Chiquita banana pays death squads...

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Monday, August 27, 2007 09:57
VIEWED: 12942
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

LEADB

Sunday, August 12, 2007 5:27 PM

If you can post the source of that chart, I'd appreciate being able to look at some of the details, assumptions, etc.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, August 12, 2007 5:36 PM

US Treasury, that one is, Leadb.

Which means taking the word of the cabal in power who wants to make things look good - yanno, the ones who told us cakewalk, flower throwing iraqis, home by xmas, saddam has WMDs and other faery tales.

Trusting THIS government to accurately appraise or investigate their own doings is just silly, they have no credibility left to lose.

Hell, trusting ANY government to do so, is silly, when it comes right down to it.

I'd suggest a more reliable source, although what I know about economics is about jackdamnall... but a dollar don't go far THESE days.

I used to buy smokes for $0.66 a pack, at one time, a gallon of regular unleaded for $0.79 ... wages may have went up a teensy itty bitty bit, but they sure as hell ain't kept up with costs, hell no, and especially not with massive taxes loaded on those costs besides.

Between inflation and taxation, even any joe sixpack off the street can tell you the economy sucks ass right now, it's not rocket science when you're livin paycheck to paycheck, to figure out that paycheck ain't goin as far, believe it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CHRISISALL

Sunday, August 12, 2007 5:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I rest my case.

You rest your laurels, you mean

.
Ever read "How to Lie With Statistics"?
I'm not saying the Feds didn't take lots of dough, just that they can make it as rosey as they want to.

We define "a good economy" differently, I think. To me, a good economy benifits the people as well as government and businesses. You seem to define it as more money moving, regardless of how it directly affects the peeps.

...hmmmm...am I actually discussing something here...?

Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 12, 2007 6:10 PM

Don't ANY of you realize the signficance of not adjusting for inflation? Even at a modest 3% per year, the final value on the chart in 2000 dollars is $1.8 trillion- LESS than what was collected in 2000! Everything else is just bullshit.

Oh, and BTW Auraptor, you have STILL not answered my question about that apparently higher tax rate you seemed to be crowing about.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 6:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Don't ANY of you realize the signficance of not adjusting for inflation? Even at a modest 3% per year, the final value on the chart in 2000 dollars is $1.8 trillion- LESS than what was collected in 2000! Everything else is just bullshit.

Oh, and BTW Auraptor, you have STILL not answered my question about that apparently higher tax rate you seemed to be crowing about.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

That can't be remotely right. Check your numbers again.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 12, 2007 6:23 PM

Quote:
That can't be remotely right. Check your numbers again.

Let's see...

3%/yr * 5 yr = 15%
$2.15 trillion - (2.1.* 0.15)= $1.83 trillion

Yep, artithmetic still works!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 6:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Let's see...

3%/yr * 5 yr = 15%
$2.15 trillion - (2.1.* 0.15)= $1.83 trillion

Yep, artithmetic still works!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

You're gonna have to do better than that. Arbitrarily assinging numbers to make them do what you want isn't gonna cut it. I'm dealing in hard data, you're dealing in supposition.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 12, 2007 6:36 PM

Like???

Do I need to explain multiplication and subtraction? I mean, what else do you need to see?

---------------------------------
COWARD. You still haven't answered my question.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 6:37 PM

You know what ? Screw it. I win, you lose.

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 12, 2007 6:47 PM

Quote:
You know what ? Screw it. I win, you lose.

Your original question, before you decided to declare victory and run away was... Why 3% How does it compare to the real values? And my answer is: 3% was just an easy ballpark. The actual values are:
2005 3.39%
2004 2.68%
2003 2.27%
2002 1.59%
2001 2.83%
2000 3.38
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp
Now, if I were to compound those inflation rates (which is the way it works in real life, since this year's inflation applies to last year's inflated dollar ) it would actually be 16.56% from 2000- 2005 based on actual values. I don't pull these numbers outta my *ss, like Bush does.

BTW- does this mean you will STOP POSTING ABOUT THOSE "RECORD REVENUES" UNDER BUSH?? Can I stop arguing bullshit and start posting about something meaningful? One can only hope!

---------------------------------
AURAPTOR = COWARD. He still hasn't answered my question.

LEADB

Sunday, August 12, 2007 7:13 PM

"Don't ANY of you realize the signficance of not adjusting for inflation? "
Yes. Hence why I asked about the source.

Found a couple references:
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/revenue%20growth. jpg

http://www.dol.gov/_sec/econreport2005/slide5.htm

No luck on getting anything helpful; the chart lables do no say anything about adjustment for inflation; so if we assume the 'just under 2 trillion' for 2000...

2 * (1.03 ** 5) = 2.318

so to adjust to "year 2005 dollars', the equivalent 'take' would be 2.3 trillion.

Frem does have a point that the source is the current administration; I'm sure they shadded the results the best they could.

I see Rap is faulting Sig's math; Sig took the oposite approach of restating FY 2005 in 2000 dollars; however, it the equation is not correct. The correct math is:

2.15 * (0.97 ** 5) = 1.84 trillion.

Though the result is close. So, either way; if inflation adjustment was not done for the chart; in 'purchasing power', the money aquired in 2000 is more than 2005.

If his later post is correct, and these are the inflation numbers...
2005 3.39%
2004 2.68%
2003 2.27%
2002 1.59%
2001 2.83%
2000 3.38

Adjusting 2 trillion of 2000 for inflation...
2 * 1.0283 * 1.0159 * 1.0227 * 1.0268 * 1.0339 = 2.22

which is again above the 2.15 trillion for 2005.

