hugo Chavez and Communist Fidel Castro against Honduras. - Sided in theory or sent troops? 7. Announced we would meet with Iranians with no pre-conditions while they're building their nuclear weapons. - We should have attacked them, the ME is too peaceful. I know it's foreign to conservatives, but attacking/invading s/b last, talking first. 8. Gave away billions to AIG also without pre-conditions. - Starting with Bush and many Republican supporters. That act was systemic, it passed 75-24 and of the no votes 15 were Repub, so only slightly more R's voted no than D's. Not to mention Bush signed it. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14190.html Your point establishes it was systemic. Also, if you disagree then you must disclose an alternate plan. 9. Expanded the bailouts. - As opposed to let the country fall flat? And the GDP rose from -6.4 the 1st quarter to -1.0 the second, s/b well + by the 3rd. How is the bailout so bad? 10. Insulted everyone who has ever loved a Special Olympian. - No he didn't - show's desperation on your part. Again, how is this substantive? 11. Doubled our national debt. - Where, other than Hanity and Limbaugh, do you get your data? Our national debt when Bush left was around 11.5T, now it's 12.1 or so. Fuzzy mnath much? 12. Announced the termination of our new missile defense system the day after North Korea launched an ICBM. - Yea, and we're flat out of missles, darnit. We virtually match teh world in military spending but it's not enough for Rick. Rest assured that with Iraq/Afghanistan we evceed the rest of teh world. 13. Released information on U.S. Intelligence gathering despite urgings of his own CIA director and the prior four CIA directors. - Released to whom? Released what? Is this about Guantanamo torture tactics and processes? If so, I think the enemy knows it already. 14. Accepted without comment that five of his cabinet members cheated on their taxes and two other nominees withdrew after they couldn't take the heat. - OK, and what should he do? Post what your referring to, but he's not a babysitter. 15. Appointed a Homeland Security Chief who identified military veterans and abortion opponents as "dangers to the nation." - Post what you're talking about. 16. Ordered that the word "terrorism" no longer be used and instead refers to such acts as "man made disasters." - Post how this is relevant? Let's talk terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. Shall we talk Japan Aug 6 & 9, 1945 creating terror to achieve that political agenda? Hiro Hito agreed to a conditional surrender, not good enough. Even after the bombing it was still conditional, the emporor was to keep his thrown. 17. Circled the globe to publicly apologize for America's world leadership. - Are you fucking kidding? http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2009 We moved from 97 to 83 this year, but of course that's for pussies, if they mock us we just blow them up. 18. Told the Mexican president that the violence in their country was because of us. It wasn't? A gun dealer in AZ provided like 1300 AK's to him as a starter. Again, so what, what does it change? IS ddenial before investigation always the best response? 19. Politicized the census by moving it into the White House from the Department of Commerce. - How so? WHat's teh harm of whatever you allege? 20. Appointed as Attorney General the man who orchestrated the forced removal and expulsion to Cuba of a 9-year-old whose mother died trying to bring him to freedom in the United States. - Where is this ellusive freedom for which you refer? As well, what about the father from the east coast who's wife took the child to Brazil I think it is and then dies, now her new husband is trying to claim the American's son and winning so far. This is Elian Gonzo in reverse, but I'm sure you think he belongs here, right? So do I, just as Elian belongs with hsi surviving custodial parent. 21. Salutes as heroes three Navy SEALS who took down three terrorists who threatened one American life and the next day announces members of the Bush administration may stand trial for "torturing" three 9/11 terrorists by pouring water up their noses. - So freeing the ship captain justifies torture how??????? 22. Low altitude photo shoot of Air Force One over New York City that frightened thousands of New Yorkers. - http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/04/27/2009-04-27_plane_stupid_mayor_bloomberg_outraged_over_military_photoop_involving_lowflying_.html Louis Caldera, the director of the White House military office who sent Air Force One and the fighter jet on an "aerial photo mission," got slammed by an angry President Obama. "I approved a mission over New York," Caldera said in a hastily prepared statement. "I apologize and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused." OK, so how is that Obama's fault? He learned of it and slammed Caldera, how is it his fault? 23. Sent his National Defense Advisor to Europe to assure them that the US will no longer treat Israel in a special manner and they might be on their own with the Muslims. - Yes, as they are one of the more militant countries. Hell, even Bush told tehm to quit stirring shit, the shit that we have to go fix. Israel is not saint. 24. Praised Jimmy Carter's trip to Gaza where he sided with terrorist Hamas against Israel. - Post details. 25. Nationalized General Motors and Chrysler while turning shareholder control over to the unions and freezing out retired investors who owned their bonds. Committed unlimited taxpayer billions in the process. - AKA bailed them out so they could stay afloat, our #4 product is autos, kinda important. I could see your cut-n-pasted list if Obama and congress did not: Obama lets US #4 product die without aid.....get real dude. 26. Passed a huge energy tax in the House that will make American industry even less competitive while costing homeowners thousands per year. - Which and what is the purpose and the goal? 27. Announced nationalized health care "reform" that will strip seniors of their Medicare, cut pay of physicians, increase taxes yet another $1 trillion, and put everyone on rationed care with government bureaucrats deciding who gets care and who doesn't. ---> Death squad - fodder from idiots for idiots ---> $1 T - they say 850B, far less than the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars ---> cut pay of physicians - that's conjecture, but would it be so bad if 300k, 500k/yr doc's pay wer cut? ---> Strpi seniors of medicare - not hardly, nothing will change ---> Rationed care - like we have now ala HOM's? It will open up medical care to all, might it then take longer to see a doc? Probably. ---> government bureaucrats deciding who gets care and who doesn't - That's already done, why would you object? I realize you didn't complie this list, you cut-n-paste it, but let's see if you comprehensively answr all of my comments. I highly doubt you will.

