Lucky...

Perhaps it was a little immediate gratification, maybe a necessary evil. When you say longer, I think you mean 5 - 10 years longer and I think we both know that. Firstly we would have had to find the bottom and as illustrated by the Great Depression, even they weren't willing to find that. 2 1/2 years after Hoover did nothing and massive suffering ensued, he signed the largest income tax increase ever, the Revenue Act of 1932 where the top brkt was raised from 25% to 63%. Healing started to begin. So where/when was the bottom? Fortunately we will never know, but let's be real, it would be 10 years before recovery. Writing blank checks for money we don't have was the right thing to do, most of the world followed along. We were still in gross freefall, the market was at < 1/2 of its peak a couple year prior, from Feb 08 to Feb 09 unemp rose 3.4%, GDP was in the shitter starting mid 07, so where wa steh bottom has to be answerd before we guess at where the way up would have been. Let's be real, it would have been a 10-year mess. Oh, you mean like starting industry? Building factories, etc? I agree, but then we would be such horrible socialists, right? And the gov buying GM and Chrysler to keep them afloat wasn't doing just that? What else would you add? I posted: - Do nothing - Stimulus good - Tax cuts Not sure what I missed. And by placing 10 options some of the meaning gets convoluted and diluted, so I wanted to keep it general.

Based upon???????????? Any evidence, reference, data? Or just more diidy told me so BTW, GWB did nothing and unemp rose 3.4% from Feb 08 to Feb 09; so WTF could you possibly do to make a point supporting that doing nothing is better for recovery? GDP fell every quarter except 1 frrom mid 2007 until Obama took office, the market was in freefall. Really dude, make a point. So you're saying the recovery was slowed by the spending? Are you saying the GDP could have gone from -6.4% to + 5.9% in less time? Can you show historical data to support that? You realize Hoover basically did nothing and things got far worse, right? You realize GWB did nothing and things got far worse, right? Can yoiu provide any evidence that doing nothing is better for recovery? I'm sure the gov is really worried. So you're going to put yourself out of business to protest the gov moves. That sounds as bright as a hunger strike. So tell us, how did you feel about fascist Ronny's tripling of the debt and spend fenzy? How did you feel about GHWB and Clinton's tax increases and spending cuts? You are aware they fixed fascist pig Ronny's mess, right? Sounds like Clinton went teh way you want Obama to go. Of course Clinton received an economy in recovery vs one in freefall, so let's be apples/apples here. What does that mean; what do they do that would cost you? And this is where you really need some education; stat! Outlays, which is a fancy way of saying, "spending" are legislated usually very independently to that of receipts, or revenue collection via taxation. If you look at the last 30 years, when spending (outlays) has increased the most, tax collection (receipts) decreased, at least per capita. There are other factors, such as both receipts and outlays should increase at the rate of inflation + population increase, so don't be fooled by numbers that seem to increase when in fact they are actually decreasing as tehy aren't keeping up with inflation and with polulation growth. Examples: - Reagan = cut taxes from 70% top brkt to 28% in ~6 years, while he increased spending insanely. Receipts did grow, largely due to his runaway spending, but the debt tripled, meaning his spending was FAR MORE GROSS than were the little benefit of increased receipts. - Clinton = Cut spending to = that of population growth + inflation (which was low under CLinton) so that he balanced the budget. He also increased the top brkt from 31% to 40%, which then took a 290B deficit and left it at 236B surplus after 8 years, as well, the debt increase lowered every year frrom 12 years of ~250B to that of 33B his last year. - GWB = The turd in the punchbowl is this guy, did a Reagan on steroids. He took a balanced budget and doubled a 5.5T debt, left a deficit around 1T his last year. He presided over a total failure of teh banking/mortgage system while not understanding what was going on. Hyperinflation was sick as house prices doubled and gas tripled at one point. Of course as he cut taxes from 40% top brkt to 35% he also blew out spending. So which of these models do you like the best? NOW, EXPLAIN HOW SPENDING INCREASES LEAD TO TAX INCREASES. It appears the inverse is true. Or are you saying that in a responsible admin istration that would happen? That is your biased guess. But a little more help fer ya: INCREASED COMPETITION CREATES LOWER PRICES. Just trying to help ya out there.

Okay... Federal huh? Are you suggesting they imported intoxicating liquors for a commercial purpose without involving the provincial board? And BC is a province, so I'm not sure how territorial laws were violated. Consumption laws were violated. Consumption laws are: Territorial, federal or provincial.

couldn't vote, you didn't even include the actual topic of the thread as a possibility. What option would you like to see, or is this just a misdirection? how about "just should have let things work themselves out and save billions." I'm so sorry, you must have missed it, it was the first one: Yes, the economy would fix itself as soon as the stimulus has improved it Work themselves out, fix itself; what is the difference? Your word choice was unclear - it makes it sound as if the the stimulus fixed it. Nope, I meant doing nothing would bring improvements as fast as the stimulus has brought improvements. 1) Do nothing 2) Do the stimulus 3) Tax cuts, my friends

couldn't vote, you didn't even include the actual topic of the thread as a possibility. What option would you like to see, or is this just a misdirection? how about "just should have let things work themselves out and save billions." I'm so sorry, you must have missed it, it was the first one: Yes, the economy would fix itself as soon as the stimulus has improved it Work themselves out, fix itself; what is the difference?

