Lucky...

I see, the mortgage mess was in full height in late 2006, before the Dems took the House and tied the senate in Jan 07, yet it was their fault? Illustrate the legislative measures they took or did not take that are accountable for the Great Republican Recession. Also, GWB vetoed 1 bill in his 1st 6 years, 11 more in the last 2 with the Dems in control of the House and tied in the Senate; 4 were overridden. With that contrast, what is unclear as to what the Dems tried to do with their limited majority? As I've said before, Cheney used his tie-break 8 times if memory serves, that's 11th most of all VP's in US history. If it isn't obvious that the Dems did all tehy could to stop the repugnant machine, what is? Oh but GWB hammered over 1T in debt additon in 08, what are you talking about? And it was mounting and had been, just as 4 of the last 5 Q'd were neg GDP growth each more neg than teh former with the exception of 1, do you have a point to make?

Disclaimer - the daily numbers for the debt don't start until Clinton's term, so I had to use fiscals for Reagan and the start of GHW. Reagan - 1.69T increase GHW Bush - 1.57T increase Clinton - 1.55T increase Yeah, Lucky...Bubba Jeff was SUCH a difference compared to Ronnie. You do seem to have left out the financial wizard you worshiped with such steadfastness... you know...the one who doubled what was already there And GHWB's adding of ~ 1.3T in 1/2 the time as well. Mike has fun with numbers.

Disclaimer - the daily numbers for the debt don't start until Clinton's term, so I had to use fiscals for Reagan and the start of GHW. Reagan - 1.69T increase GHW Bush - 1.57T increase Clinton - 1.55T increase Yeah, Lucky...Bubba Jeff was SUCH a difference compared to Ronnie. Dishonest again? Reagan = 900B to 2.7T = 1.8T or an increase of 200% on an 8-year standard / ultimately trippling the debt he inherited GHWB = 2.7T to 4T = 1.3T or an increase of 48% in 4 years, so the rate would be twice that if gauged for 8 years as with Reagan and Clinton. The 148% rate increase would be 96% if using a rate scale. Now you will pipe in to say that rate doesn't matter when all you do is compare GWB to Obama as far as increase as a component of time. Clinton = 4T to 5.5T = 1.5T or an increase of 38% on an 8-year standard. GWB = 5.5T to 10.6T = or an increase of 93% on an 8-year stanadard. Summarize: Reagan: 200% increase GHWB: 96% (adjusted for 8 years) Clinton: 38% increase GWB: 93% increase Now, lets factor-in all the other tangibles / intangibles. Reagan inherited a stale economy that was also stable, 75% unemp, debt/deficit not at issue and left a mess for GHWB, massive debt, 8 years of huge increases and recipts not matching outlays. GHWB inherited a mess, massive debt, massive deficit; 8 years of 250B/yr (1980's dollars). He raised taxes a little, had a post fascist Ronnie recession, and the recession started to heal as he handed off the presidency to Clinton. Clinton inherited an economy healing from a recession, 7% unemp and stable, but a massive mounting debt and 12 years of 250B/yr debt increase. Clinton continued GHWB's tax increase but picke dit up from 31% to 40% and he balanced the budget by cutting spending, all but curbed the debt increase and left a 236B surplus. He piloted the longest growth period in US history. Altho his last year the economy entered very light recession and the great receipts he enjoyed tailed off, but the economy was still intact. GWB inherited a massive growth period and the end. The GDP was porposing but still very alive. This was an extremly monor recession that never saw 2 consecutive Q's of negative GDP growth. GWB cut taxes and resumed Reagan's spending flurry while he cut taxes and git us into an illicit war which cost 800B bythe time he left and was still counting, with the mess still unresolved for the future president to have to unfuck. He left such a mess that the banks were crashing, mortgage market crashing too and unemp rose 3.4% his last year. All the while he sat there unaware of what to do while the country was just in total collapse. So if you want to just look at data w/o any perspective, enjoy, how else can you defend the Nazi Party? Also, Reagan was the real pig, his debt increase is measured in 1980's dollars, probably 1/2 of 2000's dollars, so his damage was really worse.

You expected different? She *can't* acknowledge Barry's numbers. I know what he has spent... inherited... but REagan and the BUSH Boys.. sure as hell did not inherit over 10 TRILLION in DEBT>> DEFICIT call it what you will.... bottom line.. you fuckers don't have a fucking clue of how actually pay the bills. Fiscal responsibility my ASS Worse than the total debt was teh momentum teh economyh was heading. 3.4% unemp and climbing teh year before Obama took office, a deficit that just blew thru 1T w/o stopping, a GDP taht was 4 of 5 Q's negative; the Q Obama entered into the middle of was -6% growth. So as long as you fail to look at things in the, "totality of the corcumstances" you can paint whatever pic you want.

