Lucky...

Ya know, Mike, I thought you were shaprer than this. Are you not aware that the HC Bill/Law was designed to run greedy ins cos off? Yep, force the issue to a head. It will work, it obviously is working per the article you posted; all is well. How is that not so? They wanted full-on single payer, settled for the pre-existers which would/could lead to backdoor SP. Your point is incomplete. Then list all the Dems you've voted for. That's what I thought, poor try. I voted for: - Carter - Mondale - Dukakis - Perot - Dole - Gore - Kerry - Obama I voted for the R congress in 94 when they took over, not to mention from 90 to 96 all R. SO I've voted Indep, Dem and Repub as I've grasped an understanding of politics. You, OTOH, have vored straight down the line R. No one needs to wonder what you think of an issue, they just have to visit the conservative Republican guidebook. I consideer myself a liberal, yet am huge pro-gun and ant-Aff Action. Show me/us hopw your candidates you've voted for vary from what you've shown and are too afraid to post. Mike, quite obviously you are the black/white thinker.

Ya know, Mike, I thought you were shaprer than this. Are you not aware that the HC Bill/Law was designed to run greedy ins cos off? Yep, force the issue to a head. It will work, it obviously is working per the article you posted; all is well. Then list all the Dems you've voted for. That's what I thought, poor try.

Ya know, Mike, I thought you were shaprer than this. Are you not aware that the HC Bill/Law was designed to run greedy ins cos off? The Dems couldn't get the whole deal shoved thru so they steeled with mandatory preexisting conditions and the children's HC requirements. SO now either the ins cos will insure and pay claims or quit the business, leaving the gov to step in. You conservatives are easy to dupe as you tyink black/white; the Dems/libs think much more dynamically. So as preexisters become mandated to accept and pay claims upon, the insurers will likely run, as they can't extort money via refusals to pay, so they will go to other areas to extort, leaving a void for which the gov will have to fill. So either way the HC law will be universal, we just have to run off the insurers first. Have a real nice day. Ps. Like how Hussein and the Dem congress got children's HC passed 2 weeks after your sociopath left? Get used to it and deal with it. You having a nice day still stands

Despite his mistake, Obama will miss him. Today there is no one better at doing the job he did Yes, calling your boss, while in the military, disparaging names in the open public especially is a sign of a great military leader.

Yep, rich people. That be the rich people that pay a HIGHER part of the tax burden under the Bush cuts, correct? Yep, the rich pay virtually sll taxes regardless. Wait, they hold almost all teh money too; go figure.

Reagain increase in debt, roughly 1.7T in 8 years. Obama increase in debt, 2.6T in 18 months. 156% in 18% of the time. Given no change in Obama's current rate of spending (fat chance), in 4 years he'll raise the deficity by 7T. In 8 years, 14T. You need to account for inflation, so that 1.7T needs to be doubled (110% from 1984 midpoint to 2010) to ~3.6T. 2009 was 1.42T, so it seems unlikely to be 7T in 4 years. Closer to 5, which is still rather tragic, but 28% less than your projection. Not counting for a massive debt flurry Obama inherited vs Reagan's stable debt picture and already high tax system rendering descent receipts. Obama has to fix the economic situation and then raise taxes to increase receipts.

Actually, Obama's debt increase to date (as of 7/20) is 2.6T - a rate of 4.8B/day. I'm sure you can do the rest of the math. No, Reagan virtually tripled the bebt, seee if you can follow along. 952B to 2.7T = 1.8T additon = 1.89% addition, or he left 289% of what he inherited. Now if you say he added double to the existing debt, I'll agree. Obama hasn't changed spending, he will let the tax cuts expire and taxes will increase, hence receipts will increase and the deficit will fall and rich tears will also fall. No, you're just being simply dishonest.

Reagain increase in debt, roughly 1.7T in 8 years. Obama increase in debt, 2.6T in 18 months. . As is usual with your calculations you completely ignore inflation. a 1988 $US is NOT the same as a 2010 $US. Since you are concerned with rapidity, the most rapid increase was under GWB, $1T in a 4 month period. Funny how you never have a problem quoting raw numbers when they go YOUR way, perfesser - I wonder why that is? Yea, whatever; hardly. Are you so dishonest to think we can use 1980's dollars = 2010 dollars? Are you honest enough to admit Obama inherited a total POS?