Edit: To be precise -
Since there is inflation during the course of each year, I'm referring to the 'Year end 2000' value to the 'Year end 2005' value of the dollar; thus I do not factor in the inflation figure of 2000 and do factor in the inflation figure of 2005; you can do the reverse if you want 'Year beginning' values. If you want the median, mean, average or other values of 'mid year' dollar values for the beginning and end years, you will have to do more complicated math.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 7:15 PM

We have record revenues under Bush. Sorry, but they simply are. And they were done with tax cuts.

And frankly, I don't give a damn what you think. I'm tired of trying to answer questions from 5 different threads over 10 different topics. And don't fucking bother counting on your fingers on toes and try telling me that it was only 2 or 3 threads and 7 topics....I DON'T FUCKING CARE. The POINT of all this is that when you don't like the facts I bring to the table, you either distort them or you exaggerate what I said in order to paint your own world.

Fed Revenue under Bush is higher than under Clinton. Had the US spent LESS than a drunken sailor, we'd have a surplus budget now. Had the US spent less than a buzzed sailor, our defecit would be less than 1/2 of what it is now. But we didn't, so it'll take longer to balance the budget. BFD. That's life. Bush isn't the conservative many thought he'd be. No great shocker there.

Our economy is growing , and has grown over the past 4 years. Low unmeployment was great for Clinton, but isn't for Bush? Please, don't even bother.

I said Left wingers would cheer if we had another 9/11. I stand by that assertion, based on what some have ALREADY done after the 1st attack. Each and every Left winger. Yep, that's what I said. From DICK Durbin to Ward Churchill, and everyone in between. Dirty, filthy, rotten Lefties......

And while I'm at it....

There is no such thing as man made global warming. Or climate change. How ever you want to slice it. Anyone who thinks there is has been conned.

Loch Ness Monster - not a dinosuar. Not even a remote chance.

Bigfoot - Not a man/ape gone bad thingy. No such animal exists.

Oswald alone shot JFK

Baseball owes Hank Aaron a huge apology for allowing Barry Bonds to cheat and take the home run record away.

Elvis, much like Jesus, remains dead.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 12, 2007 7:24 PM

AURAPTOR IS A COWARD. HE STILL HASN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION. Not only that, he can't add or subtract, apparently doesn't know the first thing about economics and doesn't care to learn or to think. There's more than one person in this website with their fingers stuck in their ears going LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU and he's one of them. Not good for an informed opinion, not even good for an honest discussion. At least he's amusing.

Buh bye for now!

---------------------------------
AURAPTOR IS A COWARD. HE HASN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

LEADB

Sunday, August 12, 2007 7:26 PM

"I said Left wingers would cheer if we had another 9/11. I stand by that assertion, based on what some have ALREADY done after the 1st attack. Each and every Left winger. Yep, that's what I said. From DICK Durbin to Ward Churchill, and everyone in between. Dirty, filthy, rotten Lefties......"

Well. I sure hope I'm right of them. Probably am. So I refrain from taking the remark personally.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 7:28 PM

Sig..Sorry, but you CHANGED the question and what I was talking about. I won't fucking answer anything I didn't bring up. You can act like a child all you want, but what does it really matter? Me getting pissed off at you for acting like a child isn't going to change you being a child, so what do I care ?

nodda.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 12, 2007 7:37 PM

Quote:
Sig..Sorry, but you CHANGED the question and what I was talking about. I won't fucking answer anything I didn't bring up. You can act like a child all you want, but what does it really matter?

No, I didn't. I'm still working on your original post. And yes, you still haven't answered. Shall I repeat the question? This was part of your original post

Quote:
As a share of GDP FY07 receipts are projected to be above their 40-year average. (Last updated: July 13, 2007

What this quote says... and I'll take it real slow... is that altho the GDP has grown, Federal revenues have grown faster. In other words the Federal government, despite a tax cut, is taking a BIGGER BITE out of the economy than the historic average. My question was: How is it that the government bite of the pie is at a historic high?

The other part of your original post

Quote:
Tax receipts rose 11.8 percent in fiscal year 2006 (FY06) on top of FY05's 14.6 percent increase

I think has been laid to rest as misleading at best.

You see, I know what you WANT to say. The problem is pesky facts just keep getting in the way of your grand vision. I'm willing to take this step by step and point by point, and I'm willing to stay on a topic until it's resolved, which is why I'm still on that friggin' original post. And I'm not going to move OFF that point until it's resolved.

---------------------------------
AURAPTOR STILL HASN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, August 12, 2007 7:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Don't ANY of you realize the signficance of not adjusting for inflation?

It doesn't jibe with AU's assessment of the world as he knows it- therefore it is unnecessary.
He wins- he said so, so it must be true, God, it HAS to be true....I mean, what if *gasp* it wasn't...
That would mean the world works in ways he couldn't completely grasp!!! He would not be in control of his destiny anymore! The ramifications of such a realization would be devistating!!! DON'T YOU SEE SIGNY??? IF WHAT YOU'RE POSTULATING WERE TRUE AND UNDERSTOOD, IT WOULD KILL AU!!!!!

I don't want him dead. Leave him to his self-preservation/delusions. AU is no coward; he just knows what he NEEDS to believe to get along in this life.

Forgiving Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 12, 2007 8:02 PM

Chrisisall- Rap IS a coward. He's so much of a coward that he can't even think about thinking about certain ideas w/o going into panic mode. Ideas, man. How can you be scared of an idea[/]??

CHRISISALL

Sunday, August 12, 2007 8:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Chrisisall- Auraptor's beliefs are not helping him get along in his life any more than heroin or meth would. He needs to let go.

