justinb138

This is why you don't trust politicians, especially when it comes to economics.

I thought the plan was to skip the landmines and just put piranhas in the river.

Do you realize how ridiculous of an argument that is? Wow, another "it's Bush's fault", surprised yet again. *** Right, thinking like your heroes; tax cuts my friends. The thinking I'm referring to is trying to "fix" short term symptoms of long-term problems. "Bush's fault" yet again? Nice. Care to compare the dollar to the price of gold since Jan. 2009? Jan. 21 - $852.70/oz Nov. 25 - $1192.10/oz Ignoring half of the equation (spending) like you repeatedly do isn't logic at all. *** I'll ask again: SO WHEN BESIDES NEVER ARE YOU GOING TO TELL US WHAT YOU WOULD DO TO FIX YOUR PRESIDENT'S MESS? I'd start by not doing the exact things that he did, which is exactly what Obama is doing - continuing the mess, only much, much faster. After that? Tell congress they're not getting my signature on anything until there's a balanced budget. Next? Get out of the middle east. Then? End the war on drugs. Then? End the Fed. Then? Flat tax. It's a long list. 1. Not make it worse, which is all that Obama is doing. If you think hoover didn't intervene to try and fix things, you can add History to the list of things you don't understand, in addition to basic economics. Well, government certainly hasn't fixed it, which isn't surprising, considering they created it. How many recessions has government "fixed"? If I didn't give a fuck, I'd say let the politicians have at it. How can the politicians fix something that they couldn't even predict, despite the fact that a few prominent economists were telling them exactly what was going to happen? You think I have the time to go through 47 of them? The fact that there's been 47 of them is a pretty good indicator that keynesianism has failed, along with the government, and the fed. You're right, Harding didn't fuck it up like Bush did and Obama is doing. Hoover didn't do what Harding did, he did the opposite. Once again: History, try it sometime. I wouldn't expect you to understand it if I did.

Yes, because the strength of the currency is purely of an aesthetic value to the country. What good is any attempt to reduce the cost of something if the money used to purchase it has no value? It's thinking like that which has got us into this very situation. Okay, okay, we get the point that you have no other argument than "It's bushes fault". Because they're so good at managing money? You forget we're 12 trillion dollars in debt? What good is being able to borrow money if inflation is so high it has no value? You mean let the government try and fix it like they did? Or should they let it correct itself like it did in 1920? The tough stance? He took the politically convenient stance, not the tough stance. Now that's almost laughable. I'm thinking we should focus on where it came from as well. Another "It's Bush's fault". How surprising. And if you think what we have is true capitalism, you're an idiot.

If politicians are capable of providing health care at a reduced cost, why haven't they fixed medicare at some point in the last 44 years? It's a simple question. That's quite an assumption you're making about my opinions not being my own. If they're not mine, then do you care to tell me who's opinion it is? Then in my opinion you're quite gullible. Where did talk shows come into this? If you're implying that I watch TV, much less talk shows, you're quite wrong.

How's it going to do that while saving money? How much does medicare save? Surely if politicians are able to accomplish cost savings with this plan they're capable of fixing medicare right? If so, then why haven't they? So they're going to take money from the insurance companies and give it back to the insurance companies? Assuming that involves no cost (which it doesn't), how does that save any money? So you're agreeing with me? Do you think that because the bill says it will make healthcare cheaper that it's actually going to do that? Do you believe the Patriot Act was only going to be used to combat terrorism too? Except it's not really cheaper, it's just subsidized. Costs stay the same or increase, the only difference is someone else is footing the bill.

Because our assumptions are based on logic and reality, rather than hope and utopian ideals.

Your argument is based on the fallacy that the public government option will somehow be competitive with the private insurers, despite the fact that it derives a part of it's funding by levying taxes on those very same companies, in addition to having the ability to "regulate" them. Let's say 1% of people that have private insurance switch to the "public option". The government now has to not only pay for that 1%'s health care, they have to deal with the reduced tax income from the insurance company they left. What do they do? Raise those taxes, which in turn causes the private insurer to raise their rates, sending another 1% of people to the public option. Should we talk about how the increased fees on the drug companies are going to raise insurers' costs also? Since it eliminates the pre-existing condition issue, what motive is there to keep people from waiting until they get sick/injured to buy coverage? The tax you have to pay for not having it? So long as paying that tax is cheaper than the insurance, it's still cheaper not to get insurance.

We spend 15- 20x as much each year on just the interest on the national debt.

My gripe with this is that it seems more like an anti-obama doctrine than a pro-individual rights doctrine. I think that about sums up the purpose of the thing right there. "We'll accept anyone that will help us beat the democrats." It's no wonder that 73% of R. voters say that the party leadership has lost touch with their base.

Sorry for the thread drift but what are "friction lines". I'm assuming they're referring to lines that come into contact with the slider.