Oh, like the military?

Your point was taken - I was confirming this with my own account. Most people don't have the option to work for large telecoms and defense contractors, or small financial and Internet companies like I do. Drew also has very good education and specialized skills that make him an asset. The tens of thousands of out-of-work auto employees don't necessarily have the options we do, and those are the people that I am discussing. Right and I am all for being rewarded if you put yourself somewhere that you can get such great coverage, I don;t like that Canada restricting private health providers. I don't think a citizen should be denied coverage or required to go bankrupt if their appendix bursts. I know you're kinda on the same page. I just wonder what beats at the heart of someone who so objects to a poor family getting medical attention from checkups to surgeries.

Let's be real, how much do the poor hold? How much do the lowest 80% of all Americans hold? It's like 7% of the cash and 16% of all American asset are held by the lowest 80% - you and me. Do you want me to believe that the market is held and controlled by much of that bottom 80%? I didn't think so. Thx for letting me know about the founder of Walmart, he's kind of obscure. As for the flowery story, isn't that so representative of America....NOT. Using an aberration to try to sell the notion that people go rags to riches and that the lower 80% has any real control is misleading. In America we have such a classist country, with the distribution of wealth not so far from Communist countries, that we are addressed and privileged by our wealth status; why should I address it dishonestly? Are you serious? You'll act as if you knew, but that's just a joke, I probably even misspelled it.

I don't see how the Act is sololy or even at all responsible for the mortgage mess. It's a Republican deregualtion Bill, drawn by a Republican Congress that Clinton signed, but show me how it led to the Mortgage mess. WHat the act did was to: The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms and insurance companies to consolidate. OK, and if interest rates weren't so low then people wouldn't qualify for loans for such high principle values, houses wouldn't have been day-traded and sub-prime borrowers wouldn't qualify. BTW, sub-primers qualified, IMO, because lenders felt the value was in the quickly appreciating house rather than the lender, so no down fine as the lender would be doing teh bank a favor by backing out / defaulting. Whether the banks consolidated or not, the entire catylist for the mortgage mess were the low interest rates for too long. Here's a great ref that I agree with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis The causes are numerous: - mortgages resetting, - borrowers overextending, - predatory lending, - speculation and overbuilding during the boom period, - risky mortgage products, - high personal and corporate debt levels, - financial products that distributed and perhaps concealed the risk of mortgage default, - monetary policy, - international trade imbalances, - government regulation (or the lack thereof). me - influx of moneys from the private sector - banks entering into the mortgage bond market - the predatory lending practices of mortgage brokers, specifically the adjustable rate mortgage, - moral hazard lay at the core of many of the causes And the real catylists were: Low interest rates and large inflows of foreign funds created easy credit conditions for a number of years prior to the crisis, fueling a housing market boom and encouraging debt-financed consumption. So without the low interest rates, this whole environment wouldn't have been possible and even if attempted, the foreclosures would have come quickly, rather than being delayed and the bubble would have been so small no bailout would have been needed. I look at this problem and the dignoses that it had to be the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act as a physical dignoses of a human at the doctors office. A person smokes, drinks, uses drugs, eats poorly and does everything he can to be ill. He wants an answer as to why he has some serious illness, let's say cancer. The doctor might tell him it's the smoking (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) just to give him peace of mind, but in reality it's the template of an overall drug consumption environment that drove him there (interest rates). I think that's a fair analogy, again, the whole mess would have never been attempted, but even if had it would have been stymied early on by quick foreclosures as the artificial house boom would have popped in a few months at most. Was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act a bad idea? Yes, I'm for governemtn regulation, esp of major corporate industries, but di it have a major role here? Don't think so, if banks weren't allowed to consolidate this still could have happened.

