Lucky...

well, I hadn't intended it that way, but you take it however you like. I find no point in complaining about it at this point. There are plenty of folks doing more than enough of that already. I'd rather get on with my life. I suggest you do something similar. (Unless, that is, the exciting part of your life IS complaining about political issues that are already passed) My commentary is on the article and the OP for buying into it. This is not about payroll taxes, but merely another whine and cheese about Obamacare.

So you quit = concede. Noted.

The biggest problem we have is unnecessary spending. End of story. well I was referring to the increase in the cost of employing someone (since that's what the article was referring to). Though I perhaps wasn't specific enough about that. Yea, it was a pathetic swipe at Obamacare from the backdoor of payroll taxes.

Ok, your argument is against payroll taxes and then it morphs onto Obamcare; pick a topic. So, tell us what you would do with the millions of those w/o HC or with horrible HC coverage: - Nothing - fuck em - Premium controls to ins cos - Single payer - Other ______________________ I won't get an answer, but it would be a nice change if I did. Tell us what to do with the millions of your beloved countrymen and women w/o any HC.

I've addressed that other factors contribute, but when I post 100 years of data and you ignore that and head right to wanting a 300-page dissertation on teh analysis of economics in an effort to avoid the graph, then we get it; you can't refute the data so you ask for more and if I bothered you would, guess what? Ask for more. I'm not dissecting the macroeconomics of the US along with a 245-point claim, I'm making a general observation that low tax rates = high debt and other negative aspects that come with low tax rates. I realize you can't counter that so now you need to distract and blame it on something else, ask for clarity, etc. If you watch a trial you'll see the same tactics used, if a witness gets asked a question and neds time think or hopes they can move on he'll ask fior the Q to be repeated or clarified. I posted the data, show me where tax cuts lead to better economic times or enter an alternative theory. The big spending theory is lame, as the debt has fallen under times of big spending.

WHich explains why you didn't comment on the chart I provided detailing imminent and immediate doom as the tax rates are lowered. All you have to do is ignore what I posted and go off on your own tangent, revise history via sliding the good times and bad times around from when the policies actually took effect and all seems well for your theory. Yet you still cannot show me a major fed tax cut that has led to better economic times. Or your bro hwt who thinks MSNNBCBS is a real media outlet. Show me times that are good when taxes are < 70% when the debt didn't rise other than Clinton's years when had the help of the dot.com boom. You keeptrying to revise teh number higher and higher. In fact, as taxe rates were dropped in the 1960's the debt grew until in 1969 the tax rate was boosted for a short bit; THE DEBT SHRUNK IN 1969, EINSTEIN. You guy pretend to care about the debt when in reality you don't as you are pro-military spending and pro tax cuts; the 2 things that smoke the debt. You can't help but to pull other non-related issues in to rally the troops instead of referencing my data and making a point; MAKE A POINT FROM MY DATA OR OTHER OBJECTIVE DATA. Yes but history remembers the 80's as massive debt, loss of HC for millions and a few overnight millionaires while many suffered, just like the Roaring 1920's where teh rich blew up as taxes were redued to 25% top brkt; ring a bell? History remebers the 90's as deficit killing, taxing teh rich a little more and balancing the budget. Your own arguments speak you in the ass; hillarious. The most massive growth period in US history couldn't even knock the debt down 1 penny; came 33B short in fact and you call that success????? Neo-con success = debt grows. In 1969 the tax rate was bumped a bit for a short time and the debt fell, 1969 was not a massive growth period. Under Eisenhow the debt fell 3 years of his 8 as he KEPT THE TOP MARGINAL RATE AT 91%. These weren't massive growth years. Are you starting to see a trend here where REGARDLESS OF SPENDING, WHEN THE TAX RATE IS HIGHER, THE DEBT WILL SHORTEN AND/OR FALL, POST FDR? Of course not, you will never address the data or make a relevant factual point. Deficit spending isn't good, which is why raisong taxes eliminates that, as you are taking more in; it's real simple math. It's not 1% as of now, it may go to that and you can brag GWB's -6.5% shrinkage and consider that success.

