Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by metallicalec on Feb 2, 2010 2:52:54 GMT -5
k dogg thats an epic chart, not gonna lie. one of the greatest mysteries that i have is how bush did increase the deficit by that much during those good economic times. Obama is yelled at a lot for adding to the deficit, but its because he has to to save the country from a worse recession. he's certainly not perfect, but at least he's trying to fix the problems
W didn't pay for fucking anything up front and borrowed it all. Iraq? Borrowed money. Afghanistan? Borrowed money. Tax cuts? You guessed it: more borrowed money... thankfully those expire at the end of this calendar year and will not be renewed.
Why pay those bills while you're in charge when your associates can attack your successor for not fixing it fast enough after you're gone? Seems like a win-win situation as far as the GOP is concerned.
bring back clinton! the worst thing he ever did was be an adulterer. i'll take that. haha.
did anyone catch the past couple of nights with jon stewart on the bill o'reilly show? it was pretty interesting. and i have to be honest, the person who annoyed me the most wasn't o'reilly but laura ingraham. what a twat! i'm usually pretty good about respecting other's opinions but i really HATE holier than thou asshats.
also, wtf is up with FOX news and their army of blond women???? throughout the show, o'reilly had at least 4 women on the show and they were ALL blond.
p.s. corn should be legal, oreilly. how is it any worse than you knocking back 10 beers??
Last Edit: Feb 6, 2010 11:09:28 GMT -5 by EAP - Back to Top
The main thing Bush did that was different from Clinton was stop taking in money and increase spending. Clinton's receipts and outlays as a percent of GDP were always around 20% in and 18% out. Bush's were reverse at 17.5% in and 20% out.
And I'm sick of hearing about the "great" economy under Bush. There was no such thing by any objective measure. The annual growth in GDP was only 2.6%, a third less than the "normal" of 3.7 for the previous 3 economic cycles. Investment and consumption took twice as long to recover (18 quarter) as compared with normal recoveries. The stock market was lethargic holding around 10,000 for all of the Bush years with a maximum increase of 27% and eventually losing 25% over his 8 years. (Clinton's market rose 362%, max increase of 438%)
And this Great economy was not felt by most. The median rise in household income during Bush's term was 2.3% (with a 2.8% avg inflation rate) as compared with Clinton's 3.9% (with an avg Inflation rate of 2.6%) And the lowest wage earners did worst under Bush at less than 2% annual wage increase, compared to more than 5% under Clinton.
Also job creation was horrible under Bush, actually the slowest since the Labor Dept started keeping records in 1939. Bush averaged 375,000 per year , compared to Clinton's 2.9 million per year and approximately 2 million per year for every two term President in the last half century.
This equates to an annual payroll expansion of 2.3%(Bush) vs. 21.1%(Clinton) or 17% (avg 2-term Presidents.) Even Carter has better job creation numbers.
Now Obama is way too early to make any comparisons. He's starting with a huge deficit, two wars, and a massive recession. Let's just hope things get better, not worse.
i like how this thread simply seems to stall if there arent people like me to shake things up a bit. i have basically stayed out of here for the simple reason that everyone always wants documentation/links for everything said...its a message board, not a paper for school.
anywho, im just curious what all you probama people think in regards to the health care summit coming up this week. i know that you all see the rethuglicans as "the party of no", however, they have brought up ideas with regards to health care...just ideas that the majority party does not like. also, how does obama hope to achieve bipartisanship on this bill if the dems have just combined their bills into one, and that is going to be the template for health care? what is the point of debate?
i like how this thread simply seems to stall if there arent people like me to shake things up a bit. i have basically stayed out of here for the simple reason that everyone always wants documentation/links for everything said...its a message board, not a paper for school.
You haven't posted for 4 pages, so I'd say this thread does just fine without you.
And you need to provide sources for the things you post here because you have a history of saying things that are demonstrably false. If you want to spread misinformation, that's your choice, but don't be surprised when people call you on it. Most of us provide links because it helps to establish our credibility when people can see where our ideas come from. It's not about writing a school paper; it's about discussing politics like an adult.
i know that you all see the rethuglicans as "the party of no", however, they have brought up ideas with regards to health care...just ideas that the majority party does not like.
