Lucky...

As I said, Bill is a true Libertarian, as he is with his fiscal beliefs too. It's just that conservatives call him a liberal, supporting my beliefs that most so-called Libertarians are just disgrntled Republicans looking for a place / party to roost so they kinda-sorta call themselves Libertartarians, altho we know they aren't.

In this case, the obvious reason is that their self interested action would need to be paid for by everyone else. What's to like about that? In the bigger picture, the government unions are bankrupting local governments left and right, and that too doesn't endure them to taxpayers. With unions like the UAW, they do have to think about the survival of the company. But if you work for the city or state, that's not really a concern - they can always raise taxes. Yea, it'snot deficits in tax revs that are BKing cities and states . Brilliant. AZ is selling off the prisons and most city buildings and we wave the NAzi flag when it comes to employee rights, so I doubt your limited / singular data is relevant.

I am curious about a number of things though now . . . are you some high-powered executive at a company that gets some sort of extra-special health care coverage, like weekly in-home "chiropractic and therapeutic massage services" average workers don't get? The entire bill seems to be set up for "excess benefit" coverage and I'm wonder just who it is that gets that? One thing you need to remember is that the large unions were in oposition to the HC bill until they were exempted from the cadilac care taxation. Because the HC programs they had met the definition at that time so they would be taxed. I do not know if the definition is still the same but that gives you an idea of where it started You've always struck me as someone who most likely does manual work of some kind, probably a trade of some sort. Assuming you're not retired, which you might be. So it makes me wonder why you are so quick to criticize unions. Sore point? I was in a union for 17 years. Still a member just not a dues paying one. I manage union people today in the same trade. Great guys and gals who work hard and who's ass I will cover when it is the right thing to do. I got no beef with the members. The upper levels however are more evil than any corp you can mention and they do it on the backs of the members By the way, I am in the IBEW Unlike management who is there for us . I know some unions will "give up" guys to save others, it's very utilitarian at times. But even in a closed shop state a member can tell the union he will hire his own representation and not use the union's, so it's not as compulsory as you make it seem. And per teh standard RW drivel, personal responsibility demands we take care of ourselves.

Are you trying to claim Afghanistan is also a 'illegitimate' war? The one that the Democrats have campaigned on as the 'good' war, as opposed to the 'bad' war in Iraq that they did indeed approve? I'll try giving you the same lesson I did to the Muslims never in America guy: if you have good evidence, don't dilute and pollute it with stupidity. Don't get hurt feelings and start calling people stupid because you don't have the cooth to address an issue. Yes, I think AFG is illegitimate. GWB ramped it up as with the initiation of Iraq. It's illegitimate because you're fighting an ideology, not a country. See if you try to live up to your self-appointed pseudo immage of a calm, objective moderate.

Yep - and you are viewed in much the same way. But is does get SOOOO much attention from you and the run of the mill rePUBIClowns. No - there is just nothing better to do at the moment. You could address this issue: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm Reasons: - economic failure - Katrina mess he ignored for a week - unemployment mess - 2 wars gotten into illegitimately - killing stem cell research funding - Commuting Scooter Libby - etc Or address the post about Summers and taxes just a couple above. In all seriousness, when you guys get hurt feelings over silly names, it's just an escape from addressing issues that you really don't want to address. As much as you want it to be, the worst times have come under harsh tax cuts: - Great Depression - Great Recession - Reagan's 80's

Does calling people names make you feel better about yourself? Do you actually think anyone is going to take you seriously with this limited vocabulary that you use? Although it does tell everyone a lot about you and your thinking.

Does calling people names make you feel better about yourself? Do you actually think anyone is going to take you seriously with this limited vocabulary that you use? Although it does tell everyone a lot about you and your thinking.

