At 11/25/09 06:51 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

LOL

If you had paid attention to his campaign he said he was going to do exactly this. He said we needed to draw down in Iraq so we could focus on the failures we had in Afghanistan.

Yeah, he took out a meager amount of troops in Iraq and replaced them with contractors and has so far thrown 50k troops into Afghanistan (and people said we were stretched thin) to continue nation building and occupation with same so-called "goal" of the last administration.

Yeah, he's really carried through on that promise.

At 11/25/09 12:08 AM, KeithHybrid wrote: Wording of a bill meant to prevent gay marriage in Texas winds up banning ALL marriage in the state.

Good.

At 11/25/09 09:20 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

He says the religious should not be granted any special rights, you reply by mentioning atheist dictators.

My point was: Why stop there?

Affirmative action, paternity leave, handicap accessories...

The reason why I bring up religion is because he said it in his very own post: He doesn't believe in freedom of religion.

If that's not what he meant, then he shouldn't have stated that.

At 11/24/09 05:37 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

Are you trolling or did you completely misunderstand what I was saying?

You're a bitch.

Did you misunderstand that?

Apart from your post being some guilt by association-thingy,

Which only applies to the non-philosophical/religious, obviously.

I don't get what you're talking about at all. What does mass murder have to do with freedom of religion and freedom of speech?

You don't believe in freedom of religion.

Which is what I find so funny. That people still say this as an attack on someone's personal "religious" beliefs while the biggest and most oppressive of dictators were anti-religion.

It's fucking hilarious!

Oh, and if you by Mao are talking about The Great Leap as a murder, you'd have to consider the pope a murderer due to his stance on condoms in africa.

Who said a thing about me following or even liking the Pope?

Secondly: I'm not entirely sure how you can compare the "I don't want condoms in Africa" to ordering military and police forces to drag people out of their homes to be executed in front of an audience.

You're a warped and twisted parasite, aren't you?

I'm no fan of Mao Zedong, and the Great Leap was stupid, but it wasn't a murder exactly since there wasn't a motif of killing.

So killing roughly 80 million =/= murder.

But having a stance on the use of condoms = murder?

Holy shit, batman!

At 11/24/09 07:50 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

That said, I'm against freedom of religion, because I think the only rights religious people should have is the same that the rest of us...

Kind of ironic considering the biggest mass murderers of the last century were atheists.

But it's nice to know you consider yourself as wonderful a person as Mao.

At 11/22/09 07:16 PM, Victory wrote: eager to continue living in their magical infallible capitalist bubble..

It would make a lot more sense if you weren't so stupid that you didn't know the difference between Capitalism and Corporatism.

Oh look!

Another dumbass.

At 11/22/09 05:36 PM, JohnnyWang wrote:

Using your rather inelegant simile, your lot would rather arrest someone who shouts "I did it" for whatever reason (such as completing a task they've been working on for a while) near a crime scene.

When did I say that?

I was merely saying it would be "highly suspicious" and would result in that particular individual being ranked #1 on list of suspects.

What you are doing is known as Quote Mining.

And...?

Because damned if you care what code he is talking about and what sdecline and what he means by "trick" or "hide". They're scary words and can be taken out of context.

Yeah, nevermind what he was talking about just before that...

It means NOTHING!!!

And yes, I agree. They can be taken out of context. It's just that the likelihood of it is slim to none.

Also, you still fail to explain, how, even if these said scientists allegedly hid data (note that those messages date back around ten years), this all went unnoticed by the scientific community at large until now?

E-mail: "Hide it..."

I win.

At 11/23/09 02:48 AM, poxpower wrote:

You were wrong, deal with it.

And you're an individual still living under the squeaky, creaking floor boards of a French Canadian Whore House.

Deal with it.

Oh wait...

At 11/22/09 01:32 PM, poxpower wrote:

I

can't

believe

this

crap

That's because you're a dumbass.

I hope they don't start using your logic for homicide investigations.

"About that guy who was murdered in the back alley ... I know who did it."

