dsandreas 0 #251 October 14, 2009 As usual...you are wrong again. I want Obama to fail precisely because I love the country and want it to succeed. Trillion dollar deficits a year for the next 10 years, declining freedom with cap and tax, health care, and most other things he is attempting to foist on us. Bush was bad...Obama is horrific. Quote In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Geebus H. Flippin' Christ on a cracker. Get over it. The Nobel Committee made a statement by giving him an award. They like him better than the last guy that was in office. Big flippin' deal. Move on already. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conservatives want Obama to fail, the country to fail and everyone to marvel in the glory of failure so they can reinstall their version of success. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #252 October 15, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Geebus H. Flippin' Christ on a cracker. Get over it. The Nobel Committee made a statement by giving him an award. They like him better than the last guy that was in office. Big flippin' deal. Move on already. Conservatives want Obama to fail, the country to fail and everyone to marvel in the glory of failure so they can reinstall their version of success. Holy shit, and you didn't want President George Bush to fail? Speaking of failure, the "anything but Bush" mental condition, has persisted so long, the Nobel Prize Committee has bought into it. They think they can now influence US foreign policy. No, I was doing well in that era. During Bush I lost my job, had my house foreclose and that was the worst 8 years of my life; I needed him to succeed and teh country to succeed or at least not go down the shitter. Of course when my life went down the shitter I wished worse than failure on him and his policies, but at the start I wanted him to just not fuck anything up. So, as usual, we have another victim. Had nothing to do with the choices you made I bet. I got to admit, you got the victim shit down pat. But it makes me feel stronger you are paid to post here. I wrote: To be realistic, more than 1/2 of the blame goes to me, but I think Bush killing the Ergonomics Bill, trashing the Dept of Labor and the very Overtime Bill itself are really a huge part of my demise as well. Read much? I'm paid to post here? I wish. I'm paid by guys like you not addressing my Great Depression thread. I'm paid by guys like you not showing me 1 major federal tax cut that led to a great economic finish or the opposite, a major fed tax increase leading to disaster; that's how I'm paid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #253 October 15, 2009 QuoteAs usual...you are wrong again. I want Obama to fail precisely because I love the country and want it to succeed. Trillion dollar deficits a year for the next 10 years, declining freedom with cap and tax, health care, and most other things he is attempting to foist on us. Bush was bad...Obama is horrific. Quote In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Geebus H. Flippin' Christ on a cracker. Get over it. The Nobel Committee made a statement by giving him an award. They like him better than the last guy that was in office. Big flippin' deal. Move on already. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conservatives want Obama to fail, the country to fail and everyone to marvel in the glory of failure so they can reinstall their version of success. Bush inherited a descent economy, left a turd. Obama inherited a turd and has flipped it in 9 months; jobs have to come around and we're there. No one thought the market would be this far yet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #254 October 15, 2009 You need to look at the post I replied to. It is good you take some measure of responsibility. But now you wait and want for a HC hand out off of somebody elses back. Good luck waiting for that "hand up". Me? When I got my ass handed to me I stepped up and took what happened on by going after it head on. I did not wait to see what someone would give me. I am sorry for the circumstances you post of. But thats life. Stop looking to steal from everybody else cause individual actions are what makes this country great. Not the government As for who you are paid by Well, you post makes little if any sense unless it is the handouts you spoke of yet again. Edited to add: Blaming this on Bush is a fucking cop out. Ya, he has got some weight to carry, but so do many others. You wanting to give those others a pass is just the type of shit that will ensure it happens again. But then, you will just blame the other party wont you..... "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #255 October 15, 2009 Here is our peace prize winning in action huh Quote Obama Cuts Pro-Democracy Funds for Iran Wednesday, October 14, 2009 7:34 PM By: Kenneth R. Timmerman The Obama administration has cut funding for pro-democracy and human rights programs in Iran, reversing years of efforts during the Bush administration to help develop a civil society, congressional sources told Newsmax this week. The move is apparently intended to please Iran’s rulers after they criticized President Obama and the State Department for allegedly seeking to fund a “velvet revolution” during the June presidential elections in Iran. “It sounds like the Iranians complained in Geneva and we acceded to their demands,” a former senior government official familiar with the pro-democracy programs told Newsmax. “It’s shameful,” he added. “This sends a clear message to Tehran that we are empowering the Iranian regime to be obstinate