[Athens]

I vote option 3 and spending the money on preventing the NEED for every one to have a $2MM treatment in the first place.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This is true for junk food, but what about all of the other food that is disguised to not be junk food that is filled with corn syrup?

"Filled?" I'm willing to investigate if you give an example. But my feeling is that anything "filled" with any sort of sweetener is going to be bad for you regardless of what sweetener. And anything un-junky won't have enough sweetener to be concerned about in the first place.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"Filled?" I'm willing to investigate if you give an example. But my feeling is that anything "filled" with any sort of sweetener is going to be bad for you regardless of what sweetener. And anything un-junky won't have enough sweetener to be concerned about in the first place.

Princeton University - A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain

Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor says, its not all the same stuff.

Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM its a hour and a half long but well done. Goes into the bio-checmical process of the different sugars. And a bunch of other stuff.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Fructose and Methanol both sugars that are very similar. The only difference between Fructose and Methanol is that Methanol's by product when processed by the liver is also metablised by the brain causing you to have the drunk effect. They both result in beer guts and the same kind of liver damage.

I can't even... wow. Where are you getting this from?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I can't even... wow. Where are you getting this from?

Arr I mean Ethanol, and both it and HFCS have very similar effects on the body...

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Princeton University - A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain

I applaud you for giving a thorough link, with lots of good information, and one that seems very relevant to the question at hand. Unfortunately, I have to reveal some serious flaws with the study itself (which I went and looked up).

First, the main conclusions highlighted in the article were comparing between HFCS and "chow" (unsweetened regular rat food), NOT between HFCS and sucrose. This isn't just the reporter's fault either, the study itself also makes this comparison.

Here's one graph where they actually do include sucrose for comparison:


Not really all that much difference is there?

Here's the other one:


Notice how the first two columns (white and black, with a big difference) are corn syrup vs unsweetened chow. The ones relevant to our discussion are the second pair, white and gray for 12-h sucrose vs 12-h corn syrup. There's no significant difference!

These results aside, lab rats are not a terrific model for humans, they're kind of a couch potato or prisoner model (in this paper as in most, they are housed individually (ie solitary confinement, a stress condition for a social animal like rodents or humans)). They're stressed, they don't get much exercise, don't get much social interaction, and they don't get much intellectual enrichment. I think this is why there's such a huge weight gain even in the unsweetened chow condition. Anyway, take rodent studies with a grain of salt. no pun intended

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Arr I mean Ethanol, and both it and HFCS have very similar effects on the body...

Ethanol isn't a sugar either

[Athens]

Ethonal is made from sugar, a bi product but either way I made a new thread about this since its basically its own topic now. I was only pointing out that HFCS and our food in general has a bad effect on medical costs which does relate to debt. The finer points of HFCS should be moved to the other thread I created.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I vote option 3 and spending the money on preventing the NEED for every one to have a $2MM treatment in the first place.

There never was a NEED for anyone to have a $2MM treatment, not when there was already a $2 treatment that has been working perfectly for ages. The idea that as soon as something exists, everyone "needs" it is....

That $2MM each would be so much better spent on developing a way to get the same thing for $200 (or getting the $2 treatment delivered to Haitians who can't afford it even at 2¢)

[turtle777]

Can we get back on topic, the DEBT CEILING ?

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Can we get back on topic, the DEBT CEILING ?

There isn't one Turty. They're trying to make you think there is one, but there isn't.

I hereby recommend change of thread title to "Thieving irresponsible bastards politics".

[turtle777]

Let's call it a debt TARGET. The goal of the politicians is to hit it every year.

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Let's call it a debt TARGET. The goal of the politicians is to hit it every year.

[Shaddim]

Oh, you mean like those nifty Bull's Eye targets that some clever chaps place in urinals so that guys will actually pay attention to where they're pissing? Those are just brilliant.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Medical inflation is due to the lack of a free market. The people deciding what to buy are divorced from the people paying for it. And we keep inventing more and more expensive treatments. No amount of preventative care is going to change this.


Here's my solution to the economy. Tax narcotics. Seriously. We're totally failing to stop them, and we're wasting a fortune trying. Meanwhile gangs and warlords are collecting the profits that ought to be fueling our next great bubble economy.