Some minds are not ready to be unplugged

Morpheusisall

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 8:11 PM

I never said the Gov't didn't grow under Bush. You must be delusional to think I came anywhere remotely near to saying such a thing. Is this is what got your panties in a bundle?

Quote:
As a share of GDP FY07 receipts are projected to be above their 40-year average. (Last updated: July 13, 2007

You have a problem w/ what the stats say ? Bring it up w/ them. Those words dind't originate from me. So sorry.

Point resolved. Move the fuck off it.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 12, 2007 8:39 PM

Quote:
You have a problem w/ what the stats say ? Bring it up w/ them. Those words dind't originate from me. So sorry.

I'm not having a problem with what the stats say, I'm having a problem with what they mean. And since YOU brought it up, I was hoping you'd explain. So yes, the government grew under Bush. But MY question is: Although Bush enacted a tax cut, government revenues apparently increased as percent of the GDP. How is that? If taxes are lowered wouldn't govt revenues as a share of GDP also drop? To make a simple example, if all income is taxed at 25% across the board then revenues as a percent of GDP would be 25%. If taxes were reduced to 20% the following year, then revenues as a percent of GDP should also drop to 20%, right? So how can taxes go down, but the government still be taking a higher percentage?

I can think of a few possible explanations:

1) Inflation is carrying people into higher tax brackets, especially into the AMT which hasn't been adjusted for inflation. A kind of "stealth tax".
2) The administration quietly increased another tax, even as they were reducing income taxes.
3) Other revenues, such as import duties, are increasing.

The real explanation may be something I haven't even thought of yet. I was just trying to see how you thought this might be a positive thing, or if you were even aware of what that last sentence was really saying. Maybe you didn't mean to include it at all. An answer would be enough to move me off this point.

---------------------------------
AURAPTOR STILL HASN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 8:47 PM

Drop your crazy ass sig. I answered your damn question. I didn't come up w/ the stats, I just passed them on in my post. They weren't MY words. Get over it.

The best answer I got is that the economy isn't static, but is dynamic. More money in the hands of the private sector ends up generating a healthier economy, which in the ends produces more tax revenue.

Hell, I'm not an economist, but it's happened every time taxes are cut. From JFK, to Reagan to Bush43.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 12, 2007 8:52 PM

Quote:
Drop your crazy ass sig. I answered your damn question. I didn't come up w/ the stats, I just passed them on in my post. They weren't MY words. Get over it.

No, you haven't answered HOW the government can be taking a bigger percentage of the GDP even if taxes are lower. And YOU quote is as if it were a good thing! So now I really WILL be snide and ask if you usually post stuff you don't understand and can't explain 'cause judging by your response I'd say the answer is "yes".

---------------------------------
JUST ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION. GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND.

LEADB

Sunday, August 12, 2007 8:53 PM

Sig,
Here's the one the administration would like you to believe: while reducing the 'tax rate', incomes rose enough to more than offset this. Further, they would like you to believe that the reduction in the rate -caused- the increase. For instance.

Last year 3 people earn 100,000 @ 25 % tax rate; 75,000 in taxes.

Next year 4 people earn 99,000 @ 24 % tax rate; 95,040 in taxes.

I pick this example for a reason; 3 of those 4 people are bummed, they saw their income (and I'm not adjusting for inflation deliberately) drop 1k a year. The fourth person could be an immigrant, or someone who was previously unemployed, or a fresh out of college worker; each having it's own impact and may or may not be happy under the new equations.

In general, if employment is up; revenues can increase even if the tax rate is decreased. Even if most workers are experiencing a decreased standard of living. This can explain why 'the economy is growing' does not necessarily translate into folks feel like the economy is growing.

Note: I'm not claiming any of the above is actually happening; I'm simply providing an explanation of why the numbers are so hard to analyze.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:02 PM

Hey Sig,already answered the question. Stop being a dick.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:04 PM

Does not compute leadb.

If last year 3 people earn 100,000, the total GDP would be 300,000 and the rate would be 25 %.

If THIS year 4 people earn 99,000, the total GDP would be 396,000 and the rate would be 24 %.

In the first case, the GPD is lower but the tax share is higher. In the second case the GDP is higher but the tax share of GDP is lower. What this quote seems to be saying is that government revenue, as a SHARE of the GDP, is higher than the 40-year average. Not the TOTAL revenue the SHARE of revenue as a percent of GDP.

In general, if unemployment is up, you might expect it to be up at the lower income levels. And since lower incomes generally pay way lower tax rates, GDP would be increasing faster than collected taxes, leading to a lowered govt revenues as a SHARE of the GDP. But this is the other way around.

Quote:
Hey Sig,already answered the question.-Auraptor

Rap, yu don't even understand the question. I think you read "revenues ..(mumble mumble)... higher than 40 year average " and didn't figure out the stuff in between. No wonder you think you answered it.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:11 PM

That's right, because you came up with it out of your ass. It wasn't an issue of mine, you just stood on your head to make some lame ass point that didn't have a damn thing to do w/ anything being discussed.

I'm sorry I offered too much information. Next time, I'll keep it simple so you won't get confused.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:14 PM

Quote:
That's right, because you came up with it out of your ass. It wasn't an issue of mine

Yeah, like I thought, you posted something you didn't read all the way through, part of that crowing about the Bush economic success story, and that whole post just exploded in your face. Sorry 'bout that. Would you like some first-aid cream and a bandage?

For the sake of the discussion, I'll just conclude you hadn't a clue what that meant. Now, you can ask ME a question about economics.

---------------------------------
TSK TSK, STILL HASN'T ANSWERED THE QUESTION. NEXT TIME, KEEP IT SIMPLE- SOMETHNG YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO HANDLE.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Now, you can ask ME a question about economics.