National debt, dear, not deficit. Nice try, though. 52% of the increase in 18% of the time - heckuva job, Barry. STILL hiding from the real number.... thats a lot of VOO DOODOO for a party of Fiscal Responsibility He's hiding from the reality of a >1T debt increase and an economy on the verge of real total collapse, versus the gem he inherited.

You dont expect the rePUBIClowns here to actually believe in FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY do you.. The GOP talking points are all just that... Talk the talk.. but they have no idea how to walk....or run or evn crawl... the walk Given the expansion of deficit spending under Barry, sounds like the GOP have a better handle on the concept than the Dems. Well lets do some maths... Deficit when Ronnie RayGun took office.... 800 BILLION DEFICIT when your HERO left office.... 11+TRILLION I do not think its possible for Barry to run up the deficit by THAT many percentage points. Oh my, yes...let's do some maths (you *do* mean nat'l debt and not deficit, since those are the rough numbers you used): Bush inherited a stable debt, a balanced budget and a 236B surplus, Obama inherited the 2nd worst economy ever and even when FDR inherited the economy, at least Hoover raised income taxes 260%, estate tax doubled, so he had a head start versus an economy in full-on nosedive. Not relevant since he inherited a 1 T debt and climbing with the entire country/world in shambles. They took a stable debt picture and threw it into the shitter, yes. And it was just picking up steam as 2007 rolled around and teh Dems stepped in. Yes, the debt was in full-on nosedive when the Dems inherited the mess. I guess a truck coming at you at 5 MPH is the same as one at 80MPH is Mikeeland. If you ignore debt/deficit momentum, that makes perfect sense. I guess you could lend me your new car and would expecct it come back in great shape, whereas if I thought like you, I could lend you my 200k mile POS and expect it to come back in new condition. Anything is possible if you frame things in a vacuum. What was the actual addition to the debt in 08? I guess if you look at signed budgets and ignore the trainwreck of >1T in debt addition as well as the unemp rate climbing 3.4% the year preceding Obama, all you see are roses....I see dead roses as I look at teh whole picture, call me a realist.

You dont expect the rePUBIClowns here to actually believe in FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY do you.. The GOP talking points are all just that... Talk the talk.. but they have no idea how to walk....or run or evn crawl... the walk Given the expansion of deficit spending under Barry, sounds like the GOP have a better handle on the concept than the Dems. Well lets do some maths... Deficit when Ronnie RayGun took office.... 800 BILLION DEFICIT when your HERO left office.... 11+TRILLION I do not think its possible for Barry to run up the deficit by THAT many percentage points. 2 guys raised taxes inbetween and stopped the bleeding.....how did they do so? Tax increases and chopped spending, the polar opposite of fascist Ronnie and G Dumbya.

BIGUN meet reality, reality meet BIGUN. Other than typical RW fear propaganda, the largest income tax increase was in 1932, the Revenue Act of 1932 raised taxes, top brkt, from 25% to 63%, this measly hike, rather sunsetting cut, isn't even in the same zip code as the the Revenue Act of 1932. Try to at least be somewhat correct when you make a claim for the benefit of fear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932 The Revenue Act of 1932 (June 6, 1932, ch. 209, 47 Stat. 169) raised United States tax rates across the board, with the rate on top incomes rising from 25 percent to 63 percent. The estate tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15 percent Quit with the fear mongering already.