PoxPower/JohnnyNutBag: "So what if he said 'I know who did it' right after a discussion on a murder. He could've been talking about ANYTHING! He could've been talking about a Soap tv show. Yeah, that's much more plausible!"

At 11/21/09 08:08 PM, poxpower wrote:

There was no "global cooling".
Scientists didn't predict that nonsense. It was made from bad scientific reporting from the popular media

Hey, that sounds like today!

p.s. you are still a dolt

And yet you still believe in man-made catastrophic Global Warming on the basis of CO2 levels... which has already been discredited for years on the fact that temperatures increase before levels of CO2.

Not to mention the NASA study which concluded that 70% of the cooling and warming for the last 100 years was due to ocean oscillations.

Now why don't you be a good basement kid and crawl back into your French-Canadian Whore-House.

At 11/21/09 01:16 PM, Memorize wrote:

Oh, we're throwing out 20 years of Climate Research which, after the last 20 years, turned out to be complete bunk?

Correction: Past decade of cooling, as well as being wrong for the past several decades with their "Global Cooling will kill us all!" nonsense.

At 11/21/09 04:36 PM, JohnnyWang wrote:

Really? Do quote me the part in the emails that actually says that the bulk of the research done in the past 20 years is all bunk.

Let me say it this way:

Why should anyone believe these Scientists/Politicians when their research/models didn't predict the cooling of the last several decades?

Anyway, what I learned from this whole debacle is how the mind of a conspiracy theorist works; once they're given something that they cna percieve as proof, they become imprevious to critizism and start accusing everyone else of being naive or a part of a coverup.

Nevermind a Judge finding several significant errors in Gore's movie, which Gore has yet to correct.
Nevermind their catastrophic doom track record for the past half century.
Nevermind the IPCC creating new methods which eliminate unwanted data (like warmer periods in the past - Hockey stick ftw!).

I don't know what's more hilarious. The conspiracy theorists or the fact that you still believe in these Government Climate Organizations!

LOL!

And water and oxygen, nor CO2 are not called "pollutants" so much as "greenhouse gasses", which is true. Inflated amounts of Carbon Dioxide or Water Vapor in the atmosphere prevent heat from escaping the earth.

Once again...

No shit.

I know how it works, dumbfuck.

And just to prove my point that you ARE a dumbass: The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday formally declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare, setting in motion a process that will lead to the regulation of the gases for the first time in the United States.

At 11/21/09 02:53 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

Wow, that IS crazy. Next they will be warning us about a mysterious phenomenon called "drowning" despite the well known fact that water is required for life...

Yet is water label'd a pollutant?

If the atmosphere consisted of 100% oxygen, virtually everything would be highly inflammable.

No shit.

But, as stated before: With as much harm too much or too little oxygen and water can cause: Should and/or will we label them as Pollutants?

Dumbass.

At 11/21/09 01:10 PM, poxpower wrote:

I mean think about what you're doing. You're suddenly throwing out 20 years of climate research done by thousands upon thousands of scientists on the basis of a couple of emails you can't possibly understand the context or significance of?

Oh, we're throwing out 20 years of Climate Research which, after the last 20 years, turned out to be complete bunk?

Well that's nice to know.

At 11/21/09 04:21 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:

Reread what I said, then see if what you said makes any sense. They are problems on their own, regardless of climate change.

And you would rectify this problem, how?

By Government force?

So carbon dioxide is the only thing we pump into the air? Never mind you skipped over the other three points.

1) CO2 is the ONE THING they hinge on and blame man-made Global Warming over.
2) The planet produces other things that "pollute" the atmosphere as well.

You act as if it's only the humans who pollute more than 1 substance.

Of course, I find it kind of funny that the EPA would label CO2 a pollutant when it's required for life...

I wonder if one day there will be too much oxygen and if they'll label that a pollutant.

What did I say, Memo?

The last sentence wasn't to you.