Aren't you glad we have real growth under Bush rather than the phony crap that Clinton's administration touted from the Dot Com charade ?

I am.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

LEADB

Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Does not compute leadb.

If last year 3 people earn 100,000, the total GDP would be 300,000 and the rate would be 25 %.

If THIS year 4 people earn 99,000, the total GDP would be 396,000 and the rate would be 24 %.

In the first case, the GPD is lower but the tax share is higher. In the second case the GDP is higher but the tax share of GDP is lower. What this quote seems to be saying is that government revenue, as a SHARE of the GDP, is higher than the 40-year average. Not the TOTAL revenue the SHARE of revenue as a percent of GDP.

In general, if unemployment is up, you might expect it to be up at the lower income levels. And since lower incomes generally pay way lower tax rates, GDP would be increasing faster than collected taxes, leading to a lowered govt revenues as a SHARE of the GDP. But this is the other way around.

Ah dang. I see your point regarding the % of GDP. Unfortunately, the tax code is very complex. A few factors to keep in mind;
Income tax is only fraction of the total revenue. Lets take the example above; we've increased the GDP by about 30%; lets say that some of that money was spent on gasoline which has significant federal tax; assume the gasoline is imported, thus the production is neutral to GDP. If enough is so spent that new tax revenue amounts to $7920 in the 2nd year, that would raise the tax collected for the 2nd year to 26%; thus the tax load for the 2nd year is 26% of GDP.

Obviously, we are working a VASTLY simplified model here. One thing I forgot to point out, is even though the 3 folks lost 1k per year income, the tax reduction actually netted them $200 a year more in spendable income; I did not mean to provide an example with such an outcome, but it goes to show that the system is complicated.

LEADB

Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Now, you can ask ME a question about economics.

Aren't you glad we have real growth under Bush rather than the phony crap that Clinton's administration touted from the Dot Com charade ?

I am.

Dot com charade under Clinton... yeh, that was interesting. I am personally hoping the Bush housing bubble manages to 'soft land'.

Edit: Though I'm not sure how the dot com item is 'Clinton's'; yes, it happened during 'his watch' but what did you expect them to do?

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:34 PM

This is the last time I'll post this

Quote:
Tax Revenues: Tax receipts rose 11.8 percent in fiscal year 2006 (FY06) on top of FY05's 14.6 percent increase.

That's all I meant to convey. That's all that needed to be conveyed, in the context of what was being discussed. I didn't even bother with what else was said, because it wasn't relevent to the argument.

Sig, because you chose to hyper exaggerate the irrelevent part of a stat which wasn't part of any ongoing discussion, all your fussing makes you look like an ass. I don't even care who said it, but a comment was made that under Bush, tax revenues were WAY down.

They aren't.

I was right.

All your petty B.S. was for nothing.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:46 PM

I'm just commenting on how Clinton's economic plan was more a result of happy fortune of the time, and not so much an active plan, such as cutting taxes to spur on the economy.

Of course Clinton wasn't responsible for the DotCom boom, but he and his folks were sure glad to take what ever credit it yielded for the economy.

Until the bubbble burst.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Sunday, August 12, 2007 10:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
all your fussing makes you look like an ass.

ENNNHHHHH Wrong again, Hans.

YOU look like the ass for being judgemental without a cause. Maybe you could say I look like an ass for callin' you a poopy-head (I'd accept that), but Signy just wants a real, considered response or two from you- that's hardly being an ass.

Kiss my donkey Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Sunday, August 12, 2007 10:47 PM

Those who want 'real considered response' from others don't call them 'cowards' for not answering ridiculous, made up and irrelevent questions.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Sunday, August 12, 2007 11:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Those who want 'real considered response' from others don't call them 'cowards' for not answering ridiculous, made up and irrelevent questions.

COWARD!!!!

...sorry, couldn't resist....

BTW, I spotted something labeled 'Mustard' in the neighbour's yard today- can I assume he has WMD's? Am I allowed to pre-emptively shoot him with my potato gun to defend myself? I really want to let him have it anyway....

Bush-like Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 12, 2007 11:50 PM

Quote:
Ah dang. I see your point regarding the % of GDP. Unfortunately, the tax code is very complex. A few factors to keep in mind;
Income tax is only fraction of the total revenue. Lets take the example above; we've increased the GDP by about 30%; lets say that some of that money was spent on gasoline which has significant federal tax; assume the gasoline is imported, thus the production is neutral to GDP. If enough is so spent that new tax revenue amounts to $7920 in the 2nd year, that would raise the tax collected for the 2nd year to 26%; thus the tax load for the 2nd year is 26% of GDP.

It IS complex, but not having a link to the original article or knowing the context, it seems to me that Auraptor should have been able to explain his post, not to have you explain it for him.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 12, 2007 11:53 PM

Quote:
That's all I meant to convey. That's all that needed to be conveyed, in the context of what was being discussed. I didn't even bother with what else was said, because it wasn't relevent to the argument.

Why didn't you just say so about forty posts ago? and BTW- you are WRONG about the so-called Bush revenue growth. I hope we don't have to go thru that again!

Quote:
Aren't you glad we have real growth under Bush rather than the phony crap that Clinton's administration touted from the Dot Com charade ?

How do you define "real growth"? GDP growth? Stock market increase? Employment? Purchasing power? House prices? I can't answer the question until I know what it is.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

LEADB

Monday, August 13, 2007 3:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm just commenting on how Clinton's economic plan was more a result of happy fortune of the time, and not so much an active plan, such as cutting taxes to spur on the economy.

Of course Clinton wasn't responsible for the DotCom boom, but he and his folks were sure glad to take what ever credit it yielded for the economy.

