On September 13 2011 22:49 SySLeif wrote: Religious fruitloop? Religious people live longer, more happy and fullfilling lives. Also most of the greatest men of all time were religious.
According to whom?
If your referring to another as in another "Bush" then I would rather see another Bush than any democrat. I would rather keep my freedoms than have them taken from the government. America is to diverse to have a single set of rules an laws for everyone, hence more power should be dispersed into more local communities.
Yeah, the Patriot Act was a monumental win in the battle for freedom... Sigh
Now why was Bush a bad president? When the democrats took over in 2006 (House and Senate) unemployment was still just above 5%?
Thank the housing bubble for that one, and how was Bush a bad president? Can you seriously ask that question with a straight face?
It took Barack Obama 2 years to make the debt that Bush did in 8.
Amazing to think that in some cases you actually have to spend money to dig yourself out of a hole - why is this so tough to comprehend?
Also since you seem to love the Rove kool-aid: "deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney.
Even though we had 9/11 he still stood strong when he said we were going to war. It takes a man to do that, and he did it with 70% of Americans behind him.
It takes a real 'man' to go awol during your national guard tenure. It takes a real man to paint your opponent (a true war hero in John Kerry) as a liberal pussy as well. Probably 70% of the world was behind the U.S. after 9/11 - nobody had any problem with Afghanistan, Iraq was the issue. While you and your ilk sat there flag waving and fist pumping about some imaginary weapons of mass destruction (forget the fact that they even tried to tie in an Al-Qaeda link first) the rest of the world was face-palming.
Also Bush had to cleanup a huge mess Clinton left behind... You know the mess where "O well nobody should be discriminated against during a loan application on how much they make a year."
Yeah, thank god Bush figured away to get rid of that huge budget surplus.
And now America is in a debt recession where most of the country is paying debts instead of buying things with their money earned.
Oh Jesus, you think this is something new? This shit has been going on since Reagan (probably the worst president in US history) was in office. You can thank him for putting in the policies that slowly started to flush your country down the shitter.
Stop trolling the republicans and get on with your life.
Get informed.
Reagan was one of the best presidents of the modern times economically. FDR and Carter were some of the worst.
Clinton's policies were a major cause in the housing bubble.
Bush did over-spend on military, and he tried to stop the bubble from bursting with bad monetary policy so he could get reelected, which made it bigger, but Clinton is the one who helped start it. He wasn't at all a great president economically.
and no, you don't need to spend money to get out of the hole. The hole is that we're spending too much money. Stimulus doesn't work at all even on a theoretical level, and Obama continues to push for more. and spending money on Obamacare isn't a way to get out of this hole ever.
you're the one who needs to get informed.
You're so wrong it's astounding.
Reaganomics were so full of shit it's not even funny. BTW, Reagan increased taxes when he was in office. Surprise!
The housing bubble? Yeah, that's a result of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act. Yes, Clinton did sign it, but it was also passed under a Republican congress. And again, we had a surplus under Clinton as a direct result of his policies. Don't make shit up. And yeah, to get out of a hole, you need to promote economic growth. Economic growth only occurs in times of increased demand for consumption. Increased demand for consumption only occurs when people have more disposable income. In other words, the only way to promote economic growth is to make sure people have more money to spend, which is what the stimulus bill did. And according to a number of institutions (including the Princeton Review), the stimulus was a great idea that wasn't big enough to work because it got cut down repeatedly due to demands from the Republicans in congress, because Obama wanted to compromise and work with them instead of telling them to go fuck themselves.
BTW, Obamacare? Yeah, another word made up by Republicans to make it sound like something really bad and dangerous. Surprise surprise, it's actually amazingly good for insurance companies, and it's not at all a liberal policy.
On September 13 2011 23:44 Kiarip wrote: Reagan was one of the best presidents of the modern times economically. FDR and Carter were some of the worst.