I would say it also related to government regulations, procedure regulations, complication of interaction between free market insurance companies and lawsuits helping push the prices. Not just lack of free market. The US has a lot of administrative costs in its health care. Canada and the UK don't. Canada uses a single payer model which limits that part of things in a otherwise private market and the UK government does both the insurance and delivery. Japan sets the prices for everything, our single payer insurer negotiates prices with the private market.

Ok let me ask you this what would fix the problem you speak of, the lack of free market. Just so we are on the same page because from my perspective the medical is a totally free market which is why costs are so different from location to location and so high.

PS totally agree about taxing narcotics. Should just decriminalize them, control them and profit off them. A enormousness amount of crime would go down from it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Canada and the UK don't. Canada uses a single payer model which limits that part of things in a otherwise private market and the UK government does both the insurance and delivery.

Don't bring the UK into it - our NHS isn't far from going tits-up.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Don't bring the UK into it - our NHS isn't far from going tits-up.

I never said it was a good example. But it does have lower administration costs.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Just so we are on the same page because from my perspective the medical is a totally free market which is why costs are so different from location to location and so high.

I don't know what you're referring to.

[Athens]

Well isn't the medical in the US already a free market. I'm trying to understand what you mean due to lack of free market.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I'm going to honor turtle's request and let this thread be on topic for a while

[Athens]

Its on topic, a large portion of the debt is medical related. Obama has a hard on for medical reform to fix the debt. Why I moved the HFCS into a new thread. Projections of medical costs will create a much larger debt as well. You can't really talk about the debt politics with out social security, medical and defense spending being sub topics in it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Its on topic, a large portion of the debt is medical related. Obama has a hard on for medical reform to fix the debt.

Obama's hard-on for health care reform has zero to do with the debt. Look at the projections of debt as a result of Obamacare if you don't believe me. It has to do with creating a single-payer healthcare system, end of story. The health care market in the US is anything, but free which is why it's in the mess that it's in.

[turtle777]

Well, you're both right.

* Obama has a hard-on for socialized medical care
* Obama care IS related to debt
* Obama care will blow up the debt and make it even bigger

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Obama's hard-on for health care reform has zero to do with the debt. Look at the projections of debt as a result of Obamacare if you don't believe me. It has to do with creating a single-payer healthcare system, end of story. The health care market in the US is anything, but free which is why it's in the mess that it's in.

What is the source of this debt projection? Not the CBO, right?

[turtle777]

Of course.

There is NO denying that Obamacare will increase the debt. Even the CBO working with most optimistic numbers (GDP growth, etc...) comes to a deficit.

In reality, counting in all budget gimmicks etc, we could easily see a debt increase by $1T in 10 years.

CBO: Obamacare Would Increase National Debt, Spend Medicare ‘Savings’ | The Weekly Standard

Anyone who still believes Obamacare was about savings, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell.

-t

[Athens]

Obamacare in its current form and the limitations he has to work with creates a horrible mess that will increase the debt. Even I agree with that. Each compromise to try and get any changes is whats causing it to get worse and worse. But yes his current reforms from what I have seen will be a big disaster.

My opinion is the US government should get out of medical totally and just create laws to force to correct the problems in the private sector. The goal of insuring every American and making it affordable can be done through tight control of the industry with out being a insurer or provider.

I have no idea what the reforms are for social security, haven't looked at them if there is any talk or discussion about reforming that.

[ironknee]

the debt is a red herring

any business person will tell you, "You have to spend money to make money."

[turtle777]

-t

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

-t

darling...explain your post

[turtle777]

Government is the OPPOSITE of a business.

Name ONE thing where the government makes a bottom-line profit.

It's incapable of doing that.

-t

[ironknee]

sweetie,

business is for profit

government is for the betterment of the country

[Athens]

what ????

[turtle777]

He's a troll. Ignore him.

-t

[screener]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

He's a troll. Ignore him.

-t

There ya go again.
Someone says something you don't like, call him a troll, ignore him.
Pathetic.