Until the bubbble burst.

I'll be honest, I was never particularly aware that the Clinton team took such credit. And in any case, yes it was probably luck. On the flip side, I don't know that I much really credit Bush much for the housing market bubble. Don't underestimate how much of our recent economic improvement of late has been due to the housing market; and it is potentially a bubble, with the same opportunity to draw things down. Likewise, Bush's team has been happy to take the credit on the way up; and will be pointing fingers all the other ways if the bubble bursts.

AURAPTOR

Monday, August 13, 2007 10:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
That's all I meant to convey. That's all that needed to be conveyed, in the context of what was being discussed. I didn't even bother with what else was said, because it wasn't relevent to the argument.
Why didn't you just say so about forty posts ago? and BTW- you are WRONG about the so-called Bush revenue growth. I hope we don't have to go thru that again!

I didn't sift back through my old post nor did you repost what the hell it was you were talking about. I quite honestly questioned whether it was something I posted or not. It didn't ring a bell, but I went along w/ it anyways.

Quote:

Quote:
Aren't you glad we have real growth under Bush rather than the phony crap that Clinton's administration touted from the Dot Com charade ?
How do you define "real growth"? GDP growth? Stock market increase? Employment? Purchasing power? House prices? I can't answer the question until I know what it is.

That's kinda my ponit. Economist, we can agree, can play fast and loose w/ the numbers. Calling Bush's defecit the 'largest in history' is as accurate as calling his revenue collection the largest in history too. Both are numerically correct, on a dollar value, but there's more to the story on each case. Again, I'll ceed that.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, August 13, 2007 11:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
6ix- Apparenty you have me mistaken for a partisan Dem. Why? I didn't voted for Bill, I'd rather cut off my right hand than vote for Hillary, I think most Dems are cowardly weasels who are so busy triangulating that they're utterly incapable of any action of consequence. The only f*cking partisan here is Auraptor, who is so friggin' in love with his hero that he can't see that GWB is as bad as any Dem in recent memory and in some ways a good deal worse. So don't you go shaking your finger at me, boy. You got me confused with someone else. Aim your sights where they really belong.

My bad Signy. Truthfully, you do come off a little too liberal for my tastes sometimes though. I can't even remember your posts in here that lead me to put you in that category. You certainly aren't to Democrats what AR is to Republicans by any stretch. Respectfully, I make a full retraction to that statement.

Quote:
[B} By Signy: You know Rap and Jongsstraw, I have a secret for you: You will NEVER EVER be free of the threat of terrorism no matter HOW much effort you put into security.

Wow. Ain't that a bitch?

Look at Israel: they're unconstrained by our "rights" laws, have a universal military draft, issue AND USE internal passports and security checkpoints and (when necessary) curfews, have a wary and vigilant population, they look and sound just like their enemies, they even know the language... hell, they're even walling off a portion of land. They're obsessive about internal and border security. Except for literally locking down the entire country I can't think of anything else for them to do. And guess what? They still get blown up.

All it takes is a half-dozen not-so-smart people with a common grotch and they can blow up a Federal building.

It's obvious that you're mesmerized by the thought of terrorism. You guys will do anything, anything to make that fearful sick helpless feeling go away. And so in your case the terrorists have won 'cause baby, you're terrified past reason.

I know that you prolly think that everyone else is just drinkin' the Kool Aid, that nobody can see what you see, that nobody is responding with the 'appropriate" measure of concern, that we're all sitting around having fun while "they" take us down little by little... like the Eloi in The Time Machine ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eloi Nothing could be further from the truth. But YOU would do more damage our way of life than "the terrorists" could by ruining our economy and destroying our Constitution for the thought that we might be attacked some day, and badly damaged.

The FF didn't start this nation with the idea that it was going to be a "safe" thing to do, and the settlers and immigrants faced dangers that were every bit as ruinous and deadly as terrorism. So get over your PTSD, learn to live with the thought that not everyone loves the USA, and recognize that there are a LOT of dangers "out there" - many of them far more consequential than the "might maybe could" terrorist bogeymen that dominate your mental landscape.

Wow.... I seriously can't belive this thread didn't end on that note. I think there's a whole lot of threads here and otherwise that could be put to an end with that post. Well said.

Quote:
Auraptor: If we agree that Bush's expansion of the Gov't is bad, then Kerry or Gore's would have been much , MUCH worse. Instead of Homeland Security and Defense, they'd be spending the $$ on Free Cadillacs for unwed minority mothers, or luxury Section 8 Housing for illegals.

Sadly enough, I really can't argue this point too much. Obviously he was exaggerating here a little.... but not so much that it's a rediculous statement. The Dems want to piss away everything we have on foreigners and bastard children.

We're seriously fucked if we don't get a third party. Vote Ron Paul.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6

WASHNWEAR

Monday, August 13, 2007 2:35 PM

Quote:
Edit: I know it's a bad day when I post something defending Bush.

I really should stay the hell out of this stuff because I'm too reactionary to debate effectively and my emotions make it hard for me to reason my way out of a wet paper bag some days, but...LeadB, I reckon you're just trying for a little fair-mindedness and objectivity...which is more than I often manage. If I found myself posting anything, anywhere in defense of Bush, the world would've indeed turned upside down!

Edit: Truth be known, I was fed right up with that jug-eared mutant munchkin before he "won" the 2000 election...so for me (and many others) it's been a long 7 years or so, indeed.

It was like that when we got here!