Seriously? Forget FDR and Carter for a half second here, we're talking about Reagan. Are you going to sit here and start feeding me some tripe about how a trickle-down economy actually works? It was a half brained theory to make the already rich even more so, it didn't work in theory and it sure as hell didn't work in practice.
I don't see how his response was bad. He is libertarian, and what he said sounded like what a libertarian would say.
When ideological purity is considered more important than saving lives, you know that the society is well and truly fucked. At this rate, there will be little difference between the US and China in a decade or so. Wealth rules! I've got mine, fuck you! Nationalistic jingoism and flag waving and greatest country/people in the world... while you know, lagging behind everyone else but propaganda says otherwise.
also note that if the healthcare system is driven by an actual free market then healthcare wouldn't be so fucking expensive.
LOL
Tell people that get Ill that the free market just fucked them in the ass... Or how do you want the "free market" to work?
Free market in health care means: People with serious illness that are not rich (REALLY RICH) DIE.
you're so friggin dumb.
use your head. Medical care is something that has a limited demand per person. there's a lot less rich people than poor people, if only rich people could afford medical care from company #1 for instance, then company #2 that would provide medical care to a much larger population for less money would drive company #1 out of business.
Please leave your unbased socialist biases outside when you decide to post in this thread.
It doesn't work at all. Sure, some people get their goods, but you're working under the mistaken assumption that A: companies will find their profit maximizing point at supplying to everyone (or nearly everyone). It may be that they make more money by only supplying health care to half the country. B: companies won't monopolize and get in the way of other companies attempting to help out. C: even if other companies step in and even if it's not too much money, some people simply will not be able to afford it. Should those people be doomed just because they aren't wealthy?
And I still don't for the life of me understand why socialism is still a dirty word in this country. Just what, precisely, is wrong with the idea of helping out those who need help and can't help themselves? We're not exactly preaching putting everyone on the same income level here.
There's nothing wrong with helping people. There's something wrong with forcing people to help people, especially in a way that is economically inefficient.
The truth is some procedures are actually expensive. and even now there's people who are very poor, but also very sick, and they will never make it. free market won't help these cases, and neither will socialism without a gigantic taxing burden.
you're acting like the government doesn't keep people that are trying to help out of the way. Why do you think there's all these licenses? Its because the lobbyists of medical groups want to decrease the competition, so they lobby government to implement licenses. competition goes down, prices go up.
also, while there is significant portions of population that don't get healthcare that still have SOME income, there will be a niche for a company to provide healthcare that is lower quality but more affordable.
so the vast majority will be insured or have access to some healthcare, and for those that are in absolutely horrible situations there's like ron paul said churches, charities, families, friends, maybe loans, neighbors, etc. People that are willing to help are there. If you're so willing to help (im not saying that i'm not btw) then how about you get your taxes dramatically cut, and then you donate a portion the size of your choice of your money to charity the purpose of which is to help give healthcare to the very poor, this way there's way less of your money getting lost in the bureaucratic sinkholes, because a private enterprise can't afford to have such things or it will be out-competed (yes charities also compete with each other.)
On September 13 2011 22:49 SySLeif wrote: Religious fruitloop? Religious people live longer, more happy and fullfilling lives. Also most of the greatest men of all time were religious.
According to whom?
If your referring to another as in another "Bush" then I would rather see another Bush than any democrat. I would rather keep my freedoms than have them taken from the government. America is to diverse to have a single set of rules an laws for everyone, hence more power should be dispersed into more local communities.
Yeah, the Patriot Act was a monumental win in the battle for freedom... Sigh
Now why was Bush a bad president? When the democrats took over in 2006 (House and Senate) unemployment was still just above 5%?
Thank the housing bubble for that one, and how was Bush a bad president? Can you seriously ask that question with a straight face?
It took Barack Obama 2 years to make the debt that Bush did in 8.
Amazing to think that in some cases you actually have to spend money to dig yourself out of a hole - why is this so tough to comprehend?
Also since you seem to love the Rove kool-aid: "deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney.