Is that a typo or a play on the debt gain? According to the chart the debt was: 09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32 09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16 09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00 09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42 09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00 09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00 09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00 09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00 09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00 09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00 http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm Since they use gov fiscal years, we can split the diff as an average. Reagan inherited - 952 B Reagan left - 2.7T So actually it was closer to 1.8T As Kallend said, 1980's dollars vs 2010 dollars. Now, let's look at trends, if a truck is coming at you at 80MPH (high debt accrual already established) it is impossible to stop it in a short time and the momentum will carry it. If a truck is coming at 5 mPH (slow debt accrual) you can shut it off quickly. You act as tho Reagan's inherited economy was the same as Obama's. Yea and GWB's fiscal year Sep 30, 07 to 08 = over 1 trillion dollars added to the debt AND THAT DIDN'T EVEN INCLUDE THE TARP MONEY FOR FUCK'S SAKE. Even worse than the spending are the receipts that are so hammered that that's the biggest cause of the debt/deficit accrual. The debt increased 300B under Carter, fasist pig Ronnies predecessor. The first 18 months of your fascist pig's office the debt increased 190B, > 60% of CARTER'S ENTIRE GAIN USING LIKE DOLLARS, not dishonestly using dollars 30 years apart as you and trying to make a point. And rememebr, since Carter left a very civil debt picture with very modest gain, it ook your fascist leader a but to get the debt machine going; THE FOLLOWING 12 MONTHS SHOWED A 235B INCREASE IN THE DEBT. Again, 1980 dollars. Your point is ridiculous. What has he done with spending? Remember, it's the receipts that are the killer, with your boy leaving them in the toilet the way he did, recovery centers around increasing receipts which is why tax increases are needed. Right, he has what he inherited; any argument?

WHY? Yep, Reagan/Volkers contracted the money supply to fix that driving the unemp rate from 7/5% to 10.8%, the highest then or since the Great Depression. Inherited a fairly stable 7.5%, drove it to 10.8%. The Algiers Accord were brokered the day before Reagan's inauguration, so the deal was made before your favorite diaper-wearing guy took office: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_Accords That compared to the Beirut barracks bombings and Reagan's reaction exactly how???? OPEC had been squeezing us before Carter. I haven't forgotten the 4.25/gal gas prices, have you? 3 mile island is who's fault and why? This wasn't Chernobil; what's your point? True, Reagan took a stable debt and tripled it, Obama inherited a COMPLETE MESS and has done some good toward it. You've obviously never known.

There's no gas in the motor. NO? http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000 http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^DJI WOW, you're really smart.

Obama is doing more to add to the debt than anyone ever. So I disagree with your "theory". The theory is appearing today as we write. Obama inherited an economy on the verge of collapse, an economy that ran the unemp rate up 3.4% in THE ONE SINGLE YEAR BEFORE HE TOOK IT, an economy that had a GDP that was negative 4 of the last 5 Q's before he received it, an economy that had a massive mounting deficit of > 1T just the previous year. And you want to blame Obama for it? We get it.

Then explain how Reagan tripled the 900B debt he inherited. A debt that wasn't escalating. Explain how GWB doubled the 5.5T debt he inherited from a strong economy. Both Clinton and esp Obama inherited sick economies and Clinton fixed his, Obama has made major steps in healing his. Explain your inane claim that the R's want to avoid running the deficit (you probably meant debt) so high that we cannot recover when it is the R's responsibel for most of the debt and for virtually all of the leaving a mess of an economy. Yes I do, that's why I want to chop the military. Now there's a real objective source, a socipathic Libertarian; an outspoken one at that. And you would shit all over the place if I posted the words of a social liberal. Nice source, really drove home your argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Miron Yes, by a sociopathic RW maggot; what have you proven? That Libertarians are against social services? WOW, you get the Purlitzer for establishing the Libertarians are against social welfare. Love how you leave out he's a scoiopathic Libertarian. Real credibility there. Ahhh, "some studies." Yea, written/interpreted by sociopathic Libertarians. Yep, rich people.

Yea, unemployed for 3 or 5 years sounds better . And many jobs requiring a security clearance require you disclose everything honestly, a starnger to Republicans (honesty). Uh huh. I'm sure as a Circle K clerk you think that.

___________________________________________ All Democrats want to do is borrow money from China to buy votes.They pass paygo and exempt every bill they propose... On May 10, The Detroit News found job applicants turning down landscaping companies’ offers of employment. Tom Corbett, a Republican candidate for Pennsylvania governor, told a Harrisburg, Pa., radio station that some construction companies in his state are dealing with the same problem. Corbett said the companies told him some laid-off workers have refused work until they run out of unemployment checks, according to an AP story. In fact, Pennsylvania has reported more than $4 million in unemployment fraud, according to WGAL.com Lancaster Nissan dealers expressed “frustration after several applicants were offered jobs but turned them down.” One was a former car salesman who didn’t want to lose his benefits by working. OK, so an enginner gets laid off, he can't find an engineering job so he collects unemp comp until he can find an engineering job. You say he should take a sleezy car salesman job? It would fuck up his resume making it harder to find an engineering job and reestablish his wage scale. I understand you simply just don't give a shit about people, but this is a bad idea for him to take this job. Furthermore, who knows how accurate this testimonial is. Maybe some maggotted conservative car dealship offerring strict commission and using it as fodder to denouce unemp benefits. As for not losing benefits by working, if you are earning X, get laid off, take a job offerring 1/2 X then that is your new wage scale. As well, if I were a car salesman laid iff, getting unemp comp, I'm probably not wanting to take a car salesman job now anyway, I'm probably wanting to cross-train as cars aren't selling well anyway. So it's fun to actually have all the facts of a situation, none of which either of us have. But I hear ya, shovel it all to corps, fuck the people.