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, August 13, 2007 2:45 PM

I don't know.... I was all for him blocking the ability for the Gov to raise taxes on my cigarettes .61 a pack to insure bastard children. That's one thing that he's got in his entire portfolio of evil and genocide and making us look so bad that we'll be nothing but a seat at the UN table in a few years that could actually be considered "Conservative"

Let it be known that I don't hate the bastard children... I'll be happy to pay the .61 cents a pack raise when I get a $3,000.00 a year tax break for not having bastard children of my own and not living off somebody's tax dollars.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SIGNYM

Monday, August 13, 2007 3:37 PM

AURAPTOR: Well, if you'd still like to talk about economic growth, we could prolly fill up several threads, and then write several books. "Economic growth" is pretty much what you define it to be, and altho there is an internationally accepted definition (GDP) even that measure is imperfect. GDP doesn't apply to non-capitalist systems or unpaid production. So although an area might experience phenomenal economic growth- for example, over a ten-year period, people in a region have reforested their land and created irrigation systems, stabilized their population, and built homes through volunteerism - that doesn't count. The other problem with GDP is that it looks at all exchanges of money equally. If your population experiences a massive plague and spends beaucoups bucks on medical care, that's counted equally with a wild improvement in solar panel production.

Is this a road you care to travel?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Monday, August 13, 2007 3:47 PM

6IX- I used to be a big government kind of person. But Clinton (seriously, Clinton!) and Bush really put me off that idea. And unlike SOME folks on the board I've been been influenced by what I read here and have slowly come over to the more anarchic side.

So right now I know more about what I don't like that what I do like, and the way I think things should work is so far away from the various proposals I've heard that... well, let me just say that I don't like the options shown to me by Republicans, Democrats, or Libertarians.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KANEMAN

Monday, August 13, 2007 4:13 PM

"Under Bush, the U.S. took in more tax revenue in history."

Why is this stated as a good thing by a so called conservative? Maybe he should stop growing government and send it all back.

If the federal reserve bank didn't pump in a ridiculous amount of imaginary dollars into the monetary supply year in and year out, there wouldn't be crazy man inflation year after year. The dollar would not be valued @ 4cents of a 1913 dollar. How in the world does a dollar fall that far in 96 years? So, Bush and co. can print all the money they need to fight this illegal "war". In the end it will keep on devaluing the dollar and hurt his economic numbers.
How much of this tax revenue came from taxes on the war profiteering companies like Halliburton? And can you really praise tax revenue on imaginary cash? Neocons just keep getting fucking stranger by the minute. The average Republican sits back, gets branded, and allows these maniacs to steal and change the party. Unreal.........OH boys, come get yer kook-aid!!!!

FLETCH2

Monday, August 13, 2007 4:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How do you define "real growth"? GDP growth? Stock market increase? Employment? Purchasing power? House prices? I can't answer the question until I know what it is.

I think only talking heads just call something "real growth" most statistics say things like "growth in GDP."

Almost all of these statistics are flawed in one way or another, that tends to be why economists use a collection of economic indicators to assess the state of an economy.

KANEMAN

Monday, August 13, 2007 4:47 PM

"use a collection of economic indicators to assess the state of an economy."

How are these for indicators?

Our dollar is almost worthless compared to just 96yrs. ago.

We have a fiat monetary system that allows, the privately owned Federal reserve bank, to print monopoly money whenever our government wants to grow, fight a war, or pander to state officials... at interest.

For this luxury we get a personal income tax. Not one cent of this tax goes to road building, school funding, or bridge inspections. Every cent goes to paying the interest on the monopoly money.

To add insult to injury... the whole world knows this and our dollar will continue to decline........

SIGNYM

Monday, August 13, 2007 5:14 PM

Uh... which is why I invested in gold and foreign currencies (UK pound, EU dollar, Singapore dollar, Brazil real, Indian rupee, Russian ruble, Chinese yuan and Japanese yen) Over the past year, my investments have gone up steadily (except the yen). Not to enough to indicate a panic against the dollar, but certainly enough to indicate an overall loss of confidence. At the first oppty, I'll invest more since most of my holdings right now are dollar-denominated.

---------------------------------
I vote with my dollars too.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, August 13, 2007 7:25 PM

Quote:
And unlike SOME folks on the board I've been been influenced by what I read here and have slowly come over to the more anarchic side.

Welcome to the unspoken hell that is not drinkin a major Partys' Kool-Aid.
*slides over a glass of scotch*

Good call on those investments, my money is in uncut gemstones, and not points or shares in a stone that might not even exist, but the actual rocks themselves - which have the additional benefit of being valued in any currency or even none, and don't draw attention from US Customs when throw into the bottom of a collection of ordinary rocks along with some geology texts and a rock hammer.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

SIGNYM

Monday, August 13, 2007 7:59 PM

The dratted double post struck again!

SIGNYM

Monday, August 13, 2007 7:59 PM

*grabs the scotch before it slide off the table, takes a swig*

Interesting choice of investments. Portable and a helluva lot less obvious than gold coupons or bank notes. COOL!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Monday, August 13, 2007 8:03 PM

Just another outrage ...

US Tumbles Down the World Ratings List for Life Expectancy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2147506,00.html

by Ewen MacAskill in Washington and agencies

A combination of expensive health insurance and an ever-increasing rate of obesity appear to be behind a startling fall by the US in the world rankings of life expectancy.

Despite being one of the richest countries in the world, America has dropped from 11th to 42nd place in 20 years, according to official US figures.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

AURAPTOR

Monday, August 13, 2007 11:11 PM

From the Cato Institute......

The Treasury Department reported Friday that federal revenues reached $2.12 trillion ($2,120,000,000,0000) for the first ten months of fiscal year 2007. In both current and inflation-adjusted dollars, that puts the federal government on course for the most revenue it’s ever collected in a year. Indeed, it’s the most revenue any government in the history of the world has ever collected. And yet it’s not enough to satisfy the voracious appetites of the spenders in Congress and the administration. Spending was $2.27 trillion for the same ten months.