Even though we had 9/11 he still stood strong when he said we were going to war. It takes a man to do that, and he did it with 70% of Americans behind him.
It takes a real 'man' to go awol during your national guard tenure. It takes a real man to paint your opponent (a true war hero in John Kerry) as a liberal pussy as well. Probably 70% of the world was behind the U.S. after 9/11 - nobody had any problem with Afghanistan, Iraq was the issue. While you and your ilk sat there flag waving and fist pumping about some imaginary weapons of mass destruction (forget the fact that they even tried to tie in an Al-Qaeda link first) the rest of the world was face-palming.
Also Bush had to cleanup a huge mess Clinton left behind... You know the mess where "O well nobody should be discriminated against during a loan application on how much they make a year."
Yeah, thank god Bush figured away to get rid of that huge budget surplus.
And now America is in a debt recession where most of the country is paying debts instead of buying things with their money earned.
Oh Jesus, you think this is something new? This shit has been going on since Reagan (probably the worst president in US history) was in office. You can thank him for putting in the policies that slowly started to flush your country down the shitter.
Stop trolling the republicans and get on with your life.
Get informed.
Reagan was one of the best presidents of the modern times economically. FDR and Carter were some of the worst.
Clinton's policies were a major cause in the housing bubble.
Bush did over-spend on military, and he tried to stop the bubble from bursting with bad monetary policy so he could get reelected, which made it bigger, but Clinton is the one who helped start it. He wasn't at all a great president economically.
and no, you don't need to spend money to get out of the hole. The hole is that we're spending too much money. Stimulus doesn't work at all even on a theoretical level, and Obama continues to push for more. and spending money on Obamacare isn't a way to get out of this hole ever.
you're the one who needs to get informed.
Honestly, saying Clinton wasn't great economically just takes away all your posting credibility.
You cannot argue with facts. Clinton abolished an entitlement program(welfare reform), he lowered spending, turned a deficit into a surplus, I mean the list goes on, he even slammed NAFTA (your precious free-trade badgering on socialism a few posts up) down Congress's throat.
Bush, on the other hand, did things like RAISE spending on defense, the war, created entitlements(prescription drugs), steel tariffs(OMG NOT FREE TRADE socialism! helping those poor companies), agriculture subsidies(omg more dirty socialism for poor farmers).
You can't possibly be this blind for someone who is -seemingly- semi-informed. A major cause of the housing bubble, Clinton's policies? What about CONGRESS for both sides during the Clinton era? BUSH and CONGRESS (Ownership society!) during Bush's tenure. Sure Clinton's overeager drive to have everyone push towards owning a home contributed, but what about the HUNDREDS of other politicians that helped vote these policies through, are they not to blame too?
On September 13 2011 22:49 SySLeif wrote: Religious fruitloop? Religious people live longer, more happy and fullfilling lives. Also most of the greatest men of all time were religious.
According to whom?
If your referring to another as in another "Bush" then I would rather see another Bush than any democrat. I would rather keep my freedoms than have them taken from the government. America is to diverse to have a single set of rules an laws for everyone, hence more power should be dispersed into more local communities.
Yeah, the Patriot Act was a monumental win in the battle for freedom... Sigh
Now why was Bush a bad president? When the democrats took over in 2006 (House and Senate) unemployment was still just above 5%?
Thank the housing bubble for that one, and how was Bush a bad president? Can you seriously ask that question with a straight face?
It took Barack Obama 2 years to make the debt that Bush did in 8.
Amazing to think that in some cases you actually have to spend money to dig yourself out of a hole - why is this so tough to comprehend?
Also since you seem to love the Rove kool-aid: "deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney.
Even though we had 9/11 he still stood strong when he said we were going to war. It takes a man to do that, and he did it with 70% of Americans behind him.