Does it bother you that W and Haley Barbour and a myriad of other conservative rePUBIClowns et al get support from the Klan and the Council of Conservative Citizens...the so called Uptown Klan? Nah.. didn't thnik so.... Did you know the clan used to go after republicans?? because they supported blacks?? Blacks used to vote republican until Kennedy . did you know that?? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=44171 nah.. didn't think so.. You are right YOU did not think. The GOP of my childhood dissappeared LONG ago..sad really that a party that once stood for much now stands for so little other than MASSIVE deficits for the last 30 years...( so much for fiscal responwsibility) HUGE government ( OOOPS no more small government) and a bunch of conservatard christians MOUTHING "family values" while showing damn little of it...from themselves. They have become the party of NO No ideas No values I don't think you're that old, last Repub worth a fuck was Eisenhower. To be fair, GHWB wasn't bad either, kind of apologetic to be part of the new mess, but tried to be diferent.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/147469/we%27re_in_a_recession_because_the_rich_are_raking_in_an_absurd_portion_of_wealth/ The 3 times taxes have been ultra-low are: - 1925 = top brkt cut to 25% - 1986 = top brkt cut to 28% - 2001 = top brkt cut to 35% Other than that taxes have been way higher. Look at the disasters taht followed these tax cuts respectively: - Great Depression - Massive runaway debt, 1990 recession - More massive debt, Great Recession And what seperated these 3 massive tax cuts respectively: - Revenue act of 1932; 25% to 63% + FDR's tax hikes eventually to 94% at peak of war - GHWB and Clinton hiking taxes from 28% to 40% - We'll see what Obama does, but nothing so far and massive debt accrual After the Great Republican Depression and after fascist Ronny's giveaway to the rich, there was great healing associated with these tax hikes, only to be pissed away with the next tax cut. Amazing how 80 years of constant, repeatable history still isn't enough to convince conservative drones that tax cuts are horrible.

exactly

Gross 50k, AGI (adjusted Gross income) ~40k, then taxed on that, will keep less depending upon writeoffs. If you're in the typical 50k gross brkt, as many people are, a tax cut will barely be noticeable since your brkt doesn't pay taxes that are very significant. If you are top 10% then a tax cut will be massively significant.

That's a low blow man Not cool, Lucky. Why? I'm blue-collar. I work with dumbshit mother fuckers all day that couldn't tell me the basic construction of congress, impeachemnt procedure, political history, what a GDP is and the diff between real and nominal GDP, yet these dumb motherfuckers have a definite and hard opinion of the court system and politics. - Ignorant = not knowing - Stupid = not sharp - Stupid and proud = all that rolled into the perspective of actual comprehensive understanding. I work with mostly the latter, but hey, that's blue-collar for ya. I work with some dumbshit mother fuckers too but also some smart people. Some have no degrees, some have bachelors, some even have masters and doctorates. No real corrrelation that I've seen as it doesn't depend as much on the amount of education the person has, more depends on the subject being discussed. The one thing I've seen though is the more letters a person has after their name, the more likely they are to try and overinflate what they actually know. 2 schools of thought: - Academia (legitimate academia) - Street smarts I've seen smart and dumb amongst both, but the concentration or mode of intelligence tends to hang around the formally educated types. It's about feequency and probability. If nothing else, if I'm being jerked off I prefer it be by a person using ornate language than some simpleton telling me 'bout his diddy and how smart that guy was; taught him everything he knows. Education, intelligence turns me on, angry idiocy is a turn off; I find more of the latter with uneducated people, probably somewhat describes me before my puny little BS in Justice. I will say the blue collar types typically have more guts than the brainiacs, so I try to have a balance of each.

If you had anything constructive to add, you would.

That's a low blow man Not cool, Lucky. Why? I'm blue-collar. I work with dumbshit mother fuckers all day that couldn't tell me the basic construction of congress, impeachemnt procedure, political history, what a GDP is and the diff between real and nominal GDP, yet these dumb motherfuckers have a definite and hard opinion of the court system and politics. - Ignorant = not knowing - Stupid = not sharp - Stupid and proud = all that rolled into the perspective of actual comprehensive understanding. I work with mostly the latter, but hey, that's blue-collar for ya. careful using the word ignorant. It's specifically called out in the "what is a PA" thread. I think it's BS because as you state, it simply means "not knowing". But still... I got called for it. Who did I call ignorant? I just defined it and said I work with people who are ignorant, stupid and proud, I don't think I have coworkers on here. Nice try. I'm not trying anything. (why so defensive though??) I still think it's BS that that word is specifically called out. Because I called my coworkers, ignorant, now you're offended? Oh God, go watch the wheel of fortune or something like that, this is getting old.

You mean like when you spout off about your immense knowledge of Law? DUDE..are you sure you are allowed to post here anymore???? 16 posts in the last year... you are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO out of practice QUIT!!!! You'll motivate him to start posting again.

You mean like when you spout off about your immense knowledge of Law? I have a great knowledge of the law, I watch trials all the time, research cases and write docs on occassion. I took a paralegal class a few months ago and teh teacher was a practicing lawyer. We disputed 4 iussues and I was right about 3 of them. He didn't do civil and my knowledge is greater there than crimi, so I had a leg-up. Compared to most lawyers, I'm a little behind; compared to laypeople, they are lost.