and fight us." Word that the administration was planning to cut the pro-democracy programs leaked out in June, when the draft budget for the State Department sent to Congress zeroed out the funds. The aid cut-back became public last week, when the executive director of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, which is affiliated with Yale University campus in New Haven, Conn., disclosed that her center’s request for a grant of $2.7 million had been denied. “If there is one time that I expected to get funding, this was it,’’ Renee Redman told the Boston Globe last week. “I was surprised, because the world was watching human rights violations right there on television.” Redman’s center has received $3 million under the State Department program, and has issued reports on human rights abuses. However, they were not active inside Iran and had no programs to support the pro-democracy movement itself, as such activities were considered “too provocative” by the State Department even under President George W. Bush. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who co-sponsored legislation earlier this year that greatly expands pro-democracy funding, questioned the wisdom of the Obama administration’s policy shift. “It is disturbing that the State Department would cut off funding at precisely the moment when these brave investigations are needed most,” he said last week. Lieberman’s bill, called the Victims of Iranian Censorship (VOICE) act, passed the Senate in July and has been incorporated into the annual defense appropriations bill, which is scheduled for a final vote this week. The legislation expands funding for Farsi-language broadcasts by the Voice of America and Radio Farda and authorizes the State Department to spend up to $20 million to develop new technologies to help Iranians get around Internet censorship, and another $5 million for human rights documentation. Congress continues to fund the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which last year handed out $450,000 to three Iranian-American organizations for media and Internet-related projects. But compared to the $75 million fund set up by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — now frozen by the Obama administration — the NED money is just a drop in the bucket. “The State Department cut in pro-democracy funding for Iran is part and parcel of a very deliberate policy by President Obama to diminish the role of human rights and democracy as goals of U.S. foreign policy,” said Joshua Muravchik, a scholar focusing on democracy promotion with the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. “This is taking us back to a Nixonian approach to foreign policy, with the incompetence of Carter and the national self-effacement of George McGovern,” he told Newsmax. President Nixon set aside democracy and human rights to deal with dictatorships such as Communist China and Soviet Russia, based on U.S. national interests. “The Obama administration has combined realism with policies that put the national interest quite low” on the scale of priorities, Muravchik said. The Iran democracy programs have been shrouded in secrecy, even though they are not classified. David Denehy, a former program manager at the State Department, said he had agreed not to disclose specific grantees or projects, to protect participants who were working inside Iran. “We did good things with Internet freedom, civil society organizations, and in helping to better inform the Iranian people and better connect them to the outside world,” he told Newsmax. “I don’t see why President Obama wouldn’t support these things. The United States philosophically should always stand on the side of freedom against tyranny.” The Iranian regime has accused the United States of backing presidential candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi before and after the disputed June 12 presidential elections. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unexpectedly poured fuel onto those suspicions. In an Aug. 9 interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, she said that the Obama administration was torn between their desire to engage the regime and their sympathy for the protesters. "And we knew that, if we stepped in too soon, too hard, the attention might very well shift and the leadership would try to use us to unify the country against the protesters. And that was — it was a hard judgment call. But I think we, in retrospect, handled it pretty well. “Now, behind the scenes, we were doing a lot, as you know,” Clinton added, citing specifically the actions of a young State Department employee, Jared Cohen, who intervened with the management of Twitter to prevent them from shutting down access to Iranian bloggers for technical maintenance. Iranians close to the protesters have argued that the Obama administration turned its back on them when they most needed moral support from Washington. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites justinb138 0 #256 October 15, 2009 Good. 1. Waste less of our money. 2. Stop f*cking with other countries. Would you be upset if another country was funding communist groups in our country? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #257 October 15, 2009 Would you be upset if another country was funding communist groups in our country? you dont think they are? gotta bridge for sale....."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites justinb138 0 #258 October 15, 2009 Quote Would you be upset if another country was funding communist groups in our country? you dont think they are? gotta bridge for sale..... I'm sure they are. Doesn't make it a good idea for either party. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #252 October 15, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Geebus H. Flippin' Christ on a cracker. Get over it. The Nobel Committee made a statement by giving him an award. They like him better than the last guy that was in office. Big flippin' deal. Move on already. Conservatives want Obama to fail, the country to fail and everyone to marvel in the glory of failure so they can reinstall their version of success. Holy shit, and you didn't want President George Bush to fail? Speaking of failure, the "anything but Bush" mental condition, has persisted so long, the Nobel Prize Committee has bought into it. They think they can now influence US foreign policy. No, I was doing well in that era. During Bush I lost my job, had my house foreclose and that was the worst 8 years of my life; I needed him to succeed and teh country to succeed or at least not go down the shitter. Of course when my life went down the shitter I wished worse than failure on him and his policies, but at the start I wanted him to just not fuck anything up. So, as usual, we have another victim. Had nothing to do with the choices you made I bet. I got to admit, you got the victim shit down pat. But it makes me feel stronger you are paid to post here. I wrote: To be realistic, more than 1/2 of the blame goes to me, but I think Bush killing the Ergonomics Bill, trashing the Dept of Labor and the very Overtime Bill itself are really a huge part of my demise as well. Read much? I'm paid to post here? I wish. I'm paid by guys like you not addressing my Great Depression thread. I'm paid by guys like you not showing me 1 major federal tax cut that led to a great economic finish or the opposite, a major fed tax increase leading to disaster; that's how I'm paid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #253 October 15, 2009 QuoteAs usual...you are wrong again. I want Obama to fail precisely because I love the country and want it to succeed. Trillion dollar deficits a year for the next 10 years, declining freedom with cap and tax, health care, and most other things he is attempting to foist on us. Bush was bad...Obama is horrific. Quote In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Geebus H. Flippin' Christ on a cracker. Get over it. The Nobel Committee made a statement by giving him an award. They like him better than the last guy that was in office. Big flippin' deal. Move on already. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conservatives want Obama to fail, the country to fail and everyone to marvel in the glory of failure so they can reinstall their version of success. Bush inherited a descent economy, left a turd. Obama inherited a turd and has flipped it in 9 months; jobs have to come around and we're there. No one thought the market would be this far yet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #254 October 15, 2009 You need to look at the post I replied to. It is good you take some measure of responsibility. But now you wait and want for a HC hand out off of somebody elses back. Good luck waiting for that "hand up". Me? When I got my ass handed to me I stepped up and took what happened on by going after it head on. I did not wait to see what someone would give me. I am sorry for the circumstances you post of. But thats life. Stop looking to steal from everybody else cause individual actions are what makes this country great. Not the government As for who you are paid by Well, you post makes little if any sense unless it is the handouts you spoke of yet again. Edited to add: Blaming this on Bush is a fucking cop out. Ya, he has got some weight to carry, but so do many others. You wanting to give those others a pass is just the type of shit that will ensure it happens again. But then, you will just blame the other party wont you..... "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #255 October 15, 2009 Here is our peace prize winning in action huh Quote Obama Cuts Pro-Democracy Funds for Iran Wednesday, October 14, 2009 7:34 PM By: Kenneth R. Timmerman The Obama administration has cut funding for pro-democracy and human rights programs in Iran, reversing years of efforts during the Bush administration to help develop a civil society, congressional sources told Newsmax this week. The move is apparently intended to please Iran’s rulers after they criticized President Obama and the State Department for allegedly seeking to fund a “velvet revolution” during the June presidential elections in Iran. “It sounds like the Iranians complained in Geneva and we acceded to their demands,” a former senior government official familiar with the pro-democracy programs told Newsmax. “It’s shameful,” he added. “This sends a clear message to Tehran that we are empowering the Iranian regime to be obstinate and fight us." Word that the administration was planning to cut the pro-democracy programs leaked out in June, when the draft budget for the State Department sent to Congress zeroed out the funds. The aid cut-back became public last week, when the executive director of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, which is affiliated with Yale University campus in New Haven, Conn., disclosed that her center’s request for a grant of $2.7 million had been denied. “If there is one time that I expected to get funding, this was it,’’ Renee Redman told the Boston Globe last week. “I was surprised, because the world was watching human rights violations right there on television.” Redman’s center has received $3 million under the State Department program, and has issued reports on human rights abuses. However, they were not active inside Iran and had no programs to support the pro-democracy movement itself, as such activities were considered “too provocative” by the State Department even under President George W. Bush. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who co-sponsored legislation earlier this year that greatly expands pro-democracy funding, questioned the wisdom of the Obama administration’s policy shift. “It is disturbing that the State Department would cut off funding at precisely the moment when these brave investigations are needed most,” he said last week. Lieberman’s bill, called the Victims of Iranian Censorship (VOICE) act, passed the Senate in July and has been incorporated into the annual defense appropriations bill, which is scheduled for a final vote this week. The legislation expands funding for Farsi-language broadcasts by the Voice of America and Radio Farda and authorizes the State Department to spend up to $20 million to develop new technologies to help Iranians get around Internet censorship, and another $5 million for human rights documentation. Congress continues to fund the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which last year handed out $450,000 to three Iranian-American organizations for media and Internet-related projects. But compared to the $75 million fund set up by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — now frozen by the Obama administration — the NED money is just a drop in the bucket. “The State Department cut in pro-democracy funding for Iran is part and parcel of a very deliberate policy by President Obama to diminish the role of human rights and democracy as goals of U.S. foreign policy,” said Joshua Muravchik, a scholar focusing on democracy promotion with the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. “This is taking us back to a Nixonian approach to foreign policy, with the incompetence of Carter and the national self-effacement of George McGovern,” he told Newsmax. President Nixon set aside democracy and human rights to deal with dictatorships such as Communist China and Soviet Russia, based on U.S. national interests. “The Obama administration has combined realism with policies that put the national interest quite low” on the scale of priorities, Muravchik said. The Iran democracy programs have been shrouded in secrecy, even though they are not classified. David Denehy, a former program manager at the State Department, said he had agreed not to disclose specific grantees or projects, to protect participants who were working inside Iran. “We did good things with Internet freedom, civil society organizations, and in helping to better inform the Iranian people and better connect them to the outside world,” he told Newsmax. “I don’t see why President Obama wouldn’t support these things. The United States philosophically should always stand on the side of freedom against tyranny.” The Iranian regime has accused the United States of backing presidential candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi before and after the disputed June 12 presidential elections. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unexpectedly poured fuel onto those suspicions. In an Aug. 9 interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, she said that the Obama administration was torn between their desire to engage the regime and their sympathy for the protesters. "And we knew that, if we stepped in too soon, too hard, the attention might very well shift and the leadership would try to use us to unify the country against the protesters. And that was — it was a hard judgment call. But I think we, in retrospect, handled it pretty well. “Now, behind the scenes, we were doing a lot, as you know,” Clinton added, citing specifically the actions of a young State Department employee, Jared Cohen, who intervened with the management of Twitter to prevent them from shutting down access to Iranian bloggers for technical maintenance. Iranians close to the protesters have argued that the Obama administration turned its back on them when they most needed moral support from Washington. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites justinb138 0 #256 October 15, 2009 Good. 1. Waste less of our money. 2. Stop f*cking with other countries. Would you be upset if another country was funding communist groups in our country? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #257 October 15, 2009 Would you be upset if another country was funding communist groups in our country? you dont think they are? gotta bridge for sale....."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #254 October 15, 2009 You need to look at the post I replied to. It is good you take some measure of responsibility. But now you wait and want for a HC hand out off of somebody elses back. Good luck waiting for that "hand up". Me? When I got my ass handed to me I stepped up and took what happened on by going after it head on. I did not wait to see what someone would give me. I am sorry for the circumstances you post of. But thats life. Stop looking to steal from everybody else cause individual actions are what makes this country great. Not the government As for who you are paid by Well, you post makes little if any sense unless it is the handouts you spoke of yet again. Edited to add: Blaming this on Bush is a fucking cop out. Ya, he has got some weight to carry, but so do many others. You wanting to give those others a pass is just the type of shit that will ensure it happens again. But then, you will just blame