It seems that the deficit problem in Washington is not a result of insufficient tax revenue but rather the inexorable growth of spending on everything from earmarks to entitlements to war.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/08/12/bush-the-biggest-taxer-in-wo
rld-history/

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:21 AM

Auraptor, you make such a big fuss about the so-called increase in revenues, but if you were to look at the CHART that the article links to
www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=200
you would see that in fact, year 2006 barely exceeded year 2000, and year 2007 was only a little above that. That means that from 2000 to 2007 (estimated) ... in other words, over seven years of the Bush administration so far... receipts rose about $0.11 trillion, or about 5%. That's not 5% per year that's 5% TOTAL. Less than 1% per year. Hardly a stunning success and not an economic policy validation by any means. By contrast, from 1992 to 2000... the eight years of Clinton's administration... Federal receipts rose $0.7 trillion or about 50%. Yep that's right, 50%.

In the meantime over eight years of Clinton's Administration, spending rose $0.2 trillion or about 1.4%. By contrast under Bush spending rose about 25%. One thing Bush sure knows how to do is spend money. I'll agree with you on that.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 2:39 AM

You see, that's the thing, with gold coupons or bank notes, you STILL have to trust the bank to hand it over - and if things go to hell in a handbasket ?

They won't.

That's why I don't buy points or shares in a stone, because in the event of an economic crisis, it's very unlikely they will be honored, particularly if the crisis is severe enough.

Now cuts go in and out of style, besides which they tend to make a stone far more obvious - most folk could not properly identify an uncut stone, especially if it's in a box with a buncha common rocks, security via obscurity.

And if you want it cut, depending on the size of the stone you can often get one cut by trading the chips and overage to the cutter, if you need it done - but the stone itself has a value as is, with a slow but steady and constant climb in value, and the higher it's quality the faster the climb.

Of course, the very best barter is actually knowledge and skill, it costs little or nothing to maintain, doesn't take up space, weighs nothing, and yet has a value all out of proportion to all that - in the event of a bad power outage, the guy who can fix your generator when it gives out on you, he can prettymuch name his price, can't he ?

-F

RUE

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 2:46 AM

Personally, I like gold. You can mail it to anywhere in the world, and if you get the serialized stamped bars you won't need to have them assayed, or re-assayed. And if you get the right ones (Credit Suisse) they're accepted at any bank in the world.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:29 AM

You recommend any survival books Frem? There's a ton out there. I figure you've probably read a few. Anything else of the like that you'd recommend while we're at it?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SIGNYM

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 5:14 PM

oops

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:10 AM

Meh, I wouldn't recommend any of em Jack, they're written by nutters, mostly right wing nutters who prefer deluded fantasy to ugly reality.

Just get down with the bedrock basics, guy, basic use and manufacture of tools, and how to fix stuff.

I started with small engine repair and appliance repair, both of which can be self-taught easy enough, with a side order of basic carpentry, and it's kind of an exponential thing for the mindset we seem to share, each step becomes easier basing off the last one.

I think that, for you, the hardest part is going to be getting over and past having been told all your life that you are worthless/clueless/have no aptitude, by people more interested in feeding their egos than giving a shit about you.

Once you lose that mental boat anchor, a whole new world of possibility will open to you, but there's no easy way to do it, just start small, and believe in your successes, is all.

Learning how to fix things, you learn how they work, and eventually it becomes an intuitive process and you can BUILD anything you can figure out, and then yer there, more or less.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

RUE

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 5:42 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070821/hl_nm/plan_dc;_ylt=Art1KEfrQC7kr6o
9fVXdCmSs0NUE

White House moves to limit health plan: report

Before making such a change, Smith said, states must demonstrate that they have "enrolled at least 95 percent of children in the state below 200 percent of the federal poverty level" who are eligible for either Medicaid or the child health program, the newspaper said.

Deborah Bachrach, a deputy commissioner in the New York State Health Department told the paper: "No state in the nation has a participation rate of 95 percent."

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 5:45 PM

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/21/3313/

Efforts to Crack Down on Lead Paint Thwarted by China, Bush Administration
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration and China have both undermined efforts to tighten rules designed to ensure that lead paint isn’t used in toys, bibs, jewelry and other children’s products.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 5:47 PM

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=20
07-08-21T123630Z_01 _

HKG170110_RTRUKOC_0_US-CHINA-SAFETY-TOYS.xml

Group finds China toy factory conditions "brutal"

HONG KONG (Reuters) - A U.S.-based workers' rights group said it found "brutal conditions" and labor violations at eight Chinese plants that make toys for big multinationals, and called on the companies to take steps for better standards.

China Labor Watch said in a report issued on Tuesday after several months of investigation that the manufacturers -- which served a handful of global players, including Disney, Bandai and Hasbro -- paid "little heed to the most basic standards of the country".

"Wages are low, benefits are non-existent, work environments are dangerous and living conditions are humiliating," it said.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 5:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070821/hl_nm/plan_dc;_ylt=Art1KEfrQC7kr6o
9fVXdCmSs0NUE

White House moves to limit health plan: report

Before making such a change, Smith said, states must demonstrate that they have "enrolled at least 95 percent of children in the state below 200 percent of the federal poverty level" who are eligible for either Medicaid or the child health program, the newspaper said.

Deborah Bachrach, a deputy commissioner in the New York State Health Department told the paper: "No state in the nation has a participation rate of 95 percent."