If I thought for a second you'd listen, I would. You're telling everyone how bad it was and how everything was all wrong, while at the same time continuing to do the exact same things. 1. STOP SPENDING SO MUCH FUCKING MONEY. There is no money. We were out of money 12 trillion dollars ago. It's just digging the hole that much deeper, and that's not even considering the inflationary consequences. 2. STOP TRYING TO POLICE THE WORLD. Pissing off half the world and then having to defend against the likely results of such actions is a shitty idea. How about just not pissing off everyone in the first place? 3. STOP CREATING MORAL HAZARD THEN TRYING TO REGULATE THE INHERENT PROBLEMS AWAY. Don't pressure banks into giving people mortgages for which they wouldn't otherwise qualify, supply them with cheap, easy credit, and then try to regulate them into not taking advantage of it. The solution? Don't create the situation in the first place, and there's nothing to regulate. That clear enough for you?

Ajax (Asynchronous JAvascript & XML) really isn't specific to a server technology, as Javascript & XML are key parts to the majority of the frameworks that are out there. It's just a technique used to provide a better UI experience. Regarding facebook, I believe they use some sort of LAMP-based proprietary framework. More info here .

It's possible to pour gasoline on a fire you didn't start. You understand that concept, right? The Fed is responsible for the drought, Bush lit the fire, and Obama's the 45mph wind. There are no firemen in sight.

True, but it's difficult when you have 530+ people in Washington that are unwilling (or unable) to consider any solution that doesn't involve themselves.

How many of those private universities have their tuition rates and admissions standards set by their "competing" public universities? People will pay for private services if they can afford to and perceive that the service is better. Education is a perfect example of this. The argument that a public option will kill the private is totally bogus. You going to answer the question or not?

How many of those private universities have their tuition rates and admissions standards set by their "competing" public universities?

That's a fair argument. I am curious to see how/if this affects President Obama's promise not to raise taxes on incomes less than $200K/$250K. If the employee has a FSP/Cafeteria plan, their taxes will indeed go up. From the little I've read so far, little here seems to actually look at reducing costs, which was what the whole argument about insurance reform was supposedly about once upon a time. This Table of the revenue provisions seems to drive up a lot of costs (italics my comments): Going back to Section 9005, that one is going to hurt a fair number of folks: Now, I may not be reading this correctly, but here's my dumb-speak on this: Employer contributes to Jack's health plan, $5,000/year. Jack's health plan costs $7,000/year. Jack pays the balance of the premium. He does so through pre-tax payroll deductions. Jack as a wife and one child. Jack also takes pre-tax payroll deductions into an FSP of $500/month ($6,000/year). Jack uses the FSP to pay for deductibles, co-pays, eye-glasses, whatever is covered, or not by the health plan. Jack's salary is $72,000/year gross. With his FSP and health care reductions done pre-tax, his taxable income is $66,000. These new rules would require Jack to reduce his FSP withholding, essentially raising his taxes. Under the current code, his bracket at $66K/year is 15%. He loses $3500 for his FSP, and now his salary is $69,500, which ups his bracket to 25%. But, it gets worse than that, because when the tax cuts expire, his bracket will have already increased to 27% (starting at a paltry $47K). Of course, we'll see how that pans out when President Obama lays out his tax plan, and we'll see if he sticks to that campaign promise. Did you get a chance to read this section: Does this entail simply listing the cost of the employer's cost of the coverage, or does it seek to include the employer-paid portion of the coverage as income? I tried scrolling through the 2000+ pages to find it, but wasn't able to. Did I miss something, or are the page numbers for each section/sub-section not listed?

Thanks for confirming my assumption.

Well, at this point we can be certain it's not Obama. His solution to all that "republican debt" is to double it. More fear mongering from the same people that are leading the fundie right... instead of working to make a difference your talking heads come up with more scare tactics with complete horseshit to scare stupid people... which I have to admit.. is a hell of a lot of the American people who sold their souls to these fucknuggets over the last 30 years. Personally I think this will be a far better country in the next 8 years if the Party of No will pull their heads out of their asses. Yes, yes, more fear mongering about the skyrocketing national debt by that evil "fundie right" CBO. Personally I think this will be a much better country in the next 8 years if people finally realize politicians on both sides of the aisle are full of shit. So are you capable of having a discussion without going off into a childish insult-laden tirade about the right or not? Why bother All you have to do is look at the daily spewage from those of you on the right... whining about anything and everything.. and all you got is tea bags for answers I'll take that as a no.

Well, at this point we can be certain it's not Obama. His solution to all that "republican debt" is to double it. More fear mongering from the same people that are leading the fundie right... instead of working to make a difference your talking heads come up with more scare tactics with complete horseshit to scare stupid people... which I have to admit.. is a hell of a lot of the American people who sold their souls to these fucknuggets over the last 30 years. Personally I think this will be a far better country in the next 8 years if the Party of No will pull their heads out of their asses. Yes, yes, more fear mongering about the skyrocketing national debt by that evil "fundie right" CBO. Personally I think this will be a much better country in the next 8 years if people finally realize politicians on both sides of the aisle are full of shit. So are you capable of having a discussion without going off into a childish insult-laden tirade about the right or not?

Well, at this point we can be certain it's not Obama. His solution to all that "republican debt" is to double it.

Fixed it for you.

Probably a fair assessment for most politicians.

Lets say the situation is a little different: An officer responds to the call, and as he/she is walking up to the residence, witnesses the mother using a taser on the daughter. Which of the two would be taking a ride in the back of the police car?