At 11/20/09 03:35 PM, madzakk wrote: You got this from Faux News......LOL

Wired

PCWorld

Computer World

Newsbusters

Telegraph

At 11/20/09 11:10 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

And while we're on the subject, who cares? Even if global what-have-you is a hoax, the alleged causes of it aren't. Polluted air, polluted water, deforestation and garbage buildup - these are problems in and of themselves. We shouldn't need the one big disaster to unify them all into a massive threat; we should be taking action on those issues anyway.

Right...

Nevermind the earth being much hotter than it is today, in the past... without any of those things.
Nevermind that people are responsible for a mere 3% of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Nevermind that every computer model has been wrong for the past... well, decade...decades (Cooling!)

I love the excuses. "They could be talking about ANYTHING!!!".

lol

At 11/18/09 08:15 PM, Elfer wrote:

Eh. At best it would be a throwaway as part of a larger sketch.

Compare with the long-standing persistence of "Al Gore invented the internet," which he never actually came close to saying.

Kind of like how everyone made fun of Palin for the Russian-"They're our Neighbors, so I know about Foreign Policy" statement which actually came from a SNL skit.

I like the excuse he throws out there in the middle of his article:

"First of all, Al Gore empirically won the national popular vote in 2000, and lost in a disputed recount process in Florida."

I have a good question. Who cares?

So he screwed up a tiny, little, insignificant greeting. The world is in danger!

At 11/10/09 08:56 PM, Elfer wrote:

That's really not the main issue with private insurance.

Never said it was.

I just think it's a neat little trick the Government plays.

The main issue is people getting stuck with gigantic medical bills and going bankrupt.

So we're going from a health system with 55% Government Control, Corporate subsidies, rising costs, and where people are forced to pay for other's health care and their own seperately...

To a Health Care system with more Government Control, forced to buy Private Insurance, increased Health Care costs, more Corporate Subsidies, and bigger debt.

Wahoo for REFORM!

Eh...

Well... lookie here.

Radical Libertarian.

At 11/10/09 05:05 PM, fli wrote: Do you really think that you can simplify my feelings for health care to just that one factor?

No.

Because I'm telling you--

I even said it was a half-serious joke.

there is more.

I just find it ironic that someone who comes from an "illegal background" would bring up illegals being covered by other people's taxes. Taxes the illegals aren't paying.

I'm willing to talk about illegal immigrants. It's definitely not a closed subject for me.
but at least come up with a paragraph, actually arguing for a point.

There were several posts of that targeted to various individuals.

Although--
Like I said...
Health Care Reform doesn't include illegal immigrants.

It does when each state is restricted from identifying people as they come in to receive that Health Care.

Loopholes are fun.

At 11/10/09 08:39 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

If you get sick it does! And it bankrupts a lot of other people to. And having health insurance is making people poor as well. So, we're talking about both.

What's making people poor isn't that they're paying for insurance.

It's that they're paying for both Medicare, Medicaid, and their own Insurance.

They're getting stuck with 3 bills, two of which a lot of the time doesn't even cover them and they're forced to pay.

Along with a few other things, I just think it's kind of funny that the Government forces people to pay for other people's Health Care through their taxes, then blames the Insurance Companies for people not being able to afford their rates.

At 11/8/09 10:37 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

Remind us why your "total free market" system worked so much better?

Tell me of an instance where more Government Control in Health Care in the US didn't progressively make our Heath Care system worse.

How can you call our Health Care system anywhere NEAR free market when the Government controls 55% of it while we still have these problems?

How much more control does it take for them to have before this excuse runs out: "If only there was more Government control".

At 11/9/09 12:31 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Wow, back that one the hell up or I NEVER want to see you pull that sort of racist shit again. Seriously, unless you can show where Fli said that, such a statement should never ever be made. I will cheerfully withdraw my criticism if proven wrong and publicly apologize. But yeah, please to make with the evidence.

He's admitted several times he comes from a background of illegal ancestors several times.

Just go ahead and ask him.

Oh, and btw: Go fuck yourself.