[OldManMac]

Funny, how the conservatives love to blather on and on about reducing the size of the federal government, and it's attendant spending, except of course, when it benefits them directly.

Government programmes for me, not for thee - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Strange how that works, isn't it?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

He's a troll. Ignore him.

-t

you love me

what business is it to you if the top 1 percent of billionaires get a small tax hike?

do you think you will one day be a bill gates?

social security helps elderly people (and you and i will be one someday)

[OldManMac]

More about the nonsense of supposedly shrinking government.

How 'Small Government' Conservatives Raise Your Taxes Through Stealthy Back-Door Fees | Tea Party and the Right | AlterNet

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Funny, how the conservatives love to blather on and on about reducing the size of the federal government, and it's attendant spending, except of course, when it benefits them directly.

Government programmes for me, not for thee - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Strange how that works, isn't it?

Hmm... you're assuming it worked at all. What you and Al Jazeera (just lookin' out for the good of the US) have established is that if you flash enough cash in anyone's face with the threat of merely giving it to another State, you might get a "conservative" who campaigned for Al Gore to spend it. Should we conclude then that the stimulus money was a good thing, necessary and effective?

Of course not. $17bn + another $8bn for a total of $25bn in stimulus money spent in Texas and all they have to show for it is a two-year delay in the massive, necessary government cuts they've drafted for next year to stay afloat. The money is already gone leaving Texas with a shortfall of $4bn for fiscal year 2012-13.

Don't put Perry and other conservatives on such a pedestal OldMan. Trust me, Federal stimulus is stupid policy no matter how many rhinos you get to bite off on it. If you must use Texas and their Republican governor to prove it, be my guest, but don't pretend this shows anything other than the dismal failure of Federal stimulus.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

More about the nonsense of supposedly shrinking government.

How 'Small Government' Conservatives Raise Your Taxes Through Stealthy Back-Door Fees | Tea Party and the Right | AlterNet

From your article: There isn't much in the way of 50-state data on fees for services. But whether you know it or not, significant fee hikes are nickle and dime-ing you pretty much wherever you might live.

Oh... really? Cuz from reading this article I thought it was about "Small government Conservatives" raising money off these fees. Since there isn't much in the way of a 50-state data pool on such fees, it really should be safe to assume that; A. There isn't a commie-lib in this country who was elected on raising taxes, make no mistake; they ran on lowering taxes too. And B. Liberal States likely share most of the blame for the increasing costs of licensing fees etc, but because this didn't help drive home the partisan drivel, we'll just tack "Conservatives" on it for good measure.

Next up you'll be quoting from the Serbian Defense League.

[screener]

ebuddy back in this thread.
I'm still waiting for you to reply to my post on page 8, I think.
It's been so long but I haven't forgotten.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by screener 

Really?, you posted a spreadsheet that you "performed subtle formatting " to that says nothing about the tax base nor is the tax base mentioned in your post.
Wouldn't this be called moving the goal posts?
What your chart shows, like I said earlier, is an increase in receipts when the tax rate was raised.
When the deficit was moving in the right direction, tax relief.
Why you can't see that I don't get, the numbers are there.

I presume this is the post you were expecting a response to.

What the data that I pulled from the chart you provided (giving a link to the actual raw data sourced by the chart) shows is that a tax base that is performing better in the economy pays more in taxes as a percent of their income than simply raising taxes on the base. I cited the .com boom to bolster the argument. The article did not cite Clinton's tax cut, but cited his tax increase which had nothing to do with economic growth when looking at the actual, raw data.

You mean closing loopholes.

Simplifying the code, yes.

Wouldn't that necessitate a compromise which, in the above quote you're against.

I'm against adding loopholes that enable the government to cite tax cuts for winners while producing tax increases for losers. I'm opposed to tax increases. A compromise of simplifying the code and cutting taxes is progress toward a less-complex code overall and lower taxes overall. Compromise that complicates the tax code and increases taxes is not sound government policy, but it's how the shenanigans of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" began in the first place.

Those that wanted to expand couldn't get the loans from those that helped cause the "crash".
The Real Reason For Banks Not Lending - The Small Business Authority - - Forbes
Obamacare has nothing to do with it.