Out of curiosity, what are some of the health care ideas you're thinking of that Reps have brought up and Dems don't like?
just because someone doesnt post a link to an argument does not make that argument false. i seem to remember several in this thread denying that reps have any ideas regarding health care reform. of course, myself and i forget who else, did not put any links up disproving this so everyone took it as gospel.
i wont deny that i have made some quacked up statements that i shouldnt have done more fact-checking. however, most of what i write on here is fact-based, just not what is reported in liberal media, so most will never know there is truth to what i say. but then again, i guess you all know i dont watch news media where the reporters get "tingling sensations" running up there leg when obama enters a room.
anywho, still doesnt answer the question of, how can this health care summit be of any value if the dems are not starting over. basically, they are saying "here is what we want, and what we are going to get. what do you want to add or change to make it bipartisan?"
i guess theres nothing to praise obama about these days.
No argument from me on that point.
anywho, still doesnt answer the question of, how can this health care summit be of any value if the dems are not starting over. basically, they are saying "here is what we want, and what we are going to get. what do you want to add or change to make it bipartisan?"
The way I see it is that at this summit, both parties will be able to draw from their own proposals to create a bipartisan bill. The Dems draw up their version and the GOP draws up their version of a bill. They get to the summit, Obama says "What do you guys want?" The GOP looks to their proposal and says "We want Tort Reform and the ability to buy insurance across state lines." Ok, so that's included. Now what do the Dems want? Stop insurance companies from denying health care due to a previous condition and/or cutting insurance when you get sick. Ok. This goes back and forth and the American people can see what each party is fighting for. I don't think this is a "trap" for Republicans unless their strategy really is to just say "no" to everything.
which i would hope their strategy is not to just say no (i hope that isnt a double negative, and then my words will be misconstued as they have in the past). however, when you have dems talking reconcilation, it kind of takes away from the bipartisan feeling. if it works the way you say mrkc, then i can live with that.
also, a lot of times my words are misunderstood. for example, i never said that the h1n1 vaccine was bad, as people on here have said i stated. all i said was that the govt will rush anything out just for the sake of getting something out. my point was never to start a scare, or say that one will get sick or die if they had the vaccine. a major example of people hearing/reading what they want is the whole rush limbaugh wanting obama to fail example. rush never once said that he wants obama to fail...he wants obamas policies (huge govt taking over the private sector) to fail. however, take it as you want. if you want to think that i was trying to start an h1n1 vaccine scare on inforoo, then by all means, think that.
Post by nitetimeritetime on Feb 21, 2010 21:00:50 GMT -5
I don't recall anyone accusing you of starting an H1N1 scare.
The objections as I remember them were that you were (and are still, apparently) blaming the govt for rushing out the vaccine, when in fact a private company was responsible for that. The govt was responsible for the recall of the vaccine, not the production of it.
Maybe somebody did accuse you of starting an H1N1 scare, but as far as I remember, people were rightly accusing you of blaming the govt for something that was not the govt's fault.
working in the health industry, and knowing for a fact because my dad gave out plenty of the vaccine, the health department is where the vaccines came from. who controls the health dept's...wait for it...the govt. true, a private company made the vaccine, but it was the govt that said "gimme gimme gimme, so i can give give give"
Post by nitetimeritetime on Feb 21, 2010 21:11:20 GMT -5
Just went back and looked, and it appears the H1N1 exchange you were talking about is on page 29 28 of this thread. I can't see where anybody accused you of starting an H1N1 scare. I do see where we accused you of manufacturing a govt crisis that didn't exist, however. This is why everybody wants proof whenever you show up here.
working in the health industry, and knowing for a fact because my dad gave out plenty of the vaccine, the health department is where the vaccines came from. who controls the health dept's...wait for it...the govt. true, a private company made the vaccine, but it was the govt that said "gimme gimme gimme, so i can give give give"
Wow, so the gov't wanted a vaccine for a disease? And the health dept distributed it so people could actually get it? No way! This is unheard of!
Simply put, Reaganomics gave our economy cancer. That's more or less my assessment of the problems manifesting themselves recently.
This is so true...the "trickle down" theory never quite trickled down enough to my level. Obama gets criticized for not cleaning up the idiot... I mean person before him's mess. In 8 short years, I learned how you could be so inept and have NO clue and still get to be in the public eye. I still think if, at ANY time, you voted for Bush, you owe the country an apology. Should read like this....
"I am sorry I voted for one of the top 6 worst presidents in the history of the United States of America. Even if I am Republican, I should have known better. I am truly sorry and will NEVER vote someone this moronic in office again."