That's because many states enroll adults instead of just children, which is what said programs are intended. Enrolling 95% of the elegible children for a childrens health program. Makes perfect sense to me.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 6:08 PM

Rap

And you know this ... how ?

That's right, it's just another one of your bogus factoids that you can never back up. Is that the only way you can get a response - by posting stoopid nonsense ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 7:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Rap

And you know this ... how ?

That's right, it's just another one of your bogus factoids that you can never back up. Is that the only way you can get a response - by posting stoopid nonsense ?

Well, pinhead, it's because I live in Georgia, and it was reported that our Gov was against it because " he doesn't care for the children" .. However, when the facts come out about enrollment of adults in a children's health care program....

Quote:
Isakson and Chambliss have been supportive of SCHIP and PeachCare, but had expressed reservations about several key elements of the bill, including the decision by some states to use the children's program to insure adults and to enroll children from homes with middle class incomes. Both senators said they oppose the tax increase that would fund the expansion.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/08/03/kidshealth0803
.html

....it becomes clear that it's just some playing politics with our children's health, as is usually the case.

Ya might want to use a paper towel to get some of that egg off of your face, rue.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 7:32 PM

"Republicans argue the program is the first step toward socialized medicine *" and in order to block the program they've set an impossible mandate "Enrolling 95% of the elegible children."

* Same article. WHO'S playing politics with children's health ????

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 7:38 PM

Perhaps he is referring to this:

Quote:
Though families who qualify for programs like PeachCare generally earn roughly twice the federal poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four, many states have expanded their guidelines to enroll children from families slightly above that level and even adults. Such broad leeway may ultimately hurt states, said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.

What this is saying is that some STATE programs (but not apparently GA) are enrolling kids who are above the poverty line, and some of those programs are enrolling adults.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 7:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Republicans argue the program is the first step toward socialized medicine *" and in order to block the program they've set an impossible mandate "Enrolling 95% of the elegible children."

* Same article. WHO'S playing politics with children's health ????

My point was validated, and supported. That those opposed to the expansion of the S.C.H.I.P. because of possible enrolment of adults or those switching from private to 'free' public healthcare. And I agree, that it IS the first step toward socialized medicine. Incrumental steps is how the Left always works in D.C. First, it's making the Family Leave Act so many days of 'unpaid' leave, then a few yrs later, there's the push to make employers pay for that time off as well. Same M.O. here. Same as usual w/ the Left.

Probably best if this topic had its own thread.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 7:54 PM

Also, it's not just me saying it, but from YOUR source....

Quote:

In an interview yesterday, Mr. Smith said, “The program was always meant for children in lower-income families.” As a state increases its income limits, he said, “it’s more likely to substitute for private coverage.”

To minimize the risk of such substitution, Mr. Smith said in his letter, states should charge co-payments or premiums that approximate the cost of private coverage and should impose “waiting periods” to make sure middle-income children do not go directly from a private health plan to a public program

Your false notion that I present 'bogus factoids' has just been obliterated. Again.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 8:03 PM

Rue:
Deborah Bachrach, a deputy commissioner in the New York State Health Department told the paper: "No state in the nation has a participation rate of 95 percent."

Rap:
"That's because many states, like GA, enroll adults instead of just children ..."

Rap:
"Your false notion that I present 'bogus factoids' has just been obliterated."

Rue:
snicker No, your quote, your article, had nothing to do with 95% participation rate. It was a complete bust on your pointless point.

Rap:
"Again."

Rue:
guffaw Not even ONCE dude.

I don't understand how you can be so confused over simple things like that. Maybe it's b/c you live in Georgia. That explains a lot.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 8:37 PM

Rue, when you keep changing the issue, it's clear you don't care for a honest discussion.

The issue was childrens healthcare, and whether CHILDREN should be enrolled in a childrens healthcare program, rather than allowing it to be expanded to include adults or those from the middle class, which is clearly NOT what the plan was intended for.

The fact of the matter is, you're the complete bust. You can't stand getting shown up for the phony you really are. It's not even an issue that I supported my claim , with a link, with facts, and you're still sore about it.

Fucking get over it and get a gorram life.

You don't understand and you don't comprehend. That pretty much makes you a moron.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 8:46 PM

No, the issue was this:

White House moves to limit health plan: report

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 8:58 PM

*snort*
Yeah, cause children with parents too sick to care for em aren't a problem, right ?

Smell the maxwell house, rap - any healthcare program *has* to be universal to even be effective.

Goddamn it's like your brain don't work sometimes.

-F

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 1:58 PM

Auraptor- Apparently you have a problem with government-funded health care. What's the problem? Just curious.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 5:11 PM

bump for auraptor. trying to get a conversation going.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, August 27, 2007 9:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Meh, I wouldn't recommend any of em Jack, they're written by nutters, mostly right wing nutters who prefer deluded fantasy to ugly reality.

Just get down with the bedrock basics, guy, basic use and manufacture of tools, and how to fix stuff.

I started with small engine repair and appliance repair, both of which can be self-taught easy enough, with a side order of basic carpentry, and it's kind of an exponential thing for the mindset we seem to share, each step becomes easier basing off the last one.

I think that, for you, the hardest part is going to be getting over and past having been told all your life that you are worthless/clueless/have no aptitude, by people more interested in feeding their egos than giving a shit about you.

Once you lose that mental boat anchor, a whole new world of possibility will open to you, but there's no easy way to do it, just start small, and believe in your successes, is all.

Learning how to fix things, you learn how they work, and eventually it becomes an intuitive process and you can BUILD anything you can figure out, and then yer there, more or less.

-Frem

Thanks for that reply Frem.... somehow I missed that when you posted it before.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2