What if it's a situation where the mother's life is threatened?

We ALREADY do give money for that.

And there's no controversy over it.

I understand not wanting to put out funding for a "non-essential" procedure, certainly one as controversial as that but...no money under no circumstances?

Considering we already do it...

Come on...but really, might not be a bad thing for the insurance companies if they're looking to compete (which really is what I'd like to see any healthcare reform do, pressure insurers to be more competitive and offer better care at reasonable prices to the consumer).

How does this bill do that when people are still restricted from buying across state lines (like Car Insurance), nurses are still restricted from performing operations, just as many frivolous lawsuits, and Insurance Corporations are still receiving huge sums of subsidies?

Name calling really helps you're point.

You are retarded.

I make a half-serious joke about his parents "former" (lol) illegal background, and I'm suddenly branded a racist?

Once again: Go fuck yourself.

Oh crap, do we REALLY have to have the debate about how there's all that evidence that says "life begins at conception" is a manufactured by religion and isn't based on fact again?

So when is it?

When the heart pumps blood through the body?

Oh wait, that occurs in as little as 17 days, making roughly 90% of abortions unjustified (excluding rape, life threatened, ect..).

How about when brain waves develop?

Oh wait, that occurs in as little as 40 days of the pregnancy, making roughly 70% of abortions unjustified.

And here we have a law passed by Political Judges rather than doctors that say "You can have an abortion for ANY reason within the first 3 months". But as I just showed, the typical liberal argument of "brain development" doesn't even hold up to that.

Oh, btw: cells = life. Embryo = made up of cells which = life. Therefore Embryo = life.

The word you're looking for is Alive.

And I would say the heartbeat would make the most sense of naturally living. Why? Because the heart is the engine of the body and we declare people "clinically dead" by this.

So if someone's death is determined by their heart failing, then it only makes sense to declare a fetus alive by the heart working. Also considering the fact that we still refer to people as "alive" when they're brain dead and on life support.

Hence: It would be the most consistent.

Not to mention as I said, sometimes abortions have to be done as a life saving measure.

And how many times do people like me have to say it: NO ONE IS FUCKING TALKING ABOUT THAT.

At 11/9/09 12:56 AM, fli wrote:

My mother is naturalized, and my father is a resident.
They're citizen status stands on the same level as your and mine.

Didn't used to be.

The only people on the same level as "my parents" are the ones who did so "legally".

Not to mention the Native American from my father, so in which case: All you white people - Get the hell out already.

At 11/8/09 12:24 AM, fli wrote:

I'm happy.
(I know loads of you guys won't.)

It's because you're parents are illegals.

At 11/8/09 02:04 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: I think this was just the house though, again. We're still waiting on the Senate, right?

I'm fine with a majority of it, but apparently they added yet another restriction on abortion so that even private insurers can't pay for them??? WTF? How is that helpful in anyway whatsoever.

How is giving tax payer money to fund abortion in any way Health-Care?

At 11/8/09 02:27 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Its the health care exchanges apparently. I hope that particular amendment gets repealed after the whole thing passes.

You're retarded.

Heh, I mean think about it.

Isn't sad that we live in a society where you can kill a baby in the womb for any reason while at the same time being bared from ingesting a drug with temporary effects?

Even better that tax payer money is used for both of these instances?

I'm amazed how people who hate our current and horrible healthcare system would even dare support the bill.

-We spend more on Health Care than most socialized nations and this only increases that cost.
-The Insurance Corporations will now get Billions more.
-The Drug Industry supported the bill and will now get even more money.
-The Government will increase their control of health care from 55% (And the supporters say we have a free market system...) to an even bigger number.

It makes me laugh at how stupid some of you people are.

"Down with the horrible insurance corporations! ...Oh, but we support the bill that they support and which will end up giving them more of our money!"

LOL!

At 11/5/09 02:36 PM, Temariix wrote: Still got a good ways to go, but I have begun! Muahahaha!