And as far as our former VP goes, didn't he shoot his best friend? Guess I do not have to say much more than that about Mr. Haliburton I mean Mr. Cheaney. Now, he goes around criticizing the current administration. Does he not realize that in a recent poll, he was part of the 6th worst ever team in the white house???
I am a Democrat but I do not always vote on party lines. If there is a set of idiots running (aka Bush and Cheaney) that were demos, I would HAVE to vote Republican just because I have seen first hand what happens when they get in office....a steady decline and so many stupid quotes that comedians have enough material for years.
P.S. Did the former prez just stay in Texas WAYYYYY too long during his 8 year tenure of mediocrity or was it just me?
Providing an outlet and a voice for music lovers to unite under the common theme of music for all. Join The Pondo Army to show your allegiance to musical freedom! Fighting for no censorship of the arts & music education in schools, The Pondo Army will triumph! The Pondo Army Movement
Follow me on twitter@Pondoknowsbest
And as far as our former VP goes, didn't he shoot his best friend? Guess I do not have to say much more than that about Mr. Haliburton I mean Mr. Cheaney. Now, he goes around criticizing the current administration. Does he not realize that in a recent poll, he was part of the 6th worst ever team in the white house???
I'm curious to know more about this poll... was it possibly an updated Schlesinger survey of historians/academics? And who were the other five?
Also, maybe just thinking out loud here... Anyone remember Al Gore catching hell for speaking out against the Iraq War? Even then, he had waited a few years before stepping up. Gore didn't spend the better part of eight years boosting the notion of an unquestioned, more unitary executive either...
P.S. Did the former prez just stay in Texas WAYYYYY too long during his 8 year tenure of mediocrity or was it just me?
Allow me to formulate a rough estimate of W's vacation time.
W presidency = (8 years + 2 leap days) = 2,922 days.
W vacation = 490 days/77 visits to the Crawford ranch 487 days/149 visits to Camp David Those equal 977 days away from the White House over those eight years - and that's just counting the ranch & Camp David.
My rough estimate of the time W spent on vacation: 977/2922 = 33.44%
I'm sure there will be a ton of hemming, hawing and criticism, along with plenty of reporting about what teabaggers think about the bill, and very little reporting about the bill's actual provisions. But I think it has a good chance of passing, which will save a ton of lives and greatly improve public health in this country.
I'm sure there will be a ton of hemming, hawing and criticism, along with plenty of reporting about what teabaggers think about the bill, and very little reporting about the bill's actual provisions. But I think it has a good chance of passing, which will save a ton of lives and greatly improve public health in this country.
Someone will say something and it will be taken out of context and the news will focus on that comment/statement more than the actual parts of the bill. The news networks are in it for the ratings and not for reporting the news.
It means relative to the Senate bill. For people buying their own coverage (as opposed to through an employer), families earning below $88k will be subsidized. The subsidies stay (roughly) the same between the White House and Senate proposals for people earning between $44k and $66k, but the White House subsidies are more generous than the Senate bill subsidies for those less than $44k or between $66k and $88k.
If health care costs more than that, you get a tax credit to cover the difference (although there are restrictions on how generous a plan you can buy).
which i would hope their strategy is not to just say no (i hope that isnt a double negative, and then my words will be misconstued as they have in the past). however, when you have dems talking reconcilation, it kind of takes away from the bipartisan feeling. if it works the way you say mrkc, then i can live with that.
It's a two way street. I'm sure that's how the Dems must feel when the GOP says "no" to every single thing they've tried to do this year. From low-level appointees all the way down to renaming a Post Office.
also, a lot of times my words are misunderstood. for example, i never said that the h1n1 vaccine was bad, as people on here have said i stated. all i said was that the govt will rush anything out just for the sake of getting something out. my point was never to start a scare, or say that one will get sick or die if they had the vaccine. a major example of people hearing/reading what they want is the whole rush limbaugh wanting obama to fail example. rush never once said that he wants obama to fail...he wants obamas policies (huge govt taking over the private sector) to fail. however, take it as you want. if you want to think that i was trying to start an h1n1 vaccine scare on inforoo, then by all means, think that.
From RushLimbaugh.com: "I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it. . . I could say I hope he fails and I could do a brief explanation of why. You know, I want to win. If my party doesn't, I do. If my party has sacrificed the whole concept of victory, sorry, I'm now the Republican in name only, and they are the sellouts. I'm serious about this."