Please tell me you're reading the articles you're citing. It's essentially an article deriding Federal stimulus, citing the need for businesses to feel real losses. This means the government should not be artificially propping them up because this distorts the market; what we've been telling you all along.

There's that word compromise that you don't like but credit Reaganomics as the be all.

This is nonsense. I never once credited Reaganomics as the be all. When people start arguing like they've graduated high school, I'll be quicker to respond. Sorry, that's just the painful fact of the matter with regard to those who generally get ignored around here.

Reagan admitted his biggest regret was the deficit he left for his successor to deal with.
It made the US the worlds largest debtor nation.
Nice.
George H. W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He didn't cite it as the "debt he left for his successor", he cited it as a long term problem with government expansion:
" On Dec. 13, 1988, Reagan gave a speech to a group of his political appointees. He told them he believed that in the "Washington colony," as he called it, there was an "iron triangle" working to expand government beyond its constitutional limits and, in the process, drive up deficit spending.

"It sometimes seems to many Americans that what might be called a 'triangle of institutions' -- parts of Congress, the media and special interest groups -- is transforming and placing out of focus our constitutional balance, particularly in the areas of spending and foreign policy," Reagan said. "Some have used the term 'iron triangle' to describe something like what I'm talking about. And with apologies to them, I'll borrow that term."

Reagan predicted Americans would rise up against this "iron triangle" and take their government back.

"Fundamentally, the American people know what's up, and they don't like it," Reagan said. "They may re-elect their congressmen, but they trust Congress itself less and less. They may watch or read the media, but they stop believing it, and they show more and more dislike for special interest influence. The only question is: When will they say once and for all that they've had enough? The strength of our nation has never been with the Washington colony, but with the American people. The budget deficit is the colony's last stand."

He was pretty dead-on wasn't he?

Did you forget this?

No, in fact I cited it in response to your bit on Bush I's taxes, he was properly derided for them. Remember; "read my lips"?

Seriously?
Wow, shown you're wrong and you still believe this is just, wow.

Yeah... seriously. Nice non-rebuttal.

I think she would have made a better president that Obama has been.
The appeasing with a lack of cojones contributed to the position the US is in now.
The lack of leadership is astounding.

Then... you post a statement by Warren Buffet, the purveyor of Berkshire Hathaway; mired in more than $1bn in back taxes from 2002. Just once I'd like to see someone calling for higher taxes actually pay their tax bills. Friggin' hypocrites of the highest order, every last one of 'em. YOU pay your bills, but pay no attention to what I'M not paying.

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What the data that I pulled from the chart you provided (giving a link to the actual raw data sourced by the chart) shows is that a tax base that is performing better in the economy pays more in taxes as a percent of their income than simply raising taxes on the base. I cited the .com boom to bolster the argument. The article did not cite Clinton's tax cut, but cited his tax increase which had nothing to do with economic growth when looking at the actual, raw data.

Wow, reducing the deficit, which is what the tax increases did, look at your numbers.
91 -4.5
92 -4.7
93 -3.9
94 -2.9
95 -2.2
96 -1.4
97 -0.3
98 0.8
99 1.4
Your quote,

The little minus sign is bad, the years 1993 through 1997. See the little numbers without the minus signs? Those are good, the years 1998 through 2001.

See the trend from '93 on?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm against adding loopholes that enable the government to cite tax cuts for winners while producing tax increases for losers. I'm opposed to tax increases. A compromise of simplifying the code and cutting taxes is progress toward a less-complex code overall and lower taxes overall. Compromise that complicates the tax code and increases taxes is not sound government policy, but it's how the shenanigans of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" began in the first place.

The republicans want tax cuts for the rich, "winners" and cut services for the "losers".
Compromise is good and bad.
Son of a bitch huh?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Please tell me you're reading the articles you're citing. It's essentially an article deriding Federal stimulus, citing the need for businesses to feel real losses. This means the government should not be artificially propping them up because this distorts the market; what we've been telling you all along.