Really? Show of hands, folks - Who else (besides Lucky) thinks "Is Satan calling Dick home?" a treatise on what mnealtx thinks of the healthcare debate? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? No, this was about your compassion, as illustrated by the threads you referenced, remember? I just wanted to see if you have as much compassion for the living as you do the dead, that's it - continue with your misdirection. No, this is YOU trying to make it about my compassion so you don't look like such an asshole. Now that we have that straight, feel free to continue with the desperate attempts to make yourself look better. WOW, Mikey must be pissed, he never PA's! So all these threads YOU posted weren't attempt to show what a great, compassionate guy you are? I saw something last week about gallbladder surgery, but was unaware of his passing until today. RIP, Mr Murtha. Breaking news - succumbed to cancer. While I didn't like the man, nor agreed with his political views, I hope his passing was as fast and painless as possible given his condition. *from live newcast* While I don't care for the man or his political views, I wish him a full and speedy recovery. I guess I'm just 'right wing trash'. Compared to the alternate, I'll wear that label proudly. ___________________________________ OK, now tell us, since we know you are a compassionate guy to the dead, how you feel about the living who can't afford the basics while some people are so filthy rich that their money is score.

couldn't vote, you didn't even include the actual topic of the thread as a possibility. What option would you like to see, or is this just a misdirection?

Really? Show of hands, folks - Who else (besides Lucky) thinks "Is Satan calling Dick home?" a treatise on what mnealtx thinks of the healthcare debate? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? No, this was about your compassion, as illustrated by the threads you referenced, remember? I just wanted to see if you have as much compassion for the living as you do the dead, that's it - continue with your misdirection.

WHo thinks what? Furthermore, if you are of the schoo of thought that spending had to happen, is deficit spending better or increasing taxes to spend better?

That shouldn't take much effort. First rule of holes: When you realize you're in one...STOP DIGGING. Very true. But nobody says we can't hand him a bigger shovel.

Sorry, Lucky...still ain't playing - but it's DAMN amusing watching the desperation in the attempts to make yourself look better. But this was about you and your compassion, the compassion that feels nothing when poor people don't have HC.

Bunch af asshats throw billions of our dollars at the economy and you think it's amazing. NOT our dollars. Borrowed dollars. And the bailouts and the borrowing started well before Obama was inaugurated. Never said Dem or Rep asshats. I'm aware of when the spending orgy started. I'm laughing that Lucky thinks growth is "amazing" after that. Then you're laughing at your own inability to understand simple data. GDP went from -6.4% to +5.9% in a year. You can act like you don't understand, but the numbers are simple; care to talk data or just more aimless static?

So, DESPITE all his campaigning about "I'm not George Bush" and blaming everything ON Bush since then, he's spent the last year trying to out-Bush, Bush. He has, look at teh change http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000 And teh stock maket. These are changes? Freefall to betterment? Bush's policies threw teh country down, Obama's have revived it; can you not see teh simple data?

Bunch af asshats throw billions of our dollars at the economy and you think it's amazing. Versus a bunch of asshats in 1929 doing nothing while millions suffered and / or died.

Cat got your tongue? Oh, resorting to angriness, get that checked out. I think what happened after the idiots acted as such was perfect, you are the one pissed that they had to apologize; YOU ARE THE ONE WITH THE ISSUES.

That's what I have been trying to get you to address.... how did they violate any code of sportsmanship? They were alone! They didn't throw their victory in the face of their opponent, they had the class to celebrate in private. Maybe if you would wait until you are sober before posting here you would understand what is being said and your spelling would not be so awful and yu posts would make some kind of sense. Maybe you need to do as Amazon suggested. Give it a try. Being wrong does invoke anger, as we see by you . Time to vist you know who. http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_122.pdf Along with all the numerous rules along the way in this 105-page read, page 21 of 105 (7)(1) rings the highest so far: The Olympic Games are the exclusive property of the IOC which owns all rights and data relating thereto, in particular, and without limitation, all rights relating to their organisation, exploitation, broadcasting, recording, representation, reproduction, access and dissemination in any form and by any means or mechanism whatsoever, whether now existing or developed in the future. The IOC shall determine the conditions of access to and the conditions of any use of data relating to the Olympic Games and to the competitions and sports performances of the Olympic Games. The IOC owns heh mother fucker, ENTIRELY. Page 50 of 105 talks of ethics and how they are the first and final "decider." Shall we talk about federal, provicial, territorial laws about underage drinking that took place on Olympics venue?

