Lucky...

Sounds like my recipe for chili. Wll then You and Pelosi can have some fun Scarry huh..... Absolutely. Your comparison, not mine At the comedy club, are you "that guy" in the audience who laughs hysterically when everyone else is silent? No, are you the one who sits with a stupid look on his face (while everone else is laughing) cause you never get the joke? You are also the guy who heckles when everyone else laughs.

That's your point; cover as many as we can afford rather than let's cover em all and find a way to pay for it, right? Tell us all, do you think every single citizen should be guaranteed basic HC? Who expects that; Heritage Foundation? And if they do it's because most people will be covered, something that carries no interest to you. Treatment will be more universally available, something that is of no interest to you. Yes, the Obama death squads, which are circling overhead now, will be making that call. Provide a little support for your insane predictions, try not to use HF, Cato or other pathetic rags....or is this your dellusion? Tell me how you would cover every citizen and try not to say we can buy ins across statelines, as that isn't the deal maker. Pretend the actual is true; MILLIONS OF PEOPLECANNOT AFFORD HC, ESP WITH YOUR BELOVED PREEXISTING PRECLUSIONS. So tell me how a person who need several surguries can go out and buy ins w/o lying or if the cond has been discovered, how can they pay for a 50k procedure? Just skip along, we know you say, "fuck em." Which lies and what twisting? Can you earna midicum of cred and actually support a point? Yes, I live in a fascist country that puts corps before people.

Yes, apparently Rush has not posted w/o using, "twisted." I answer every word often with supporting ev. If a poster here writes it, it's worth reading, if it's a cut-n-paste, I can read that on my own. Sure it was, it was about how we can afford medical illness over medical costs.

I'm talking about Freedom and Liberty my man. Those are the ideals the founding fathers hoped to aquire for all of us by escaping the yoke of the British Crown. Do you feel like you are a Free Man? Blue Skies, DJ Right, blacks and women need not apply.

Make up your mind - weren't YOU the one that was just saying that the SC decisions are the 'living Constitution'? There is no contradiction. Exactly, conservatives are really locked onto thsi, "balck or white" mentality. I feel bad for anyone who can't think dynamically. So, if the Supremes overturn Roe at some point in the future, you'll stand and applaud the decision - after all, it's the 'living Constitution' that counts!! Didn't you get carmenc's post? I don't have to applaud it to understand it. I won't applaud if Roe is overturned, but I also won't change my position that the original writings are subordinate to the living const and both Roe and whaever supercedes Roe will be proof of it. Mike, clear your head and read: WHATEVER THE FF MEANT IS IRRELEVENT TO WHAT THE 9 FOLKS SAY IS THE CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY MEANT. Is that clear enough? Nothing in there refers to cheerleading any individual issue over another, any rendering over another, just that the original draft is a real cool museum piece and that's it.

The houses only falsely appreciated due to puny int rates, the rest of the contributors expedited the mess, but w/o the low rates houses would not have hyperinflated. You are the expert In law, economics, politics, medicine...just ask him. I see you're done contributing anything....not that you ever did.

The houses only falsely appreciated due to puny int rates, the rest of the contributors expedited the mess, but w/o the low rates houses would not have hyperinflated. You are the expert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis -- In the years leading up to the crisis, significant amounts of foreign money flowed into the U.S. from fast-growing economies in Asia and oil-producing countries. This inflow of funds combined with low U.S. interest rates from 2002-2004 contributed to easy credit conditions, which fueled both housing and credit bubbles. -- However, once interest rates began to rise and housing prices started to drop moderately in 2006–2007 in many parts of the U.S., refinancing became more difficult. Defaults and foreclosure activity increased dramatically as easy initial terms expired, home prices failed to go up as anticipated, and ARM interest rates reset higher. See, there is an inverse relationship between int rates and house costs / values. Int rates drop, teh same hosue goes for $XX,000 more, creating a frenzy amongst buyers, sellers, financers, etc. Of all the variables, low int rates were both the catalyst and the cause. Other factors may have fueled and expedited it, but none of it was possible w/o low int rates held down so long. Why were rates cut? Economy sputtered, taxes cut, rich retained their cash vs reinvested. The only way you can cut taxes is when the economy is flying and receipts are high. To cut taxes to think you will incr receipts is retarded.