That was in reply to your "800 pound gorilla" comment.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is nonsense. I never once credited Reaganomics as the be all. When people start arguing like they've graduated high school, I'll be quicker to respond. Sorry, that's just the painful fact of the matter with regard to those who generally get ignored around here.

Nice, be polite and get attacked and throw in the turtle baloney.
Your quote,

What Reaganomics did was create 20 million new jobs, dropped inflation from 13.5% to 4.1%, unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%, the economy grew by 40%, and the net-worth of the middle income family grew by 27% annually. Reagan was nothing if not a shrewd politician and by appeasing the spending appetite of Congressional pets from the left created the new voting bloc known as "Reagan-Democrats" while at the same time maintaining a strong economy with sound, supply-side methodology. i.e. you can spend more when the books and budget-projections support it. When the books don't support it, there is no sense behind a sustained, high level of spending which is what we have today.

Maybe not the be all, but impressed none the less.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He didn't cite it as the "debt he left for his successor", he cited it as a long term problem with government expansion:

He was pretty dead-on wasn't he?

His administration borrowed itself into being the worlds largest debtor nation.
It is what it is.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, in fact I cited it in response to your bit on Bush I's taxes, he was properly derided for them. Remember; "read my lips"?

You mean this?

Perceiving a means of revenge, Republican congressmen defeated Bush's proposal which would enact spending cuts and tax increases that would reduce the deficit by $500 billion over five years.

Shot themselves in the foot, portent of the future.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yeah... seriously. Nice non-rebuttal.

I stand by that.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Then... you post a statement by Warren Buffet, the purveyor of Berkshire Hathaway; mired in more than $1bn in back taxes from 2002. Just once I'd like to see someone calling for higher taxes actually pay their tax bills. Friggin' hypocrites of the highest order, every last one of 'em. YOU pay your bills, but pay no attention to what I'M not paying.

Anne Rand, is that the right spelling?, took government "handouts" because?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by screener 

Wow, reducing the deficit, which is what the tax increases did, look at your numbers.
91 -4.5
92 -4.7
93 -3.9
94 -2.9
95 -2.2
96 -1.4
97 -0.3
98 0.8
99 1.4
Your quote,

See the trend from '93 on?

Zoinks, reducing the deficit, which is what the tax cuts in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 did, look at the numbers I posted to 2001. See the trend from 97 on? See the spending cuts as well?

The republicans want tax cuts for the rich, "winners" and cut services for the "losers".
Compromise is good and bad.
Son of a bitch huh?

The Democrats want tax increases on people earning $200k/yr to pay their $200+million/yr cronies in Washington while creating dependents at $20-k/yr.
Compromise is good when it's good and real bad when it's bad.
Crikey and shiver me tinders huh?

That was in reply to your "800 pound gorilla" comment.

It is the 800lb gorilla. All your article says is that banking institutions are not lending because of a weak economy. They explain that the liquidity of these institutions is the stimulus money, regulated tightly to protect the taxpayers' investment; they have plenty of it, but won't lend it out because of a weak economy. Your article closes by claiming the need to feel real losses which is in conflict with absolutely everything you're trying to suggest.

The economy is weak because unemployment and underemployment is through the roof, killing consumer confidence and demand. No one wants more employees on the books until they have a better understanding of what those employees will cost them. Uncertainty begets uncertainty. Obamacare.

Nice, be polite and get attacked and throw in the turtle baloney.

Originally Posted by screamer

There's that word compromise that you don't like but credit Reaganomics as the be all.

Putting words in someone's mouth is being polite? We'll call this the screener weiner.

Your quote,
Maybe not the be all, but impressed none the less.

This comes off as border-lined schizophrenic man. Of course I'm impressed, but there were some "compromises" that I cited as well. A shrewd politician will make these compromises in a controlled, deliberate manner. It requires panache to be sure, but I wouldn't call Reaganomics the be all. Although our current state does little to make Reaganomics appear unimpressive.

His administration borrowed itself into being the worlds largest debtor nation.
It is what it is.