In my experience, I could get this sort of coverage by working for either a very large corporation that had tens of thousands of employees and could negotiate a great rate OR a small, well-funded VC company that had kick-ass product and was competing for the best talent. Both scenarios happened in the "good" economies, not the "bad" economies, where the company paid for the insurance. I still work as a contractor for some of the smaller companies. Now that the economy is bad, they offer insurance to their employees for sale. If I were still an employee, it would cost me about $1,000/month to insure my wife and two children - the same cost as my home mortgage. Kinda my point Most people don't make that kind of money to toss 12k off per year.

What % of emplyers buy a kickass policy like that? 10% maybe. Is this a case, 'I have mine, tough shit for you all?" Kinda my point.

I get the wolves part, just nott he sheep's clothing; what do they 'wear' to make them looking innocent and pure?....or even moderately ok. Nothing wrong with that, just making a likely prognostication. No, but, I'm no Whig expert, but they were osted by the then great Republican Party, now the Repubs have become them. Tom seems like a dignified individual, I just stand behind people who can support their positions with some kind of relevant data, history, etc. Call what populism? Backwards progress? I call it regression, I thought I made that inference; the conservatievs are great it whether they wear a Republican hat, Libertarian hat or whatever. Let's not be abstract, how about social progress, integration, equality, education, etc. I don't think we need to ponder progress, it's kinda like the SCOTUS take on porn; you know when you see it, no dissection neccessary. You would say ensuring healthcare for all Americans is regressive because people might become less self-reliant. But when you don't have a chance to got to the doctor and your ill/injured, you're not self-reliant anyway. So this Darwinian approach to pulling yourself up by the proverbial bootstraps is just a guise for creating a hardsher, elitist, classist society. Jesus, is that from the Repub/Libertarian dictionary? Progressive means: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progressive pro⋅gres⋅sive  /prəˈgrɛsɪv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pruh-gres-iv] Show IPA Use progressive in a Sentence See web results for progressive See images of progressive –adjective 1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor. 2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community. 3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement. 4. (initial capital letter) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics. 5. going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step. 6. noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income. 7. of or pertaining to progressive education: progressive schools. 8. Grammar. noting a verb aspect or other verb category that indicates action or state going on at a temporal point of reference. 9. Medicine/Medical. continuously increasing in extent or severity, as a disease. –noun 10. a person who is progressive or who favors progress or reform, esp. in political matters. 11. (initial capital letter) a member of a Progressive party. 12. Grammar. a. the progressive aspect. b. a verb form or construction in the progressive, as are thinking in They are thinking about it So that is your interpretation of progressive. Perhaps you could say that violence can sometimes be the means to progress, but it alos can be the process in which a government ceases progess, such as Tieneman Square. Progression, regression, and tradition are just movements fwd, backward or nowhere, violence is just one method to further it, there are many peaceful ways, such as election, peaceful protest, boycott, etc. So what do you call the 1950's racial movement; a hijacking? Do we need to establish that blacks were oppressed? Black/white bathrooms and water fountains as starters. I'll be interested to see what you think of that movement. What does that mean???? Does tha mean slavery, which was obviously long outlawed by 1920, was a good thing because his slave owners maintained his health, hence had it good? Please expound.

I've posed this question before, I'd appreciate someone to show me: - Tax cut that resulted in prosperity for all, jobs, growth, and debt/deficit health. AND / OR: - Tax increase that resulted in economic devastation for the nation, unemployment, GDP - neg growth, and debt/deficit increase beyond times when tax cuts were implemented. I ask you: - Don't be abstract - Don't use a small, irrelevant example, only tax cuts / increases that have a major reach by way of their language and teeth. - Don't provide anything but federal data with major tax cuts/increases that have had enough time to see the impact / result - Use somewhat recent data, 100 years should be relevant, 50 years is very relevant - Take into consideration other aspects of the economy while these tax cuts / increases were implemented. IOW's you can make an argument that X is a good time to raise em, Y is a good time to cut em. - Be partisan if you wish, but I would rather focus on the tax cut / increase cause and effect. - Provide objective data to support your contention. Provide GDP, stock market, unemployment, interest rate, or anything you find as a player in the argument that always raising taxes, always cutting taxes or provisionally changing taxes is in the best benefit for America. BTW, it's a fair argument to claim that raising taxes is good for America via its indexes and overall health, but bad for you personally. - Also, provide the cause and effect relationship that raising taxes, cuting taxes would have on all other aspects of society, social or otherwise. Explain why you think this and provide supporting evidence that history worked that way before and would again. - This is not a fairness excercise, feel free to interject how you think it's fair or not, but I want cause/effect of teh implementation of tax cuts and/or increases. That should do it, hope I can find some good data and arguments to make my understanding as complete as possible.