It takes a real 'man' to go awol during your national guard tenure. It takes a real man to paint your opponent (a true war hero in John Kerry) as a liberal pussy as well. Probably 70% of the world was behind the U.S. after 9/11 - nobody had any problem with Afghanistan, Iraq was the issue. While you and your ilk sat there flag waving and fist pumping about some imaginary weapons of mass destruction (forget the fact that they even tried to tie in an Al-Qaeda link first) the rest of the world was face-palming.
Also Bush had to cleanup a huge mess Clinton left behind... You know the mess where "O well nobody should be discriminated against during a loan application on how much they make a year."
Yeah, thank god Bush figured away to get rid of that huge budget surplus.
And now America is in a debt recession where most of the country is paying debts instead of buying things with their money earned.
Oh Jesus, you think this is something new? This shit has been going on since Reagan (probably the worst president in US history) was in office. You can thank him for putting in the policies that slowly started to flush your country down the shitter.
Stop trolling the republicans and get on with your life.
Get informed.
Reagan was one of the best presidents of the modern times economically. FDR and Carter were some of the worst.
Clinton's policies were a major cause in the housing bubble.
Bush did over-spend on military, and he tried to stop the bubble from bursting with bad monetary policy so he could get reelected, which made it bigger, but Clinton is the one who helped start it. He wasn't at all a great president economically.
and no, you don't need to spend money to get out of the hole. The hole is that we're spending too much money. Stimulus doesn't work at all even on a theoretical level, and Obama continues to push for more. and spending money on Obamacare isn't a way to get out of this hole ever.
you're the one who needs to get informed.
You're so wrong it's astounding.
Reaganomics were so full of shit it's not even funny. BTW, Reagan increased taxes when he was in office. Surprise!
The housing bubble? Yeah, that's a result of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act. Yes, Clinton did sign it, but it was also passed under a Republican congress. And again, we had a surplus under Clinton as a direct result of his policies. Don't make shit up. And yeah, to get out of a hole, you need to promote economic growth. Economic growth only occurs in times of increased demand for consumption. Increased demand for consumption only occurs when people have more disposable income. In other words, the only way to promote economic growth is to make sure people have more money to spend, which is what the stimulus bill did. And according to a number of institutions (including the Princeton Review), the stimulus was a great idea that wasn't big enough to work because it got cut down repeatedly due to demands from the Republicans in congress, because Obama wanted to compromise and work with them instead of telling them to go fuck themselves.
BTW, Obamacare? Yeah, another word made up by Republicans to make it sound like something really bad and dangerous. Surprise surprise, it's actually amazingly good for insurance companies, and it's not at all a liberal policy.
Get your shit together.
the second half of Reagan's presidency wasn't as good as his first I agree.
of course there was surplus during Clinton that was the bubble growing.
Stimulus doesn't fucking work, how can it. You're taking money from people and giving it back to them but less of it.
The economy doesn't grow from increased consumption... Consuming more than producing leads to debt... What people need to start doing is consuming less than we're producing, then export our excess, pay off our debt, then save real capital, and then invest that money so that we can produce more... There needs to be a recession because continuously giving people money to buy shit doesn't improve our economy, because buying shit doesn't increase the total number of shit to go around it simply redistributes it, and continues to send false signals to business that consumers can still afford more.
health care bill is longer to type than obama care, and it's terrible either way.
Honestly, saying Clinton wasn't great economically just takes away all your posting credibility.
You cannot argue with facts. Clinton abolished an entitlement program(welfare reform), he lowered spending, turned a deficit into a surplus, I mean the list goes on, he even slammed NAFTA (your precious free-trade badgering on socialism a few posts up) down Congress's throat.
Bush, on the other hand, did things like RAISE spending on defense, the war, created entitlements(prescription drugs), steel tariffs(OMG NOT FREE TRADE socialism! helping those poor companies), agriculture subsidies(omg more dirty socialism for poor farmers).
You can't possibly be this blind for someone who is -seemingly- semi-informed. A major cause of the housing bubble, Clinton's policies? What about CONGRESS for both sides during the Clinton era? BUSH and CONGRESS (Ownership society!) during Bush's tenure. Sure Clinton's overeager drive to have everyone push towards owning a home contributed, but what about the HUNDREDS of other politicians that helped vote these policies through, are they not to blame too?