I have to fix the mouth, and obviously get the base down for the hair and goggles as well, then I'll really start making this look sexy. Any suggestions appreciated.

Actually, I was going to do that one over. I was getting used to my new tablet and photoshop filters/layers/Opacity ect..

Things are coming out a lot better with it now.

But as for your drawing, I like it!

Only thing I find odd is that the ear on his left looks like it's not going down far enough (or it's too high).

I like how the thread went from the atheist being a asshole-ish jerk in the example to the topic starter going "Yeah! I agree!".

At 11/3/09 07:01 AM, awkward-silence wrote:

You mean, when did it really end in your opinion so that you can make an absurd, absolutely.

So you're saying the solution to our economic downturn is to take almost 100% of people's income while forcing people into war?

Before the the war America had recovered it GDP from before the depression,

GDP means nothing when people are still unemployed and the only amount of growth is attributed to Government spending.

So as I've asked before.

What's the point of a 3.5% economic growth when the "real" unemployment rate is close to 20%?

Recovered its stock market (considering the dollar was worth A lot more [CPI 1929 :17.3 ; CPI 1940:13.3]) the real value of stock market way ahead.

Like our stock market, which it's "real" value accounting for the inflation from last year to today is really only up to 8000 rather than 10k.

The only reason why it is 10k is because of the printing money propping up the numbers.

In 4 years unemployemnt dropped 10%.

No.

The only time unemployment dropped significantly was in 1937 when it hit 14.3%, but then by the very next year it rose back up to 19%. He's been in office then for 5-6 years by this point...

How could anyone in their right mind say what he did worked? He's failed after almost 6 years (by today's standards he only has two years left).

The only time it when down below 10% was in 1941, but that was solely because because we entered a war-time economy and forced unemployed people into the military and counted them as "employed".

The only ugly stat you have, is when treasury sec. raised taxes and pressured FDR to reduce spending prematurely

Oh great.

The good, old, bullshit excuse of "We didn't spend enough". Is there ever an amount of money a nation can spend before that excuse wears out?

Even during his entering office until war-time, economic growth was still below trend.

and a lot of the works programs will cancelled by the supreme court, unemployment rose again, but didn't come close to what it was.

Excuses excuses.

The reason Truman liquidated those assets, was because the economy was healthy again, and that is what you are supposed to do.

The economy was only healthy again because he liquidated the assets.

If what you say is true, then why is it that when we entered a depression in 1920 that was worse than the stock market crash of 1921, and we immediately liquidated the assets... why did that only last a little less than 1 year?

If liquidating the assets meant nothing and Government spending and programs meant results, then why did cutting the deficit by 1/3, lowering people's taxes, and reducing Government spending by 1/2 produce better than much faster recovery/results than ALL the YEARS of Hoover and FDR?

Actually it was British investment in American weaponry that really got it started.

Funny how that doesn't change what I said.

Its REALLY simple. You expand to meet growing demand. Therefore you must first have growing demand. This is fundamental economics,

A politician's excuse to avoid blame and keep spending.

[fixed, no one was ever taxed 97%]

Pardon me for still being in the 90's.

When after tax they still make amounts of money not matched until Bill Gates. yes. But that didn't actually occur until the final year of WW2, when FDR was dead.

Tax rates by year (scroll down a bit).

FDR was president in 1944.

Tax rate in 1944: 94%

Why wouldn't I believe the CBO. We waste a lot of money right now. And there are ways to streamline.

The CBO would be right if the Government were at all capable of doing anything properly and efficiently.

"Might be" right.

Yep, you got me there you tunnel visioned, cynical, twit.

Defend it.

Say right now that you think it would be a good idea to tax people 94% of their income during a borderline depression.

Prices aren't fixed under the house Bill. The government once again has the ability to negotiate prices.

Right, because that's worked out so well...

But wait a minute... if the Government can negotiate prices while the insurance agencies are able to lobby for Billions while having the politicians in their back pockets...

So it is nothing like Bush.

It's EXACTLY like Bush.