That's a low blow man Not cool, Lucky. Why? I'm blue-collar. I work with dumbshit mother fuckers all day that couldn't tell me the basic construction of congress, impeachemnt procedure, political history, what a GDP is and the diff between real and nominal GDP, yet these dumb motherfuckers have a definite and hard opinion of the court system and politics. - Ignorant = not knowing - Stupid = not sharp - Stupid and proud = all that rolled into the perspective of actual comprehensive understanding. I work with mostly the latter, but hey, that's blue-collar for ya. careful using the word ignorant. It's specifically called out in the "what is a PA" thread. I think it's BS because as you state, it simply means "not knowing". But still... I got called for it. Who did I call ignorant? I just defined it and said I work with people who are ignorant, stupid and proud, I don't think I have coworkers on here. Nice try.

That's it? You are runnin dude. All kinds of stuff to address and we're down to 1-liners - we all see it. And you're down to 3 consecutives posts defending your use of the word moot. Got a point to make? 1) ask any lawyer what moot means, they will agree with me. Then why ask when I correctly used it? 'It has been decided, no need to discuss further' was the obvious useage; bizzare misdirection from you. A strawman is a sub-subject to the main one being brought up, as in you departing from the point of objective justices to that of grammar Nazi. You didn't make anything up, yet another strawman, you just run, run, run. I will enumerate more issues for you run from as I get thru answering this series of replies. Then why ask what the usage was when I obviously meant the context to be that of, 'already discussed and decided - no need to further debate?' Either you didn't know or it was a strawman tactic or both.

That's it? You are runnin dude. All kinds of stuff to address and we're down to 1-liners - we all see it. And you're down to 3 consecutives posts defending your use of the word moot. Got a point to make? 1) ask any lawyer what moot means, they will agree with me. 2) Mr Strawman, the issues are there, quit running, you still chickened out on answering the lawyer who was kind enough to bring you some insight. 3) I didn't defend my usage of the word, "moot" I educated you on it. But I could have used it incorrectly and still the fact that justices are politically agenda-driven remains and you have yet to touch it while everyone looks on, laughing and you running.

In most cases, maybe. But that all depends on the type of work. I know many people who make +-100k without any college experience. But yeah, a degree definately helps. Especially if you're in management. I buddy of mine who's a manager could be making 20k more if he had a degree. One of the dumbest people I know is an AC tech, has his own business and grosses 300k/yr. He used to think you could drive to the M.E. He also asked me about a pre-nup agreement for his wife 5 years married with 2 kids before he started his business. I kindly told him there is such thing as a post-nup, but let it go; you bought it, make it work. The guy embodies stupid, of course a Republican, but earns well. On the average a degreed person will do far better, but there are cases for sure that dispell that. Aside from money, having and understanding of a myriad of things is far more valuable.

That's it? You are runnin dude. All kinds of stuff to address and we're down to 1-liners - we all see it.

And have a basic understanding of a variety of things. It's like anything, the less a person has of something, the more they pretend to have. People who actually have capital, human capital, etc generally tend to flaunt it less than those who don't. An example of this is martial artists, true M.A. generally look for ways to calm tensions and they never let on to their abilities. Uneducated people often yell the loudest on issues they know nothing about. I used to sports gamble a lot, I would go $1000 games at times and I would see the yeller's tickets and they would have a 10-team parlay for $5; the dime bettors would often be silent.

"that" meaning this: >>> In my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. This is so moot it's amazing tha it has to be stated, but ti does as there are lots of starry-eyed kids out there enamoured with this concept of how the law works over the real application. So yes, it is irrelevant (moot) to discuss the concept that any justice has an objective view of the law. For all the kids out there, by me saying, "moot" I was referring to the fact that the concept of an objective judge doesn't need to be said; it's considered, "judicial notice" that justices have a political agenda. IOW's, the mootness is found in the concept of even mentioning the objectivity of justices; they aren't. I guess your strawman is a way of getting out of addressing the real issues; DO YOU THINK WE ALL DON'T SEE THAT?

That's a low blow man Not cool, Lucky. Why? I'm blue-collar. I work with dumbshit mother fuckers all day that couldn't tell me the basic construction of congress, impeachemnt procedure, political history, what a GDP is and the diff between real and nominal GDP, yet these dumb motherfuckers have a definite and hard opinion of the court system and politics. - Ignorant = not knowing - Stupid = not sharp - Stupid and proud = all that rolled into the perspective of actual comprehensive understanding. I work with mostly the latter, but hey, that's blue-collar for ya.