Reagan's achilles heel? TEFRA; on the promise that Congress would cut $3 in spending for every $1 in tax increases. He was duped unfortunately and there was only .79 cents of cuts for every $1 in tax increases. One should consider however, what did we get to show for Reagan's "debtor crisis"? An ending of the Cold War, 20 million new jobs, decreased inflation from 13.5% to 4.1%, unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%, the economy grew by 40%, and the net-worth of the middle income family grew by 27% annually. Reagan was nothing if not a shrewd politician and by appeasing the spending appetite of Congressional pets from the left created the new voting bloc known as "Reagan-Democrats" while at the same time maintaining a strong economy with sound, supply-side methodology. i.e. you can spend more when the books and budget-projections support it. When the books don't support it, there is no sense behind a sustained, high level of spending and we get what we have today; increasing unemployment, increasing inflation, stagnant economy, increasing income disparity between rich and poor, and the net worth of the middle income family plummeting.

You mean this?
Shot themselves in the foot, portent of the future.

None the less, we were talking about the result of a tax increase under Bush I. Are you running from this now for some meaningless partisan dig?

Anne Rand, is that the right spelling?, took government "handouts" because?

Oh boy...

She took government handouts called Social Security; something she paid into, to help pay for cancer treatment. It's Ayn Rand. Are we talking about someone who died in 1982 because Obama's economic policies are so effective and successful that we just have all this time on our hands to reminisce? Because raising taxes grows the economy? Because raising the debt at an incredible pace works? Is that also why we're talking about Reagan? Bush I and Clinton? Sounds like you'd rather discuss anything other than the abysmal failure those of your ilk are pushing.

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Zoinks, reducing the deficit, which is what the tax cuts in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 did, look at the numbers I posted to 2001. See the trend from 97 on? See the spending cuts as well?

Right, prior to '97 their were no reductions in the deficit.
Funny how those + numbers just happened.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The Democrats want tax increases on people earning $200k/yr to pay their $200+million/yr cronies in Washington while creating dependents at $20-k/yr.
Compromise is good when it's good and real bad when it's bad.
Crikey and shiver me tinders huh?

This from someone who hates goverment compromise , oh, you're being sarcastic.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It is the 800lb gorilla. All your article says is that banking institutions are not lending because of a weak economy. They explain that the liquidity of these institutions is the stimulus money, regulated tightly to protect the taxpayers' investment; they have plenty of it, but won't lend it out because of a weak economy. Your article closes by claiming the need to feel real losses which is in conflict with absolutely everything you're trying to suggest.

You pick and choose facts and ignore the rest.
The Real Reason For Banks Not Lending - The Small Business Authority - The Small Business Authority - Forbes
eg,

Do not expect credit growth to accelerate until real losses are taken and banks have bolstered their capital.

The regulators are doing their job, finally.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The economy is weak because unemployment and underemployment is through the roof, killing consumer confidence and demand. No one wants more employees on the books until they have a better understanding of what those employees will cost them. Uncertainty begets uncertainty. Obamacare.

Uncertainty that they can get credit is the 800 pound gorilla.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Putting words in someone's mouth is being polite? We'll call this the screener weiner.

Call it what you like.
I call it like I see it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This comes off as border-lined schizophrenic man. Of course I'm impressed, but there were some "compromises" that I cited as well. A shrewd politician will make these compromises in a controlled, deliberate manner. It requires panache to be sure, but I wouldn't call Reaganomics the be all. Although our current state does little to make Reaganomics appear unimpressive.

I guess you weren't being sarcastic.
Hard to tell where you're coming from sometimes.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Reagan's achilles heel? TEFRA; on the promise that Congress would cut $3 in spending for every $1 in tax increases. He was duped unfortunately and there was only .79 cents of cuts for every $1 in tax increases. One should consider however, what did we get to show for Reagan's "debtor crisis"? An ending of the Cold War, 20 million new jobs, decreased inflation from 13.5% to 4.1%, unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%, the economy grew by 40%, and the net-worth of the middle income family grew by 27% annually. Reagan was nothing if not a shrewd politician and by appeasing the spending appetite of Congressional pets from the left created the new voting bloc known as "Reagan-Democrats" while at the same time maintaining a strong economy with sound, supply-side methodology. i.e. you can spend more when the books and budget-projections support it. When the books don't support it, there is no sense behind a sustained, high level of spending and we get what we have today; increasing unemployment, increasing inflation, stagnant economy, increasing income disparity between rich and poor, and the net worth of the middle income family plummeting.