They have indirect control over unemployment rates, but direct control over unemployment compensation. They have direct control over many jobs bills and taxation, etc. Let's be real, the economy is far more than just employment and teh rpes has a lot of control over the entire economy. Right, the tax increase didn't increase government tax receipts, bringing a 12-year running 250B/yr deficit to a halt and balancing the budget, ending the debt increase. I get it that you want to act as tho it's all coincidence since your party has fukced it all up, that's typical of a person who's side is responsible. It makes a nice bumper sticker, but in good Reagan neo-con fashion, you have yet to detail a time in history where just that happened. In fact, when controls have been relaxed and taxes lowered, e.g. Reagan and GWB, things went to hell; accumulatively the worst economic times in the US. So if you could please can your theory and show me applicational examples, I would love it, but don't expect it - just more trickle-down rhetoric theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers Summers is a crook. Summers has recently come under fire for accepting perks from Citigroup, including free rides on its corporate jet in 2008.[54] According to the Wall Street Journal, Larry Summers called Chris Dodd asking him to remove caps on executive pay at firms that have received stimulus money, including Citigroup.[55] On April 3, 2009 Summers came under renewed criticism after it was disclosed that he was paid millions of dollars the previous year by companies which he now has influence over as a public servant. He earned $5 million from the hedge fund D. E. Shaw, and collected $2.7 million in speaking fees from Wall Street companies that received government bailout money.[56] In early April 2010, Joshua Green reported that Summers is frustrated with his position at the NEC and upset that he was not chosen to replace Ben Bernanke as head of the Federal Reserve. It is seen as likely that Summers could leave the post soon.[57] ...and is on the way out. If Obama loved him so much, why did he put Bernanke as head of the Fed Res? From your article: -- Unemployment was a serious economic problem in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries prior to the welfare state and widespread unionization. Unemployment then, as now, was closely linked to general macroeconomic conditions. -- The great depression, when unemployment in the United States reached 25 percent, is the classic example of the damage that collapses in credit can do. Since then, most economists have agreed that cyclical fluctuations in unemployment are caused by changes in the demand for labor, not by changes in workers’ desires to work, and that unemployment in recessions is involuntary. Looks to me like He's saying credit issues and demand issues are key to unemployment. Sad when your own article rejects your point. At least I can say a conservative actually posted a citation fro once. Yes, courtesy of Fascist Ronnie and G "dumbshit" Dumbya. Hillarious to read you act as if the economy is random, then try to assign blame to Clinton when his presidency yielded the greatest growth ever while under tax increases and more controls. Make sense.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm Reasons: - economic failure - Katrina mess he ignored for a week - unemployment mess - 2 wars gotten into illegitimately - killing stem cell research funding - Commuting Scooter Libby - etc

I don't recall your outrage when Bush was gushing money out of the national treasury during the boom time before his recession hit, when he should have been saving a surplus handed to him by his predecessor. ___________________________________________________ this is why Bush's approval rating was so low.. I hated the way he charged the war off to the deficit. Now Obama makes him look frugal. The war accounted for 800B as GWB left, GWB's deficit, eventually debt tally was about 5T. Please start making sense.

I encounter far more assholes who behave that way to mask their incompetence. I can see that, I can usually sniff them out.

The Democrats need to start playing the same game. It's their own fault for letting the fillibuster hurt them so much. Yea, they need to do a lot of things more balsy, so far they're off to a good start. It's almost better to be autocratic and pushy than to be honest and passive.

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT, it's just coincidence that since Reagan took charge that Republicans run debt and leave the economy flat or just plain fucked and the Dems fix it. That old, tired cliche is long dead; let it go.

