Lucky...

From your link: link The attachment says it all... Still searching for a valid point. Esp after taking a positive economy and surplus and hammering into a 5T debt.

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.

Unemployment has always been a form of welfare, just that RWers don't like to label that as welfare because they draw it sometimes. Just like SS and Medicare, they are also welfare, I love to tell old SS/Medicare recipients that they are welfare whores, they hate that.

WOW, even engineering, the degree I used to call bulletproof.

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 fucking planet do you live on? Says the guy with nothing to add.

Fair enough, I don't really care how it's funded. The Dems are prolly doing it this way as when the stimulus runs out it won't be replentished.

Unless teh rich hang on to it via tax cuts. See, tax increases with writeoffs just ensure reinvestment, tax cuits allow for profit taking and stagnation of funds. The banks only do what savers/borrowers/the Fed Reserve allows them to do. Yes, the fools should have left it there for the rich and bankers to grab. With it fed isnured that isn't an issue anymore; why even bring it up? Wait, economic activity versus stagnation is bad? I thought a recession was basically a reduction in consumer buying, reduced production/GDP? I'm lucky to have you teaching me things; you must be right, cut unemp benefits and cut taxes so the rich can hang on to even more so we can get out of this recession. Are you naive enough to think you've gotten anyone to buy that BS? [Reply]Or raise taxes to nab some of those elitist, hard-stolen dollars. No, I want tax increases so that the rich have to reinvest in order to keep it, stimulating teh economy. You want tax cuts so the rich can pull their profits out and stuff them away for a rainy day. Nice for them, bad for us. Bad for the economy. And you abhore poor people and want peopel to buy your BS about tax cuts helping the economy, yet you can't name 1 maj fed tax cut that has benefitted the economy. And if you could dig one out, can you dig out 3 or 5 or better yet, establish a major trend. The ev shows the trend is that tax increases benefits the overall economy.

You take one down, pass it around, 98 weeks of unemployment benefits on the wall.

Well, the money was needed for the poor Wall St. execs' bail out. Wouldn't want them to have to sell a mansion or two, or the family yacht, or they might not have enough left over to donate to the GOP. Yes, those unemployed are whining again, as McSame's aid says. Haven't you figured out yet that if you make the rich richer that you will ensure proserity for all? Funny to hear these neo-nothings advocate tax cuts which concentrate the money at the top, yet denonce Communism, the otehr ideology that also concentrates the money at the top.

I'm not spamming anything, I'm posting to a thread that was made current by someone else. Besides, your hero, fascist pig Ronny's deeds are ageless and timeless. His massive spending coupled with immense tax cuts, about the same as right before the Great Depression, will be with us for the rest of our lives and the next several generations too. So what's years amongst 2 trillion dollars (1980's dollars)?

Agreed. My personal favorite is President Franklin. (yes I realize he was a FF)

Don't forget that the national debt was all but paid down under Andrew Jackson.

Wow, there's a shocker. A liberal not seeing a republican president worthy of a great honor such as being on currency. Does anyone have an original, non-sheepish comment? I swear if I heard a democrat stand up and say, "You know, I may be a democrat, but I have to give praise and props to I may just fucking faint. It's ok, people, if you give props to someone your masters forbid you to you won't die. They won't seek you out and do bodily harm OK, aside from Conservs love Reagan and Dems hate him, illustrate his accomplishments.

That's my thought. I've long thought that the US should mint 1 dollar coins instead of 1 dollar bills, simply for the sake of wear and tear. I'd like to see Reagan on the 1 dollar coins. Every $1 coin the US has produced has fallen flat on its face--a complete failure. (See Susan B. Anthony and Sacajawea(sp?) dollar coins...) So then it would be fitting.

A giant what? Giant senile buffoon? Tripled the debt, engaged us in the Cold War to massive proportions. Cut taxes to nothing for the rich. He did nothing after the Beirut barracks were bombed. He strategically avoided WWII to make training movies and he was as much a philanderer as Clinton. Maybe rubber money. Then why not have them holding a slave by a chain around his/herneck if you want it to be accurate? Honor him for what acts/accomplishments?

List all of his deeds that made him great/greatest

Did he ever get off the three dollar bill? Reagan s/b on the 2 trillion $ IOU

I see, the who ruined the economy is honored, the guy who saved the economy is ridicuked. Now it makes perfect sense.

They are, tax cuts, which are virtually only for the very rich, turn into stagnate bank accounts. Unemp checks hit the economy in minutes; not real hard to understand. That was then, now they've decided to chop them, all but 2 Senate R's were gonna fillibuster. Or raise taxes to nab some of those elitist, hard-stolen dollars.

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100721/ap_on_bi_ge/us_unemployment_benefits Yea, I know, all those unemployed people are just whiners.