Holy shit that's funny! hat has to hit an all time high on the irony score. The only one here with a problem is the guy who got his panties all in a bunch because of his jealousy of a group of talented athletes who won a team gold medal and held a private little celebration on the ice well after everyone else but a couple photogs had left. Get the fuck over yourself, lucky. Get the fuck over yourself. Oh, resorting to anginess, get that checked out. I think what happened after the idiots acted as such was perfect, you are teh one pissed that they had to apologize; YOU ARE THE ONE WITH THE ISSUES.

Sorry, Lucky - still ain't playing. Just sack up and own your words, dude. TRANSLATION: Fuck people who are poor w/o HC, I can just show condolences to a few dead Dems and claim to be compassionate.

Since when did you own Orca Bay Sports and Entertainment? That building was built with 100% private money, on time and on budget. Lucky: You must be kidding. If you think The IOC takes pissant shit like this into account over billion dollar + decisions you really don't understand. Well, they could use it as fodder if they for some other reason choose another venue. Do I think this will bemonumental? No, but I'm sure the Canadian Gov doesn't appreciate it. Getting teh Olympics is huge and Canada is an awesome venue, regardless of terroitory, they will get the olympics again within 4 or 5 more winter Olympics I'm sure.

The only people in disagreement here are the ones who hated the apology had to be given. I agree with the way it played out after the idiots did their deed. I ultimatley don't care in the least, but it is an intersteing issue, more intersting as the dissenters whine.

I agree, we agree, you just don't like how it played out. It's over, all parties agreed it's a done issue. You are teh one with a problem, you don;t like that they had to apologize, I think it played out perfectly. Again, YOU ARE THE ONE WITH THE PROBLEM HERE.

It's in the general ethics and behavior rules, but it is also in the federal laws about underage drinking. As for forgotten, agreed. It isn't a huge issue, they apologized and admitted; done deal. Canada can own teh ice all they want, they gave authority to the Olympic committe, like it or not. Wanna kick em out, go for it, but all that revenue you guys deservedly got is as a result of begging the olympic committee to choose your venue; learn a little about how it works.

The reality is that the broke the essence and spirit of sportsmanship, as I've previously stated. I realize you like selective reading, but I did write somethign to that effect, The relity is that the team and the Canadian Hockey Authority of some sort apologized and adfmitted it was wrong, so it is you who isn't in-line with reality. It's probably a general ethics rule. They don't cidify every little behavior, they use general sportsmanship guidelines which all involved agree they violated, now if we can just get the public to learn how to read. Oh and the other hard rule would be the drinking age thingy on an Olympic venue esp, there's you hard rule. Have a nice day. Yea, you kinda just answered your own question; thank you. They didn't violate the rules, just the ruke that says you can't aprty like a rickstar, but other than that, not one rule was violated. You mean, mnostly empty arena; reading is fundamental - revision is Republican divine. So now some condom distribution comes into play; WTF are you talking about???? Back to the subject, the IOC, the team, the Canadian Hockey Authority have all agreed that there was a violation, now you have just also agreed that there was a violation, so it appears we are all on the same oage here. READ THIS CAREFULLY: YOU HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE RULES, NOT WHETHER THE RULES WERE BROKEN OR NOT, YOU AGREE THEY WERE, YOU JUST THINK IT'S STUPID TO HAVE RULES LIKE THAT. IF THIS WERE A JURY YOU WOULD VOTE TO ACQUIT, THUS JURY NULLIFICATION WOULD BE ENACTED. YOUR ISSUE IS WITH THE LEGISLATION, AND YOU'RE ACTING IT THRU THE ENFORCEMENT. BECOME A COP, THEY DO THIS ALL THE TIME. And if a hockey player got drunk and was giving head in a bar's bathroom to celebrate, she would be chastized much harder. Not at all, and if this were pro sports I would be all for it; I love teh drama in pro sports. This is a world stage, diff animal. How am I unethical? Try to be constructive and on track.

Fixed that for you. Come on, Mikey, show us your super-human ideals and let us know how you feel about poor and struggling folks WHO ARE ALIVE. Bowing your head to the dead is ok, but wanting for people who are alive to be well is divine; Mike, are you divine or just a lover of the dead?

You're trying to show what a great human you are, I was merely giving you the opportunity to show us that in all ways other than mere words. Anyone can say flowery things, then take teh crutches away from a 5-year old kid. Here ya go, answer these: 1) How do you feel about people w/o HC? 2) Rich people who have 20 lifetimes of cash who use that cash as score rather than survival, yet whine about the gov removing a little more of that score to pay for things for the poor and/or to pay down the debt? I'm not going to play your "change the subject to cover my ass" game, Lucky. Go troll someplace else. Same subject: MIKE: I'm a super nice guy, I feel bad when Dems die or are in pain. LUCKY: Oh, how do you feel about poor people who don't have HC, a place to live, etc, esp when many rich peopel just use thier $$$ as score? MIKE: I won't stand for this changing of subjects