Make up your mind - weren't YOU the one that was just saying that the SC decisions are the 'living Constitution'? There is no contradiction. Exactly, conservatives are really locked onto thsi, "balck or white" mentality. I feel bad for anyone who can't think dynamically.

Good, then I'll count you as, "I agree" that SCOTUS decisions are far more relevant than the original writings. I don't care whethewr your recollection is accurate or not. Thsi conversation is about SCOTUS decisions vs the original draft; do try to stay up and on track. Yes, they are teh binding version of theoriginal draft, but to say they aren't decided from the to-down is ridiculous. The justices decide how they want a case to go and use whatever they can to suppot that; the Heller decision is a good example of that.

The houses only falsely appreciated due to puny int rates, the rest of the contributors expedited the mess, but w/o the low rates houses would not have hyperinflated.

Now I'll sit back and marvel at how it is you Lucky, posting on DZ.com know more than J.D. Foster, Ph.D. Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy . I see, 80 years of repeated data means nothing to a PhD with an agenda. Nice . So if another quack came around and said smoking wasn't deadly, you would agree in spite of rooms full of data that smoking is fatal? I guess so. SHOW ME A MOJOR FED TAX CUT THAT LED TO ECONOMIC IMPROVEMENT IN: - unemp - stock market - deficit/debt - etc

With a growing 13T debt, don't you agree that taxes s/b raised above what it takes to balance the budget? Where would you cut spending? Economic output, meaning GDP??? Stcok market performance??? So you say regulation of int rates, etc is more impressive than actual income tax rates? They both control a lot, int rates motivate people to buy large durables or not, income taxation rates control where a massive amount of money goes and if the rich and corporations are allowed to hang on to most or some of their money. Also, the gov can force reinvesting rather than shelving money. I disagree, income taxation is far more infuential than other methods of economic control. Of course there are otehr minor factors, but the 2 largeest factors are: - Sample size - randomness To a person who lived in closet, perhaps, but cause and effect in this case is clear and almost condescending. Bill, show me a major fed tax cut taht led to overall success with: - Jobs - Debt/deficit - GDP - Stock market - inflation Look at the major cuts and the effects: - 1925 massive cut to 25% top brkt: 4 years later great depression - Reagan in 1981 to 86 cut from 70% to 28%: Series of deep recessions, massive deficit / debt increases - GWB cut taxes just 5% top brkt, but they were so low at 40% there was no lattitude: Massive debt accrual. Then the fed res cut int rates to spur the economy and that fueled the housing market mess.

1) Has there ever been a post where Rush doesn't use the word, "twist?" 2) I don't read long posts that are cut-n-pastes with 1 senence from poster. 3) I agree, fuck people, let's ensure corps are taken care of.

Do we have to be fundamental here? Better for the mases, we know tax cuts are good for the rich on the front end, some rich benefit all teh way thru. Rarely do MC and poor ever benefit from a tax cut. Nice try at making out the MC as people who actually pay taxes that matter and who are benefitted by tax cuts. McCain tried the same thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class Leonard Beeghley, 2004: College educated workers with incomes considerably above-average incomes and compensation; a man making $57,000 and a woman making $40,000 may be typical. William Thompson & Joseph Hickey, 2005: Doesn't define a MC Dennis Gilbert, 2002: No middle class eitehr, but they have a lower MC Semi-professionals and craftsmen with a roughly average standard of living. Most have some college education and are white collar. and upper MC: Highly educated (often with graduate degrees), most commonly salaried, professionals and middle management with large work autonomy _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ So after all that, what does MC earn? 40k to 57k gross? That seems fair based on these definitions, hhas a college degree. So we're not talking average Joe here, a sthe title suggests, we're talking people who are above averge income and education who gross about 50k/yr. Now, let's see what they pay in taxes as compared to the big picture.... http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html So if they make 50k gross average, they keep 40k, maybe less. 40k is a goodf round number for AGI. Per the graph they are barely into the top 50% brkt, right at the bottom. They're no where near the brkts that collectively pay 86% of the gross tax bill, IOW's they are barely over the group that pays 3% of the total tax bill. To be generous, to say they collectively pay even 10% of the tax bill is high, probably more like 5-7%. So, are you joining McCain and trying to tell us that MC folks are helped by a tax cut? And remember, MC means higher than the avergage person both in education and income. So you trying to make MC mean average isn't true. Many, shall I say most people walking around are well into that 32k AGI brkt who pay

As recently mentioned, 1997. The late 90s had several major changes: 1) dividends and long term capital gains tax reductions 2) roth IRA 3) incredible increase in the tax free gains for home sales. It played no small part in the real estate bubble. Nah, the bubble was only possible with 40-year low int rate that stayed too long. W/o the rate cuts, there would be no way to finance the mess and have such an artificial devaluation. Dropping 8% of cap gains isn;t a deal maker by any stretch, it didn't create artifical appreciation, it just allowed sellers to hang on to a little more of their ill-gotten gains.