This article is about using regulations, grants, and specific taxes (not just income) to unevenly dictate supply and demand inconsistently. It also mentions that both parties are doing this and this is why bills and regulations are so much longer now. You should read it. Dependence Economics By taxing and parceling out more than a third of what Americans produce, through regulations that reach deep into American life, our ruling class is making itself the arbiter of wealth and poverty. Taxes are virtually at an all-time low since WWI and still they're too high. Deregulation has consistently led to disaster; the same drones loving this read will blame Graham, Leech, Bliley's deregulation as for the recent mess, then go back to wanting deregulation - this is the same drivel the same people have been uttering forever. By endowing some in society with power to force others to sell cheaper than they would, and forcing others yet to buy at higher prices -- even to buy in the first place -- modern government makes valuable some things that are not, and devalues others that are. That's chicken or the egg; THE VERY WEALTHY CONTROLS THE GOVERNMENT AND SET THE CONTROLS, so this is just corp-fascism at its finest. If the gov doeesn't intervien, the rich will takeover, yet the rich control some aspects of the gov via special interests, so there we have it, classic chicken or the egg. For example, the health care bill of 2010 takes more than 2,700 pages to make sure not just that some states will be treated differently from others.. There was resistance so deals had to be made to get it to pass. Taht sucks, but ins cos denying preexisting conds sucks more. SO you see, when your party is willing to exclude millions from HC, my party is willing to make deals to get it to pass. I see no worries about the uninsured; WE GET YOU LOUD AND CLEAR. By making economic rules dependent on discretion, our bipartisan ruling class teaches that prosperity is to be bought with the coin of political support. Gee then Obama must be panering to the wrong people, all the geniuses saying he is pandering for popularity by giving away billions to the poor, yet his ranking are slipping. COuld it be that Obama is genuinely trying to help people in spite of it costing him popularity? Thus in the 1990s and 2000s, as Democrats and Republicans forced banks to make loans for houses to people and at rates they would not otherwise have considered, builders and investors had every reason to make as much money as they could from the ensuing inflation of housing prices. Yet it wasn't a problem with interest at 7%, it kept house prices appreciating at 4% per year, throw in the Bush tax cuts, economy stumbles, need to lower int rates and now we have runaway false appreciation. That was the real problem, lending money for hiuses to people who can't results in foreclosures where most/all of the principle is recovered, hammering int rates is what creates the deficit in recovered amounts. The 2010 medical law is a template for the ruling class's economic modus operandi: the government taxes citizens to pay for medical care and requires citizens to purchase health insurance. The money thus taken and directed is money that the citizens themselves might have used to pay for medical care. Oh, so the few dollars teh fine amounts to is enough to even buy part of a CURRENT medical policy? Dream on. http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/whats-the-penalty-for-not-having-insurance/ The penalty that you plan to refuse to pay is the one that — with a few exceptions, mostly for financial hardship — will be levied on people who don’t have health insurance starting in 2014. In 2016, when the penalty is fully phased in, it will be $695 for an individual (up to $2,085 per family) or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is greater. The penalty will increase annually based on the cost of living. Ordinarily, the penalty would be treated as a tax, and you could be prosecuted for income tax evasion if you didn’t pay it. But the new health law explicitly says that there will be no criminal sanctions for failing to pay the penalty, and no liens or levies on your property, said Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. The government could come after your tax refund to pay the penalty, but since you say you don’t get a refund, that won’t be an option. In Massachusetts, the only state where residents are currently required to have coverage, only about 3 percent of those who are subject to the mandate don’t buy insurance, Mr. Jost said. He expects a similar response at the national level. “Most people would probably like to have health insurance,” he said. $695 a year, hell, Blue Cross' website shows that I would have to pay $600 month for a good deductable, so the fine covers 1 month's premium. Furthermore, if you underwithold your taxes and pay the balance out of pocket at the end of the year, the gov won't come after you for any HC fine anyway. Not to mention that this fine probably won't pass SCOTUS muster anyway. Besides, with preexisters deemed legit claims, I think most people would enjoy having HC ins. So as I said, this article is a fear-mongering, the gov is out to get us. Ask yourselves this: Who got us into the Great Depression and who got us out? Who got us into the Great Recession and who got us out? Yea, private corporations/the rich got us in, the gov got us out. Yep, the gov sure is horrible.

I realize that your comprehension level drops off significantly after the first couple of sentences so I'll go easy on you...this time. That's why I put (long) in the thread title. And your ability to address issues is zero. Come on, hero, show us a major fed tax cut that has saved teh day.....oh, there isn't one so you're espousing your ideological ideas to us.

and everyone stops reading at this point... And this is where everyone sees you have nothign to add, as usual.

Ranking Obama with others in history, 18 months into office, makes as much sense as giving him a Nobel Prize before he took a single action....oh right. The NPP was for us, well, not you. It was for finally not electing a fascist, imperialistic POS. BTW, presidents are ranked and revised as soon as they become pres and for the rest of history, sorry you don't like it. Furthermore, look at teh unemp rate, market and GDP and you'll understand why he has a fairly high ranking.