the other party wont you..... "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #255 October 15, 2009 Here is our peace prize winning in action huh Quote Obama Cuts Pro-Democracy Funds for Iran Wednesday, October 14, 2009 7:34 PM By: Kenneth R. Timmerman The Obama administration has cut funding for pro-democracy and human rights programs in Iran, reversing years of efforts during the Bush administration to help develop a civil society, congressional sources told Newsmax this week. The move is apparently intended to please Iran’s rulers after they criticized President Obama and the State Department for allegedly seeking to fund a “velvet revolution” during the June presidential elections in Iran. “It sounds like the Iranians complained in Geneva and we acceded to their demands,” a former senior government official familiar with the pro-democracy programs told Newsmax. “It’s shameful,” he added. “This sends a clear message to Tehran that we are empowering the Iranian regime to be obstinate and fight us." Word that the administration was planning to cut the pro-democracy programs leaked out in June, when the draft budget for the State Department sent to Congress zeroed out the funds. The aid cut-back became public last week, when the executive director of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, which is affiliated with Yale University campus in New Haven, Conn., disclosed that her center’s request for a grant of $2.7 million had been denied. “If there is one time that I expected to get funding, this was it,’’ Renee Redman told the Boston Globe last week. “I was surprised, because the world was watching human rights violations right there on television.” Redman’s center has received $3 million under the State Department program, and has issued reports on human rights abuses. However, they were not active inside Iran and had no programs to support the pro-democracy movement itself, as such activities were considered “too provocative” by the State Department even under President George W. Bush. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who co-sponsored legislation earlier this year that greatly expands pro-democracy funding, questioned the wisdom of the Obama administration’s policy shift. “It is disturbing that the State Department would cut off funding at precisely the moment when these brave investigations are needed most,” he said last week. Lieberman’s bill, called the Victims of Iranian Censorship (VOICE) act, passed the Senate in July and has been incorporated into the annual defense appropriations bill, which is scheduled for a final vote this week. The legislation expands funding for Farsi-language broadcasts by the Voice of America and Radio Farda and authorizes the State Department to spend up to $20 million to develop new technologies to help Iranians get around Internet censorship, and another $5 million for human rights documentation. Congress continues to fund the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which last year handed out $450,000 to three Iranian-American organizations for media and Internet-related projects. But compared to the $75 million fund set up by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — now frozen by the Obama administration — the NED money is just a drop in the bucket. “The State Department cut in pro-democracy funding for Iran is part and parcel of a very deliberate policy by President Obama to diminish the role of human rights and democracy as goals of U.S. foreign policy,” said Joshua Muravchik, a scholar focusing on democracy promotion with the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. “This is taking us back to a Nixonian approach to foreign policy, with the incompetence of Carter and the national self-effacement of George McGovern,” he told Newsmax. President Nixon set aside democracy and human rights to deal with dictatorships such as Communist China and Soviet Russia, based on U.S. national interests. “The Obama administration has combined realism with policies that put the national interest quite low” on the scale of priorities, Muravchik said. The Iran democracy programs have been shrouded in secrecy, even though they are not classified. David Denehy, a former program manager at the State Department, said he had agreed not to disclose specific grantees or projects, to protect participants who were working inside Iran. “We did good things with Internet freedom, civil society organizations, and in helping to better inform the Iranian people and better connect them to the outside world,” he told Newsmax. “I don’t see why President Obama wouldn’t support these things. The United States philosophically should always stand on the side of freedom against tyranny.” The Iranian regime has accused the United States of backing presidential candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi before and after the disputed June 12 presidential elections. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unexpectedly poured fuel onto those suspicions. In an Aug. 9 interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, she said that the Obama administration was torn between their desire to engage the regime and their sympathy for the protesters. "And we knew that, if we stepped in too soon, too hard, the attention might very well shift and the leadership would try to use us to unify the country against the protesters. And that was — it was a hard judgment call. But I think we, in retrospect, handled it pretty well. “Now, behind the scenes, we were doing a lot, as you know,” Clinton added, citing specifically the actions of a young State Department employee, Jared Cohen, who intervened with the management of Twitter to prevent them from shutting down access to Iranian bloggers for technical maintenance. Iranians close to the protesters have argued that the Obama administration turned its back on them when they most needed moral support from Washington. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #256 October 15, 2009 Good. 1. Waste less of our money. 2. Stop f*cking with other countries. Would you be upset if another country was funding communist groups in our country? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #257 October 15, 2009 Would you be upset if another country was funding communist groups in our country? you dont think they are? gotta bridge for sale....."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #258 October 15, 2009 Quote Would you be upset if another country was funding communist groups in our country? you dont think they are? gotta bridge for sale..... I'm sure they are. Doesn't make it a good idea for either party. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #259 October 15, 2009 QuoteYou need to look at the post I replied to. Which? QuoteIt is good you take some measure of responsibility. But now you wait and want for a HC hand out off of somebody elses back. Good luck waiting for that "hand up". No, I want HC stability and availability. I'm working now, I've wanted uni-care years ago when I was doing well, so this isn't a sudden desire to have uni-care. BTW, it's off no ones back, it won't cost anyone a dime, just goes on the rubber check like your beloved overblown military. It will be funny to watch all the people who now complain about HC but receive HC under the new program. Will you be one? Sureeeee. Just like teh stimulus check whininers; whine about stimulus payments yet cashed theirs. QuoteMe? When I got my ass handed to me I stepped up and took what happened on by going after it head on. I did not wait to see what someone would give me. Oh, dod ya mouth off to the wrong person? QuoteI am sorry for the circumstances you post of. But thats life. Stop looking to steal from everybody else cause individual actions are what makes this country great. Not the government I'm not destitute, I just don't have HC and haven't for years. Then quit blaming me for stealing, when I am not, and go after your beloved theives stealing from the other massive social program; military contracts and tell them to quit stealing. Oh, you are ok with certaion types of theivery? OK. QuoteAs for who you are paid by Well, you post makes little if any sense unless it is the handouts you spoke of yet again. That sentence makes no sense. QuoteBlaming this on Bush is a fucking cop out. Ya, he has got some weight to carry, but so do many others. Considering that virtually everyone was doing better in Jan 2001 than they were in 93, then doing way worse in Jan 2009 I'm not sure who to blame for things that were not within my control. - Ergonomics Bill - Overtime Bill - Dept of Labor implementation of Nazi's and rule changes - Runniong of debt - Cutting of taxes - Mishandling of every crisis: 911, Katrina, etc Who do we blame, Rush? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #260 October 15, 2009 Quote Quote I mean, what's the criteria for winning the Nobel Peace Prize nowadays? Talking well and smiling pretty. The prize committee acknowledged that he hadn't done much, but basically said they gave him the award for attitude and potential, and to try to help him achieve his goals. I feel like I'm in surreal-land. No doubt - these are the same idiots that denied Gandhi *FIVE TIMES* and gave the prize to Arafat. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #261 October 15, 2009 Quote it won't cost anyone a dime, just goes on the rubber check this is the big disconnect with a lot of people - your basics of how government work are not compatible with how individuals operate - but if you really feel this way, you should provide perspective: 1 - government doesn't cost anything - we can always print the money we need to do anything we want - or borrow it - it won't have any effect on the economy or on individuals 2 - any debt we accrue outside the nation doesn't have to be paid back 3 - taxes/fees/etc have zero financial implications and are strictly a means of social engineering 4 - money is meaningless seriously - the impression is that one of these is your starting point for most of your discussions. which one? or something else? If the government takes more money from you, can you really argue that you will jump less? etc less? etc? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #262 October 15, 2009 Quotethis is the big disconnect with a lot of people - your basics of how government work are not compatible with how individuals operate Exactly, people try to compare a countries economy with a govs economy. If we operated on a personal level the way most countries operate, we would be homeless. Quote1 - government doesn't cost anything - we can always print the money we need to do anything we want - or borrow it - it won't have any effect on the economy or on individuals In the short run, that's true. The long run it's a big deal, which is why I'm pro-tax increases. Quote2 - any debt we accrue outside the nation doesn't have to be paid back No it doesn't, just the interest, which is a big deal. Quote3 - taxes/fees/etc have zero financial implications and are strictly a means of social engineering I wouldn't say they have zero implication, they just don't have a direcct implication upon any given individual. Quote4 - money is meaningless I'm not saying that, you're being abstract. Quoteseriously - the impression is that one of these is your starting point for most of your discussions. which one? or something else? There is no direcct connection between taxation and spending other than special bond measures. When it comes to the 2 biggest drains: Military and social spending, the gov spends w/o concern for paying for it. Govs collect what they can and spend what they want. QuoteIf the government takes more money from you, can you really argue that you will jump less? etc less? etc? Perhaps, but if the gov opens let's say HC to all and it costs 1T over a decade, will that cost me more? No. Will it cost you more? No. Will it cost 98% of all Americans more? No. So there really is no connection between taxation and most spending. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #263 October 15, 2009 QuoteQuote it won't cost anyone a dime, just goes on the rubber check this is the big disconnect with a lot of people - your basics of how government work are not compatible with how individuals operate - but if you really feel this way, you should provide perspective: 1 - government doesn't cost anything - we can always print the money we need to do anything we want - or borrow it - it won't have any effect on the economy or on individuals 2 - any debt we accrue outside the nation doesn't have to be paid back 3 - taxes/fees/etc have zero financial implications and are strictly a means of social engineering 4 - money is meaningless seriously - the impression is that one of these is your starting point for most of your discussions. which one? or something else? If the government takes more money from you, can you really argue that you will jump less? etc less? etc? It is a complete disconnect from reality. Taxes and fees are real money, especially when they are coming from middle class citizens that work very hard to keep their head above water. Inflation is a real factor that impacts all the individuals in an economy. The value of your currency has a actual impact on your wealth. Money has to come from some where. If you borrow it you increase the federal defecit, which in the long have an impact all of the players in the economy, big and small. If you print it you further devalue the US dollar, and that has an impact on every person in the economy. Or you can take it from some one else, take it from the "rich". So who is rich?"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #264 October 15, 2009 QuoteIt is a complete disconnect from reality. no, read Lucky's reply to me. What that means to you, is that if you want to have a discussion with the Luckmeister is two fold: 1 - he refuses to speak to acknowledge the other person's basic assumptions and debate on that common ground 2 - therefore, you need to understand his perspective to make ground in understanding either way he's responded fairly courtesously to my request with really simple assumption about his viewpoint - that macro economic issues need to be discussed from a macro-economic viewpoint. Or else both of your are just preaching to the choir. (much like a religious person quoting scripture to an atheist as a method to argue a point - it just won't register) In Lucky's world - using a micro-economic perspective (personal, or business finance assumptions for exaple) as an analogy doesn't register on his radar. And in that narrow point - I'd agree with him that it would be too much of a stretch. Idealizing one's personal financial morals and trying to overlay them on a large country's financial goals is just as abstract a discussion as his version on the other side. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #265 October 15, 2009 QuoteQuote3 - taxes/fees/etc have zero financial implications and are strictly a means of social engineering I wouldn't say they have zero implication, they just don't have a direcct implication upon any given individual. thanks, I get your points better - (doesn't mean I agree with them, but I understand where you are coming from a lot better). Did you mispeak above on 3? "they just don't have a direcct implication upon any given individual" certainly taxes and how much they take from any individual have a big impact..... unless you are talking about only those that don't get taxed at all - then any change in the rates doesn't "matter" to them because they aren't impacted........ (but then this attitude discounts the 53% of those that do pay income tax of some amount or the other) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #266 October 15, 2009 Quote Perhaps, but if the gov opens let's say HC to all and it costs 1T over a decade, will that cost me more? No. Will it cost you more? No. Will it cost 98% of all Americans more? No. So there really is no connection between taxation and most spending. OK, what then is the impact of another 1 trillion of government spending on the overall economy? I would like to understand what your concept of its economic impact is if it is: A. Financed through additional international borrowing. B. Financed through government increase in the money supply. C. Financed through corporate and individual tax increases? If we are discussing the impact on a individual level please explain how most are insulated from all of the different economic impacts of the increased spending?"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alge 0 #267 October 16, 2009 This is the best explanation of the 2009 Nobel peace price I've seen so far: http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/terminatrix.gif Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