Inability to understand simple English is what's going on here: http://economics.about.com/cs/businesscycles/a/depressions_2.htm A depression is any economic downturn where real GDP declines by more than 10 percent. A recession is an economic downturn that is less severe. Real GDP declined 33% starting in 1929, so FDR inherited an economic condition that was 3 times that of the definition, but I'm just using English. You mean we were out, as GDP went positive, then in 37-38 the economy slipped back into a small depression. To say still infers there was no recovery, but then I apologize, I'm using English definition. Yes, the first Great Republican Depression started in 1929, started recovery and then slipped back a little, the war then pulled us out. There was recovery under Hoovers massive tax increasee in 1932 and FDR's continued increases. The corps were not the fault, the trio Republican scum of Harding, Coolidge, Hoover were teh problem; businesses were just the recipients of their corruption. Not sure what your rant means, but low taxes and the problem, you cannot show me a major federal tax cut that has helpd, and if you try to morph one out of thin air, you can't find 2 or 3 or 5. I can show the opposite. But don't let me a change an ideologue's perspective. OK, back to our regularly scheduled rant. BTW, quit the, "fair" argument, it's really tired. They are, give a poor person 200 bucks, it enters the economy within an hour, give it to a rich person, it sits. Warren Buffet has said the same thing. More info. You seem to be able to research, show me a major fed tax cut since post WWI that has made things better. Major cuts as I see them: - 1925 - 1946 - 1962ish (not huge) - 1980-86 (massive) - 2001 Can you think of other far-reaching tax cuts since WWI? Let's examine them and see the results.

Your fantasy world, dream it like you want it. So you're saying SCOTUS decisoins aren't binding then? Yea, and you say I live in a fantasy world. Next you'll tell me SCOTUS decisions aren't arbitrary (we know they often are).

LUCKY: Or are you just gonna keep running, telling us about your meaningless vacation? Futuredivot: Sorry, can't play, got a kayak to catch. I have the answer to that. I see you're either continuing your ignorance or just having fun.

The majority votes of 2 separate Supreme Court panels, each coincidentally in 7 to 2 decisions, have disagreed with that analysis. In 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut recognized a right to marital privacy derived from the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. In 1973, the Constitutional right-to-privacy analysis in Griswold was held to apply to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Griswold synopsis Roe v. Wade synopsis That's kinda what I've been saying, forgot the caselaw but I've heard of them before. More macrostructurally, what is the difference between the US const and SCOTUS decisions rendered as a result of issues being decided upon review of it? The living constitution, in many ways, is more relevant than the original drafting. The way the living const is weaker is that it can go away, but once it's reached stare decisis status it becomes even stronger in that it's contemporary and binding today; the original draft almost becomes a museum piece as far as relevance once issues/decisions become long-standing - stare decisis. That was my point these guys can't grasp, they're so in love with the original draft, probably because it's easier, that they don't want to hear about the constitution that matters; the living constitution. Where's that 'living constitution' you're so enamored with written down, then? It's right here, it doesn't read like a cliche, so it might be a hard read: http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html Well, then you obviously have no problem with the decision the Supremes made in McDonald. I haven't read it, but I doubt I would based upon what I know of it. You conservatives are so funny, they think you have to be all one way or the other. I can disagree with the reasoning but like the decision. Either way, like it or not, the living constitution prevails ove rthe original writings. If it were written 5 years ago that might be aweful, but being written well > 200 years ago, it's pefect to make it contemporary.

Where would you put a president who inherited a surplus, left a huge deficit, started an unnecessary war, couldn't put together a coherent sentence, and left the economy in tatters? I'd suggest 5th worst is being generous. It's not a static distinction. Those polls are done continuously. GWB's rating is still heading down Love to see fascist Ronny's heading down too, why did it take so long to figure that one out?