Bush was terrible obviously. Clinton was better than Bush I'd never argue otherwise but he was also way less economically liberal than Obama, also some of his economic success was due to the growing housing market which was a bubble.
you're a keynesianism supporter... it's you don't believe in facts... this is hilarious.
don't tell me to get out, why are you in this thread? None of the candidates believe in your fairy tales, even they're not stupid enough to believe in that.
This shit has been going on since Reagan (probably the worst president in US history) was in office.
I can't tell if you're trolling or just that stupid. Either way I'll bite to stick up for my favorite president.
I never knew that being the worst president in U.S. history resulted from the following events...
- Having your citizens freed by Iran as soon as the word that you've been elected reaches them. - 20, 000, 000 jobs created over his tenure - Enacted TEFRA which closed many tax loopholes - Defeated our greatest enemy to date, the Soviet Union without firing a shot. - Reduced inflation levels from 12.5% to 4% - Purge unqualified recipients from SS while leaving Medicare intact. - Enacted legislation to combat the drug trade (You can't tell me this is a bad thing with all the baggage that drugs bring in terms of crime)
So unless you're a progressive who hates having man be independent from the chains of government, hates businesses for making money, being successful, and enriching the lives of thousands of successful people, and reviles the traditions of this country, there is no reason to think he's the worst president we've ever had.
Absolutely not, I neither said nor agreed with the stimulus. I was just laughing at your blatant attempts to place the housing bubble burst solely on Clinton.
On September 14 2011 00:07 jace32 wrote: yep like I said
You cannot argue with facts.
Get out.
you're a keynesianism supporter... it's you don't believe in facts... this is hilarious.
don't tell me to get out, why are you in this thread? None of the candidates believe in your fairy tales, even they're not stupid enough to believe in that.
Is this really what you do all day, label people? When did you decide I was a keynesianism supporter?
On September 14 2011 00:11 jace32 wrote: Absolutely not, I neither said nor agreed with the stimulus. I was just laughing at your blatant attempts to place the housing bubble burst solely on Clinton.
i didn't put the blame solely on Clinton... I said some of the credit he gets for what happened in this country economically is misplaced because it was also the signs of the growing bubble.
Without doubt, however, Clinton was the best president economically out of the last 3 we've had.
Is this really what you do all day, label people? When did you decide I was a keynesianism supporter?
thought you were lol'ing because I said that stimulus isn't a working solution.
someone who believes that more stimulus is the way to go is obviously supporting keynesianism.
From ninja edits, to ad hominems, to back peddling. Take a breath, I was just defending Clinton and pointing out the holes in your statements or 'defending my favorite president', as Pillage has just done.
On September 14 2011 00:19 jace32 wrote: From ninja edits, to ad hominems, to back peddling. Take a breath, I was just defending Clinton and pointing out the holes in your statements or 'defending my favorite president', as Pillage has just done.
...? you quoted a portion that contained my opinion on stimulus and you replied with lol.
I don't do ninja edits.
I never take stuff out I only add stuff in.
Black and white fallacy, but no wasn't loling at the stimulus.
okay, but according to keynes when economy is in recession you use the stimulus, it's the "solution" he takes credit for, so that's kind of the definition.
I agree that entitlements and welfare reform are one of the biggest problems in the country, but what I was saying is completely different.
Entitlement and welfare IS the biggest problem our country faces fiscally, as I've demonstrated in my previous posts. Democrats refuse to address these issues, which is why they do not have my support.
I'm just making the analysis that both sides can be equally susceptible to waste.
True, but when you look at who has a larger incentive to minimize waste, its the private sector by a long shot.
In my opinion, many of these spending programs are not inherently waste but instead have become wasteful and redundant due to circumstances where we haven't reformed programs in the last few years.