I know you dislike the Republican Party, even tho it appears your ideals are 90% inline with theirs, you love the Libertarian Party, but they will never win and we know that. I'm thinking you could revitalize the Whig Party, it seems as tho you are a good fit and maybe, just maybe you could drag other non-mindless, non-drones from the repubs and Libertarians to support you. We could progress backwards, as contemporary conservatives do and just call it progressive. LMK, I'll sign up.

Glad we can go back to arguing about how Obama is the devil's assistant.

Not as directly as before, but you can't totally ignore it. Look at the recent recession, it fell from 12ish to 6's, atthe bottom, then jumped to now almost 10 as we have exited the recession, so it isn't as carbon copy as it has been, but still indicative. The market reflects the health of the rich, the unemp rate reflects the health of the poor. The GDP is the best indicator, always has been since it's inception is the 30's or 40's and still is.

Yes and overall well-being, healthcare availability, etc. Hardly, it was 10.8% under Reagan and 25% as Hoover handed it off to FDR. The rightthing to do would be to spend that stimulus on a massive hurry-up operation on building gov hospitals and sending people to school to be docs, nurses, techs and that would solve the unmpe problem and the healthcare problem. Of course there is a fair sized contenginecy out there whop would call that getting something for free, so we don't want to upset them by fixing both problems. Probably, altho the market kept climbing in a general sense around the era of the 1980 and 1990 recession, they may have temporarily adjusted, but didn't reflect the tough times as other indexes have. So the market indexes have more to do with rich people than other missery indexes, which belong to the poor / MC. Jobs are often far behind other recoveries. Yep, that's typical. And jobs didn't tank until we were in the recession for a while, so they lag on both ends, nothing unsuul about this deep recession other than the severity of it and the fast recovery. Jobs are an indirecct aspect here. He can personally bailout industries, but he has to bailout compaies or stimulate companies in order to provoke them to hire people. That's how corporate America has this country by the short ones, there are people out there warning of teh sky falling and socialism's onset if the government gets too direct hands-on with jobs. In Europe they wouldn't bat an eye to have a gov-run massive bussiness. Look at Quantas, a gov-run airline. The American process will be forced to modify to evolve into a more humanist entity. IOW's, Obama's hands are tied, he was just about cricified to offer a public option for HC, what would happen if he proposed a major gov project where the gov was the employer and coordinator 100%? I agree, but he has to doit indirectly or the "sky is falling" tea partiers will come out wandering around like a bunch of senile McCain's at the presidential debate. The beauty is that the dollar made a huge jumo when at the end of chimp's term the market crashed and people pulled out of the market and stuck into bonds driving teh dollar up. Now that the market is flying these people are pulling out of binds, throwing into the market, so the dollar is shrinking, a good think for exchange rate on export goods, so hopefully that helps.

So from about the 70's forward wages have gone to shit? Hmmm, I wonder what happened then to make that happen???

Yes, I accidentally wore a yellow with a black; I looked like a fucking bumble bee. That was a fashion disaster.

But I'm a nappy-headed ho, sorry you're offended by that, I just feel that way about myself. Just be glad you were able to use the term, "dead reckoning" in a post; how long has it been? Once again, this is an international forum, and certain people would find your signature offensive. It does not matter where you picked it up. The very people you defend demanded Don Imus's job over this little statement. Sure, you thought thought it was "cool" at the time, but it's not. I will gladly erase my signature if it offends you. It's more than just international, it's eternal and there are dead people on DXCOM too. They read your signatire and see, "dead.." and they are offended. They say they wouldn't be caught dead with a signature like that. Now quit lashing out because you: - Were able to use your signature in a post - I pointed out that that was condescension, as I've been a pilot, but congrats on you using your sig in a post - Yu became pissed about that and started a campaign about it If teh media can run with it, repeat it, run it thru the mill, then how is it offensive? They didn't post it like the "N Bomb" and say, "N-headed-H." Nappy-headed ho can be said on the media, just not when you address it toward someone. So why not quit being so dramatic and symbolic and find a real cause to fight, let's say, find people who don't have medical care and ensure theyt stay that way - or some other worthy agenda like that. Until then my nappy-headed ho ass has to go.