You explain to me why the Drug Industry is spending hundreds of millions in ads promoting Obama's "vision".

All you see is "expand coverage" and assume the rest is the same. Its not every facet of the bill is different.

No, it's just an expansion of Bush's proposal.

You can't have it both ways. If you force insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions then people won't bother getting insurance until AFTER they're diagnosed.

That argument is not even likely in the bill.

And by "bounce" I mean: "It would've been worse had the Government not done anything".

Well that much is true.

I like how you just completely skipped over the part where I call you an idiot for bitching about the price of healthcare while demanding pre-existing conditions be accepted.

I.e. we kept money available to firms who needed it (manufacturing, construction, restaraunts) by allowing their source for capital in operation.

It's only temporary.

You gave them borrowed and printed money.

The only way these can keep going is if you continuous borrow and print money.

But that leads to inflation, which benefits the rich while wiping out the middle class while the gap between rich and poor increase.

I bet those bankers just love you.

Even though the Depression and recessions of the 1900's were caused by Government; more specifically the spending habits of the federal reserve.

Fiction

Yeah, the Federal Reserve expanding the monetary supply by 60% during the 1920's had NOTHING to do with the crash of '29.

The big piece of that pie is lowerin lending standards. Reducing oversight in the market, while keeping interest rates artificially low. That is everything in a nutshell.

And yet ALL caused by the Government.

Since it was the Government and their banks who lowered lending standards. And it was the Government who told private banks to do the same while telling them they would be "bailed out should anything happen."

Too mistakes. You can't have government involvment in artificially lowering interest rates and then turn around and reduce oversight to help a "free market". That was the work going on under bush. Obama and the people working with him act under different rules.

Is that why Obama and McCain are ranked Second and Third in most political contributions from banks of any congressman?

Is that why they BOTH voted in favor of giving Bush the money to bail out wallstreet?

Yeah, our Government has been doing a wonderful job.

The last 8 years it hadn' and you wont get an argument from me.

Too bad it's EXACTLY the same.

And the average income is up 4,000% we are still ahead, no?

And yet the gap between rich and poor get bigger everyday while the middle class is wiped out.

Have fun with your corporate consumer based economy!

At 11/2/09 08:01 PM, awkward-silence wrote:

That's a lie and you know it. Everytime we go over this I show you stats and statistics and you still spout the same BS.

Really?

When the recession start? 1929.

When did it "officially" end (according to the Government)? World War II

When did it really end? At the end of the war.

So you have two choices. Either the war fixed the economy (by throwing unemployed people in the military and industry producing war-time products), or it was fixed because the bad assets were liquidated (after FDR's death).

In both instances: FDR didn't do shit.

And the reason why the "war" argument doesn't mean anything is because it's just another Government excuse for their spending.

It's the same lame excuse of "unemployment is a lagging indicator". Bullshit, the economy isn't really recovered until jobs are stabilized. Otherwise, Economic growth doesn't mean squat.

But you tell me. Do you support the Federal Government taxing people 97% of their income?

Roughly 1/220th of when as in the building of the first stage on the Panama canal. And twice as many as the brooklyn bridge (that little thing.) What's your point?

The irony is all.

Lol-o-rang Bloomberg style

The fact that you believe it is truly laughable.

Everything the government touches isn't broke

No, just 90% of it.

Actually no. Bush never recommended a public option,

Right, because expanding medicare coverage where prices are fixed is NOTHING like what Bush did.

or demand regulation prohibiting insurance companies from excluding based on pre-existing conditions, raising rates after illess and cancelling coverage for reasons other than insuree not fulfilling their end of the contract. So I guess it makes sense now...

Now that's what's really funny.

You bitch about denying coverage and demand they accept people with pre-existing conditions. Then you turn around and bitch about the rising prices.

You can't have it both ways. If you force insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions then people won't bother getting insurance until AFTER they're diagnosed. Meaning they won't be paying into a pool until the very moment they receive the medical attention.