This has been the Summer of Recovery correct? And the 2Q GDP was + 2.4% correct? (before the revision) But you really did not answer the question I am really interested in an honest answer. I don't see that you asked a question. As for real GDP: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm If it gets revised, so be it. We'll deal with that then and I hope for your sake it does and oh, the market dropped 265 pts today, I meant to congratulate all the conservatives for that too. All we can hope is that the economy tanks again so we can say that Obama is as pathetic as Bush, the only difference is that he can speak English and knows his left from his right. Even if your fantasy comes true from you RW rag, +1% after +3.7%, after +5%, after +1.6%, after 4 OF THE PREVIUOUS 6 q'S BEING NEGATIVE, ONE BEING WELL OVER 6% NEGATIVE, I'D SAY WE'RE OK. Just never heard you quip when the GDP was massively negative - just when it's not positive enough.

continuing to release moneys from the SS fund for reasons not intended is the reason they are having issues with soso security. Yea, it's not teh aging population growing and fewer young people paying into it and HC costs skyrocketing due to no/insufficient cost controls - no way. As long as doc can afford both his Porches and all 3 whores as well as, of course hius mansion, then I'm good withit.

As I said and you guys get pissed when I refer to Libertarians as sociopaths. I'm not PAing, I just want to know how you label a person/group of people who think you can just throw out old folks onto the streets; THEY SHOULD HAVE SAVED MONEY WHEN THEY WERE YOUNGER. Jesus fucking Christ, are you serious? Make cuts to SS - sounds so clinical until you realize that in simple English it means granny, who has $47 a month left over anyway, would lose her means of existence and be on the streets. Hey, I know, for fun let's go and terrorize old people; are you in? Sociopth: W/o a conscience. If they had to make cuts in SS they should make them by revoking it from rich people worth over X amount or who still earn at SS age, X amount. But I know you don't mean that, you mean just accross the board in typical Libertarian Anarchist fashion: Go Ron Paul. Libertarian Anarchists sound so reasonable and all their ideas sound so pallatable so long as you don't look at the real-life applications. and consequences; they're just sociopathic.

...and they wonder why they, as a group, get no respect. They don't? Heck, I respect them as a group. I respect them because I know that most are honorable men and women doing a job they get little thanks for. This is not a thread about the military, this is a thread about dirty pigs, as you were. The commenet I responded to was directed at police as a group, not just the bad ones. Please try to pay attention. And I was never a cop, let alone a "dirty pig". As you were menat to be ab independent statement, not an assertion that you were ever a cop - poor punctuation. Police as a group - as another poster said, that is the problem; they are pigs as a group with a few good ones. Also, the courts allow them to get away with murder, so the problem is systemic and isn't getting better. Have any viable data to back up your claim that more cops are bad than good? Or your claim that the courts "let them get away with murder" ? Yea, they really keep data on dirty cops and most of it goes unreported or uninvestgated/unenforced, so just go on pig-loving and pretending it's just 1 bad one here or there. I've witnessed the courts letting one go on murder, observed cases where 2nd degree gets charged as a traffic ticket. The only reason they charge it that way is to avoid double jeopardy and immunize the murdering piggy from further charges. So you're just blowin' smoke based on your own prejudices with no data at all to back up your claims. In other words...business as usual. Yea, pot - kettle. Do I need to post data that you ignored that's just a couple threadfs away? Yea, 100 years of tax rates? Uh huh, you ought to let that one go. It's about as ridiculous as you can get to think any credible data or data alone is collected and tabulated for dirty cops. Love it, I had a tool in a fidd forum ask me for data about all the innocent people executed since Gregg v Georgia in 1976; guess what? They don't make those admissions, just like dirty cops - it just won't be admitted.