Where would you put a president who inherited a surplus, left a huge deficit, started an unnecessary war, couldn't put together a coherent sentence, and left the economy in tatters? I'd suggest 5th worst is being generous. Esp considering guys like Will Henry Harrison was lower and his mistake was being too stupid to put on a coat; he never really did anything presidential. UPDATE: I see as of the new 2010 poll that tehy switched places - bout time. Pierce and Buchannan s/b locks for last or near and they were teh most god-aweful slave-lovers. Harding, of course, the engineer of the Great Depression, what a pig - cut taxes and led to the mess. We really were able to see hisory here, the 5th worst president and sinking, those who voted for him s/b proud. So as for your conspiracy, quit thinking popular and start thinking functional. Who did teh most for America as it stands? Who was the most harmful?

(Un-named) Presidential Scholars.... Now there's a good unbiased source. Awwww, is this a liberal conspiracy? Remember, the all-time poll has Lincoln or Washington at #1, Pierce, Buchanan and Andrew Johnson at the bottom, so there goes your silly conspiracy. Are you saying Bush shouldn't be 5th from the bottom? Polls also put Eisenhower in the top 10 with Teddy Roosevelt up around there too. There are plenty of Dems near the bottom too, esp pre-Civil War Dems. No. I'm saying "there's a good unbiased source". Same as I'm saying; you assume universities are filled with liberals. Furthermore, these so-called libs can't be objective. Make an argument showing that their findings/opinions are flaweed and we can go from there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States Look how Clinton has moved up to 13 and fascist Ronnie moved down to 18; PEOPLE ARE REALIZING HOW CRITICAL THE ECONOMY IS OVER ALL OTHER MORAL ISSUES AND THAT CLINTON MASTERED IT. Reagan will be mid-20's to 30's before it's all done. Of course the ideologues will still praise him.

Decades? ILLINOIS James R. Thompson January 10, 1977 January 14, 1991 Republican Jim Edgar January 14, 1991 January 11, 1999 Republican George H. Ryan January 11, 1999 January 13, 2003 Republican (Now in prison) Rush has long run off, nothing to see here.

The majority votes of 2 separate Supreme Court panels, each coincidentally in 7 to 2 decisions, have disagreed with that analysis. In 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut recognized a right to marital privacy derived from the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. In 1973, the Constitutional right-to-privacy analysis in Griswold was held to apply to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Griswold synopsis Roe v. Wade synopsis That's kinda what I've been saying, forgot the caselaw but I've heard of them before. More macrostructurally, what is the difference between the US const and SCOTUS decisions rendered as a result of issues being decided upon review of it? The living constitution, in many ways, is more relevant than the original drafting. The way the living const is weaker is that it can go away, but once it's reached stare decisis status it becomes even stronger in that it's contemporary and binding today; the original draft almost becomes a museum piece as far as relevance once issues/decisions become long-standing - stare decisis. That was my point these guys can't grasp, they're so in love with the original draft, probably because it's easier, that they don't want to hear about the constitution that matters; the living constitution. Where's that 'living constitution' you're so enamored with written down, then? It's right here, it doesn't read like a cliche, so it might be a hard read: http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html

When are you guys gonna pick a side of the fence and build a house on it? - Reagan = hero - Amnesty = bad - Obama = amnesty Seriously, figure yourselves out. NOTE: In case you didn't get it, Reagan's 1986 amnesty to all illegal Mexicans creates such a massive hypocrisy that even you guys can't escape it with BS. Plan? As in the amnesty plan? You're not getting it, you guys call Reagan a hero, yet ignore some of his dirty deeds (deeds that would be dirty to you that is) like the 1986 Immigration Amnesty Bill. Of course you also ignore real dirty deeds like the pardoning of Yankee owner Steinbrenner for tax evasion. Point is, IF YOU DESPISE IMMIGRATION AMNESTY TO THE BONE, THE START VILLIFYING REAGAN AND QUIT BEING PHONY. I don't think we've seen Obama's plan, so quit guessing. Naw, the "problem" was long before Reagan and will live long after we're all dead. Fools that think we can actually stop illegal immigration in a country fo our size also think we can stop M.E. terrorism. These are issues that can't be stopped but only semi-controleld at best.