Guess what that would do to premiums?

Not according the kind folks over at the Bureau of Economic Analysis. They say you are lying.

And by "bounce" I mean: "It would've been worse had the Government not done anything".

Hey! That sounds familiar too!

It kept many financial firms from going under and removing the lending institutions large enough to keep those that keep americans employed a means of getting funds. So yes. Additionally, since many of the banks have already paid back ( or started to) it looks as though the gov. may even turn a profit on that. So yes.

Ie. We kept the rich, corporate bankers and business men who fucked up, keep running the show!

Prior to the stimulus spending bush had raised the debt approx. $3.5 T and $2.2 T of that can be traced to military expenditure.

I like how you lumped in Iraq and Afghanistan with overall military expenditure.

Dumbass

Btw, that's $1 Trillion spent on both Iraq and Afghanistan combined, making the money spend on Iraq less than $1 Trillion, therefore...

I win.

I've said this before, The government can't do everything efficiently, and neither can a free market.

Even though the panics of the 1800's were caused by the National Banks and bicentennialism.
Even though the Depression and recessions of the 1900's were caused by Government; more specifically the spending habits of the federal reserve.

Even though our current "depression" was the result of our Government and Federal Reserve greatly lowering interest rates, propping up housing prices, lowering lending standards, leaning on private banks to follow suit and telling them that if "anything bad happens, we'll help you out".

Yeah, our Government has been doing a wonderful job.

Strong social programming is a cost effective means of raising the overal standard of living for the nation as a whole, and protecting the populace when the system is sicks. But A strong market is also needed, one driven by capital exchange in which new ideas are incoraged to flurish is also needed. The two act as hands washing each other. There is a balance.

Our dollar today had lost 96% of it's value from 1913. No fiat currency has ever lasted the test of time.

Inflation ftw! What a balance.

Did you read Glenn Beck's book, Arguing like an idiot? You are making superbly weak straw man arguments tonight. Usually your thoughts are at least coherently tied together and somewhat grounded in reality. But not this time.

Glenn Beck?

The hell is wrong is you?

At 11/2/09 03:10 AM, awkward-silence wrote:

Its not as black and white as "spending money" to fix the economy.

Yeah it is.

It is what you spend it on that is important.

Yeah, that's why FDR's efforts to get us out of the Great Depression was a marvelous success... oh wait! He had 13 years to do it and failed! The economy didn't pick back up until after his death when Truman actually decided to liquidate the bad assets!

The government didn't need to fund the hoover dam, but it was a very solid investment, selling that electricity has more than paid for the project.

How many people died as a result?

Right now the bill proposed by the house is estimated to actually save $104B

LOL!

by the end of ten years and opens the door to excercise, what will be redundant health care tax credits, from our books. These credits in question are running $250B/year, thus making the potential 10 year savings $2.6T. Holy Shit!

It make more sense if everything the Government touched wasn't broke.

It would also make more sense if Bush didn't do the exact same thing and didn't use the exact same argument.

I seem to recall him saying we would cover the cost of expanding medicare with "savings". But... oops, the cost went from $400 Billion to $1.2 Trillion.

Bush also passed a hundred billion dollar stimulus package in 2008. Why? To "curb a recession". IT even gave a bounce in GDP #.

Question: Did it work?

When Bush doubled the debt, he did it to turn Iraq into a glass crater.

Iraq doesn't even cover up to a 1/4 of the total amount of debt he accumulated.

No savings, nothing of valie left afterward. Just glass and a region of people who hate us even more than they already did. Difference.

Right, because going from $5 Trillion accumulated debt to $10 Trillion accumulated debt is a fantastic idea.

Here's another question: If the Government can perpetually grow the economy through spending, then why doesn't the Government hire everyone for every job and spend more money?

If increasing the minimum wage is great for the economy, then why don't we increase it to $40 an hour, $50 an hour. Hell, why not make it $100 an hour?

Keynesian morons.

Just one more reason why the Government shouldn't even be involved in marriage.