It's an interpretation of Republicans take on any negative economic action. It's obvious that R's fucked it up, so now R's look for any reason to be let off the hook and then celebrate. Yes, but with stimulus and military cuts it can and will, did under Clintion, parred with tax increases. Oh, so following Hoover's process right after Black Tuesday would be a better idea? Actually, in part hope is needed. Confidence is huge with investors and consumers, so you are grossly wrong. But the substantive measures are needed too and Obama has done several. Here's an article from the Repub's own RW rag, the WSJ. They talk of confidence as essential to economic growth. Quit listening to Limbaugh and do something more important with your time. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125261100485400509.html Don't you wish you had a patsy for a president? Sorry to make you unhappy. Love the examples you post to support your theory. Also, we see the economy has tanked under the corrupt and unregulated Republiscum, so there's to your lack of regulation: Reagan/GHWB's 3T and GHWB's 5T addition to the debt - nice argument you make. Unemp: rose 3.4% GWB's last year, Obama stopped the slide by October and it has dropped since. Jobs are now being created. GDP: 4 of 5 Q's under GWB were negative, the last grossly negative. Since then we have had 4 consecutive Q's of very + growth, one Q 6%. The banks have restructured and healed. The stock market was on a slide that ended at 6500, now it's over 10k. Your arguments aren't even fun, but juvenile attempts to persuade the naive. Saving the auto industry, the housing industry, teh mortgage industry. Ensuring unemployed people have benefits to carry them over. Holding WS and the banks responsible to pay the money back and to end massive bonuses until it is paid back. Allowing for GWB's tax cut to expire. He hasn't raised taxes yet, but he will via the expiring tax cuts. BTW, show me where a major fed tax cut has helped via example. I won't wait up. Expanding what programs? What has said expansion hurt? How has he opened the border to cheap labor? Increase what benefits? How has it hurt? The real joke is taht you harp, yet cannot substantiate any of your claims. I can dos o to mine, would you like to see?

You still denying that the last recession started under Clinton? Here's some more free education. A recession is defined as 2 or more consecutive Q's of negative GDP. Here's a little help figuring out the historical GDP: http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=354 During the period with all the stolen mortage money while your hero was standing with his thumbs up his ass doing nothing, that stolen money was circulated and caused the GDP to do well, quashing any possible argument that there was negative GDP connected from the Clinton era extending even a year into your dad's term(s).

Again. I really don't think you are wanting to be taken seriously. All the chronological events he stated and you look to have your feelings hurt as a strawman. Substantively, addess his chronological series of events.

many of the tax cuts were in place before that. And Iraq was an expense that cannot be attributed to 9/11, even if the environment gave him the public approval to do it. Now the paper surplus did not account for the bubble bursting, so some of it was fictional, but that doesn't give Bush a free pass. As well, the war costs account for 15% of GWB's 5T debt hike.

I don't recall your outrage when Bush was gushing money out of the national treasury during the boom time before his recession hit, when he should have been saving a surplus handed to him by his predecessor. How convenient when everyone who parrots this line forgets about a little thing that happened on 9/11 Yea, giving the surplus back in light of a trillion dollar war is brilliant. Check history, so that you at least have a little historical education, in WWII, Korea, VN the lowest the top tax brkt was reduced to was 70%, GWB was in the process of lowering it to 35% as he was emptying the gov coffers of cash and then writing trillion dollar checks.

Been a pretty shitty 520 days for the USA The Bush recession started in December 2007. It would have been over sooner had the GOP not been in denial over "the R word". Yea, now everyone is whining about the recession (as per GWB's advisor).

Yea, I'm still excited. As usual, I have to cite them. http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm I think the numbers are great, as well as the unemp data too. It all needs to be bettered, but considering the mess your dad left us, this is as good as it gets.

The Scumlipublicans use fillibuster way more than the Dems, yet the same cry like beotches when Dmes use it and reconcilliation, as with the HC Bill. Hell, fillibuster was used twice with GWB's tax cuts. They should at least STFU when Dems rarely use it.

Ok, one smug person here really is claiming that a degree means one is way smarter than anyone who doesn't. (but come on - you could hardly be surprised who it was) I'm focussing on the intelligence value, not the asshole. The best dentist I have had was a total asshole, poor chairside manor, but he was competent; I'll take that. Often I see people who are to conforming and "nice" as people who try to compensate for lack of knowledge/ability. I'll taka a smart, competent asshole, thank you.

Ditto

Fixed it

Common sense tells us that tax cuts work to benefit the economy, application and history show us they do the opposite for the masses.