Yeah, unfortunately we have a legislature that feels the same way right now...well at least till after the elections. I'm curious if the dems will fight so hard to keep benefits flowing once they got their seats locked up for another 2 years at least. I know, I'm with ya bro, I say kick those worthless, no-good pieces of shit to the street who were gainfully employed, but morons elected GWB and he just shrugged his shoulders as the country went down the tubes, now they can't find work. It's their fault, fuck em. But keep matching the world dollar for dollar in military spending, after all, it's not about the spending, right?

As long as there is a lot of unemp, 9.5% then it's warranted. Let's say 7% is a good time to let up as a start. What part of "for how long" don't you understand? Edit to add: In case the concept slipped by you.....for how long do you think any one person should be able to collect unemployment benefits from the government? I can be socratic too; at what point do you throw a person to thestreet for an economic condition they couldn't control? So you think unemployment benefits should continue indefinitely. It is good that you are not the one to make that decision. And you think they should be minimal to non-existent; good thing you and yours just lost in congress, now maybe in Nov more people will see that the R's don't care if people go homeless all the name of personal responsibility.

That pretty much sums up the difference. You say there is no control, I say I have total control over what happens to me and how I handle the situation. Do you advocate forgetting your EP's and just waiting for the AAD? No, I don't have an AAD, so I take personal responsibility. But with a corporate-controlled econoly, I can't just pull red then silver to get a job; lousy analogy.

As long as there is a lot of unemp, 9.5% then it's warranted. Let's say 7% is a good time to let up as a start. What part of "for how long" don't you understand? Edit to add: In case the concept slipped by you.....for how long do you think any one person should be able to collect unemployment benefits from the government? I can be socratic too; at what point do you throw a person to thestreet for an economic condition they couldn't control?

Good to know that you are for fiscal responsibility. I think the attachment mnealtx posted fits your attitude to a tee. Funny how right wingers suddenly discover fiscal responsibility now that their profligate borrow-and-spenders are out of office. Isn't it ironic yet predictable? Just as GHWB cut troops and bases and it was ok, then Clinton cut about the same numebr and the wheels fell off. These jokes are predictable.

Good to know that you are for fiscal responsibility. I think the attachment mnealtx posted fits your attitude to a tee. I see, cartoons are your best asset and ability to understand. I am for fiscal responsibility which is why I liek presidents like Eisenhower, Clinton and others.

Banks circulate money. I take it that you forget that the Depression was made worse because people pulled their money out of banks so it wasn't available for investment. Unemployment checks hit the economy in minutes. Yeah. Take money out of the economy and putting it back in does not seem to be good for the economy. [Reply]Or raise taxes to nab some of those elitist, hard-stolen dollars. This statement says it all. The taxes aren't about helping anybody but are about punishing one or more groups of people that you want to see suffer. Of course, the true "elitists" are the ones with the self-anointed authority to determine who should and should not be punished. You don't care about people. You hate some people. You'll get further if you admit that because it will display some intellectual honesty. As Luck would have it,...don't exspect intellectual honesty coming from him anytime soon. Ewwwww, so shrewd . Thx for contributing your usual nothing. I find your Rants somewhat confusing...but I'm sure its just me. I find your so-called contributions empty.

Yea, if you wear blinders. http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000 http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^DJI HC Bill Children's HC and more. Of course your hero was doing so well with the economy and disallowing children's HC, I guess it's all about perspective.

___________________________________________ All Democrats want to do is borrow money from China to buy votes.They pass paygo and exempt every bill they propose... . Republican whining about borrow and spend would be credible if they hadn't perfected it themselves. Under Saint Reagan the debt grew from 33.3% of GDP in 1980 to 51.9% at the end of 1988 and the deficit increased from 2.7% in 1980 to more than double in 1983, when it reached 6%; in 1984, 1985 and 1986 it was around 5%. Under Reagan the USA borrowed heavily and the national debt more than tripled, from ~$700 billion to ~$3 trillion in 8 years. Under Reagan the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. Those in glass houses... Bizzare that they actually blame Dems. Even more bizzare that they get followers. It must really suck to be an ideologue.

___________________________________________ All Democrats want to do is borrow money from China to buy votes.They pass paygo and exempt every bill they propose... On May 10, The Detroit News found job applicants turning down landscaping companies’ offers of employment. Tom Corbett, a Republican candidate for Pennsylvania governor, told a Harrisburg, Pa., radio station that some construction companies in his state are dealing with the same problem. Corbett said the companies told him some laid-off workers have refused work until they run out of unemployment checks, according to an AP story. In fact, Pennsylvania has reported more than $4 million in unemployment fraud, according to WGAL.com Lancaster Nissan dealers expressed “frustration after several applicants were offered jobs but turned them down.” One was a former car salesman who didn’t want to lose his benefits by working. Who did The previous borrow from? Oh, China. You don't have to go from a 50k/yr job and accept minimum wage. I realize those compassionate R's would love that, but that's not how it works.