We discussed it. Your BS theory can't account for the 80s or 90s, and that pretty much ends it. You haven't made a theory or counter theory. Are you saying that tax cuts that led to revenues that didn't match outlays in the 80's were better than tax increases that led to revenues that FAR EXCEEDEED outlays in the 90's? WHich explains why you didn't comment on the chart I provided detailing imminent and immediate doom as the tax rates are lowered. All you have to do is ignore what I posted and go off on your own tangent, revise history via sliding the good times and bad times around from when the policies actually took effect and all seems well for your theory. Yet you still cannot show me a major fed tax cut that has led to better economic times. Yes, based upon 100 years of history detailing success when they are raised, failure when they are lowered. And that could work until we have a 100 years of evidence showing otherwise. Small samples can be skewed by many extraneous factors, 100 years of evidence with repeatability is hard for reasonable people to deny. You probably make the most sense when you're drunk. Here, we'll touch each point 1 at a time: - 80's revs didn't touch outlays, deficit went crazy - 90's revs far exceeded outlays, deficit fell every year from 93 to 2000 until an eventual surplus was left (236B) - Oh, I get it, you want to attribute the sucess of the 90's into Clinton's era. The ole sliding scale trick where you transpose success and failures ahead and behind a decade or two. Is that right? You want to just arbitrarily move around casue and effect a few decades? Maybe between liquid courage you can address these.

bull - so it's less of a crime if an accountant beats on someone and breaks their leg??? police officers should be held to the same standards as all of us - everyone should be held to the same standards - else you get crap when one person gets more punishment for the exact same crimes as someone else based on stupid stuff - like career, income, color, sex, etc etc etc - instead of just their actions - actions should define the punishment when they commit a crime on another (such as criminal assault), then they should go to trial and be punished - just like the rest of us The only problem with that is that cops have a special relationship withteh public; that agravates the crime.

...and they wonder why they, as a group, get no respect. They don't? Heck, I respect them as a group. I respect them because I know that most are honorable men and women doing a job they get little thanks for. This is not a thread about the military, this is a thread about dirty pigs, as you were. The commenet I responded to was directed at police as a group, not just the bad ones. Please try to pay attention. And I was never a cop, let alone a "dirty pig". As you were menat to be ab independent statement, not an assertion that you were ever a cop - poor punctuation. Police as a group - as another poster said, that is the problem; they are pigs as a group with a few good ones. Also, the courts allow them to get away with murder, so the problem is systemic and isn't getting better. Have any viable data to back up your claim that more cops are bad than good? Or your claim that the courts "let them get away with murder" ? Yea, they really keep data on dirty cops and most of it goes unreported or uninvestgated/unenforced, so just go on pig-loving and pretending it's just 1 bad one here or there. I've witnessed the courts letting one go on murder, observed cases where 2nd degree gets charged as a traffic ticket. The only reason they charge it that way is to avoid double jeopardy and immunize the murdering piggy from further charges.

You're right. That's something subtle, but powerful, about the video. The other cops standing around, watching, doing nothing. This lends credibility to the earlier poster's argument that the police are in cahoots. Part of the job of the police should be to police each other. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be in the police, and they should be prosecuted for being an accessory. One of the other cops should have tased this Deputy. Beyond an accessory they have a very distinct special relationship contract with the public that they cannot look the other way. You or I can watch a person being murdered and do nothing, a cop cannot and must respond. Of course the courts won't enforce that.

Since you clearly seperate the two, 'pigs' and the few 'good ones'. What's your definition of a 'pig'? Dirty cop; isn't that clear? Also, I don't get that emotional about semantics, names, laberls as conservatives do. I'm more about substantive effect over silly things like names, flags, etc. That's why guys like me and gusy like you don't get each other; you would die for your flag, I would not, I would die for my country if it were in distress. Again, silly semantics / symbolism over substance.