This we can agree on.
I think Obamacare was a huge reform of Medicare, so, yes they did address these issues.
Now, of course, whether or not it was a GOOD tackle of Medicare reform is entirely different. (And Republicans have no answer other than to cut spending without giving any specifics) I think that the individual mandate is questionable and there should be serious consideration as to whether or not it is constitutional or not.
But things such as eliminating discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, switching health records to electronic filing...I think those parts of Obama's reform were pretty well sounding and decent.
I do like some parts of the bill. However the "You have to pass it to see what's in it" mentality is rather disturbing, as well as the speed it was passed at. Does anyone even know inside and out what that 2500 page monster holds?
Moving on I don't like how involved government wants to be in the health insurance industry. Considering that they make the rules I find it hard to believe that when the private sector starts whoopin their ass (which you know is going to happen) that they will simply take it. They did this when Fedex and UPS started to blow them out of the water in terms of sales, and I fear they will do the same for insurance, monopolizing it, and putting me on the hook for numerous other people.
Edit: For clarification in the paragraph above I was talking about the supposed "public option"
This shit has been going on since Reagan (probably the worst president in US history) was in office.
I can't tell if you're trolling or just that stupid. Either way I'll bite to stick up for my favorite president.
I never knew that being the worst president in U.S. history resulted from the following events...
- Having your citizens freed by Iran as soon as the word that you've been elected reaches them. - 20, 000, 000 jobs created over his tenure - Enacted TEFRA which closed many tax loopholes - Defeated our greatest enemy to date, the Soviet Union without firing a shot. - Reduced inflation levels from 12.5% to 4% - Purge unqualified recipients from SS while leaving Medicare intact. - Enacted legislation to combat the drug trade (You can't tell me this is a bad thing with all the baggage that drugs bring in terms of crime)
So unless you're a progressive who hates having man be independent from the chains of government, hates businesses for making money, being successful, and enriching the lives of thousands of successful people, and reviles the traditions of this country, there is no reason to think he's the worst president we've ever had.
Get informed.
And he still found the time to hate homosexuals and cause the massacre of innocent Guatemalans. At least he defeated those evil Soviets tho
I agree that entitlements and welfare reform are one of the biggest problems in the country, but what I was saying is completely different.
Entitlement and welfare IS the biggest problem our country faces fiscally, as I've demonstrated in my previous posts. Democrats refuse to address these issues, which is why they do not have my support.
I'm just making the analysis that both sides can be equally susceptible to waste.
True, but when you look at who has a larger incentive to minimize waste, its the private sector by a long shot.
In my opinion, many of these spending programs are not inherently waste but instead have become wasteful and redundant due to circumstances where we haven't reformed programs in the last few years.
This we can agree on.
I think Obamacare was a huge reform of Medicare, so, yes they did address these issues.
Now, of course, whether or not it was a GOOD tackle of Medicare reform is entirely different. (And Republicans have no answer other than to cut spending without giving any specifics) I think that the individual mandate is questionable and there should be serious consideration as to whether or not it is constitutional or not.
But things such as eliminating discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, switching health records to electronic filing...I think those parts of Obama's reform were pretty well sounding and decent.
I do like some parts of the bill. However the "You have to pass it to see what's in it" mentality is rather disturbing. Does anyone even know inside and out what that 2500 page monster holds?
Moving on I don't like how involved government wants to be in the health insurance industry. Considering that they make the rules I find it hard to believe that when the private sector starts whoopin their ass (which you know is going to happen) that they will simply take it. They did this when Fedex and UPS started to blow them out of the water in terms of sales, and I fear they will do the same for insurance, monopolizing it, and putting me on the hook for numerous other people.
AS someone who works for UPS and benefits directly from our expansive healthcare, I'm very very VERY scared of Obamacare :[
EPT
(And Republicans have no answer other than to cut spending without giving any specifics) I think that the individual mandate is questionable and there should be serious consideration as to whether or not it is constitutional or not. 