Lawyers can't pursue him to see if they want to secure his svs in teh mode you're talking about, at least not in AZ and prolly in most/all jurisdictions, but why care about the lawyers? This guy should cash in, I won't say to create the fantasy of deterrence, but just because it's due him. If there were no lawyers, there would be no settlement andhe would get zero. I know, lawyers can't persue 'victims' or anyone else. I was just trying to say, the guy will cash in and probably, rightfully so. BTW... what is 'teh mode'? Chuck The guy will chose his own lawyer and cash in, yes; that's not ambulance chasing. Mode = way they operate, could be M.O. = Modus Operendi, etc.

Not only that, he should be in jail. This idiot cop cost that city a few million dollars. I can't wait to see the lawsuit this guy will file. I know, that's right! He's probably got 'ambulance chasers' lined-up in front of his house. Chuck I know, the inmate shouldn't get a dime, if he were never incarcerrated he never would have been beaten; it's his fault. BTW, ambulance chasing is aginst the bar rules; it's a figure of speech. It still goes-on. They're all over the t.v.! Chuck That's not ambulance chasing. AC is when an attny approaches a person in teh midst of their distress and offers svs for hire.

Right, let's not prosecute him, he meant well. When did you start defending cops? Chuck - thought it was obvious.

...and they wonder why they, as a group, get no respect. They don't? Heck, I respect them as a group. I respect them because I know that most are honorable men and women doing a job they get little thanks for. This is not a thread about the military, this is a thread about dirty pigs, as you were. The commenet I responded to was directed at police as a group, not just the bad ones. Please try to pay attention. And I was never a cop, let alone a "dirty pig". As you were menat to be ab independent statement, not an assertion that you were ever a cop - poor punctuation. Police as a group - as another poster said, that is the problem; they are pigs as a group with a few good ones. Also, the courts allow them to get away with murder, so the problem is systemic and isn't getting better.

And you will still be wrong. OK, easy to say wrong, but you or anyone has yet to illustrate it other than moving the cause a decade or two to teh effect. That must be a fun dellusional world to live in; you can never be wrong as you just have to move the dot fwd or backward 1, 2, 3, 4 or whatever number of decades eaither way. That is what you silly arguments have been reduced to; a shell game. I can attribute my arguments to specific eras.

We discussed it. Your BS theory can't account for the 80s or 90s, and that pretty much ends it. You haven't made a theory or counter theory. Are you saying that tax cuts that led to revenues that didn't match outlays in the 80's were better than tax increases that led to revenues that FAR EXCEEDEED outlays in the 90's? Really, make a little sense here; 80's revs didn't touch outlays, 90's revs far exceeded outlays in the 90's. Oh, I get it, you want to attribute the sucess of the 90's into Clinton's era. The ole sliding scale trick where you transpose success and failures ahead and behind a decade or two. Is that right? You want to just arbitrarily move around casue and effect a few decades? You're right, that does pretty much end it. But what else can you do, actually defend Reagan's massive cut-n-spend frenzy that turned the debt on its fucking ear?

...and they wonder why they, as a group, get no respect. They don't? Heck, I respect them as a group. I respect them because I know that most are honorable men and women doing a job they get little thanks for. This is not a thread about the military, this is a thread about dirty pigs, as you were.

Lawyers can't pursue him to see if they want to secure his svs in teh mode you're talking about, at least not in AZ and prolly in most/all jurisdictions, but why care about the lawyers? This guy should cash in, I won't say to create the fantasy of deterrence, but just because it's due him. If there were no lawyers, there would be no settlement andhe would get zero.

Instead tehy're given a free pass. I'm sure we've all know of cops to murder people and get a free ride; this is no big deal.

Not only that, he should be in jail. This idiot cop cost that city a few million dollars. I can't wait to see the lawsuit this guy will file. I know, that's right! He's probably got 'ambulance chasers' lined-up in front of his house. Chuck I know, the inmate shouldn't get a dime, if he were never incarcerrated he never would have been beaten; it's his fault. BTW, ambulance chasing is aginst the bar rules; it's a figure of speech.