Who duped him?
The $3 cut for $1 tax promise on Wikipedia says a citation is needed.
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1988, libertarian political writer Sheldon Richman described TEFRA as "the largest tax increase in American history." In 2003, former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett wrote in National Review that "TEFRA raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year", elaborating, "according to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.

David Stockman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Citations needed but the numbers don't lie.

President Jimmy Carter's last signed and executed fiscal year budget results ended with a $79.0 billion budget deficit, ending during the period of David Stockman's and Ronald Reagan's first year in office, on October 1, 1981. The gross federal national debt had just increased to $1.0 trillion during October 1981 ($998 billion on 30 September 1981). Four and a half years into the Reagan administration, upon Stockman's resignation from the OMB during August 1985, the gross federal debt was $1.8 trillion on 9 September 1985. Stockman's OMB work within the administration during 1981 until August was dedicated to negotiating with the Senate and House about the next fiscal year's budget, executed later during the autumn of 1985, which resulted in the national debt becoming $2.1 trillion at fiscal year end 30 September 1986 and becoming $2.6 trillion at fiscal year end 30 September 1988.

Sound supply side methodology huh?
Impressive.

On 1 August 1985, he resigned OMB and later wrote a memoir of his experience in the Reagan Administration titled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed (ISBN 0060155604), in which he specifically criticized the failure of congressional Republicans to endorse a reduction of government spending as necessary offsets to the large tax decreases, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an increasing national debt.

You're taking his 8 years in office and comparing it to Obama's first term.
Disingenuous.
Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Over those eight years, the unemployment rate declined from 7.1% to 5.5%, hitting annual rate highs of 9.7% (1982) and 9.6% (1983) and averaging 7.5% during Reagan's administration.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

None the less, we were talking about the result of a tax increase under Bush I. Are you running from this now for some meaningless partisan dig?

None the less?
What the hell does that last sentence mean?
The republicans spiteful stab in Bush's, America's back is alright with you?
Seems to me you're running straight into the nutty right's arms.
Oh boy...

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

She took government handouts called Social Security; something she paid into, to help pay for cancer treatment. It's Ayn Rand. Are we talking about someone who died in 1982 because Obama's economic policies are so effective and successful that we just have all this time on our hands to reminisce? Because raising taxes grows the economy? Because raising the debt at an incredible pace works? Is that also why we're talking about Reagan? Bush I and Clinton? Sounds like you'd rather discuss anything other than the abysmal failure those of your ilk are pushing.

Freaking hypocrite.
What happened to personal responsibility, not relying on "stolen" money.
But yeah, call on this guy to write a cheque for 5 billion.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Then... you post a statement by Warren Buffet, the purveyor of Berkshire Hathaway; mired in more than $1bn in back taxes from 2002. Just once I'd like to see someone calling for higher taxes actually pay their tax bills. Friggin' hypocrites of the highest order, every last one of 'em. YOU pay your bills, but pay no attention to what I'M not paying.

Freaking hypocrite.
Never mind that it's legal, like collecting Social Security.

History is something you can learn from, your "ilk" seems to have forgotten an awful lot, or just ignore what doesn't fit into your point of view.

The turtle is dead, long live the turtle.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by screener 

Right, prior to '97 their were no reductions in the deficit.
Funny how those + numbers just happened.

Grow up.

This from someone who hates goverment compromise , oh, you're being sarcastic.

Grow up.

You pick and choose facts and ignore the rest.
The Real Reason For Banks Not Lending - The Small Business Authority - The Small Business Authority - Forbes
eg,

The regulators are doing their job, finally.

Yeah... lend money to lending institutions with regulations that hamper lending. Only a paper-ideology leftist would come up with such a brilliant scheme. They're doing their job alright, distorting the private market.

Uncertainty that they can get credit is the 800 pound gorilla.

You're aware that there's a great deal of liquidity throughout the private sector, not just the lending institutions. They will not hire when they're not certain what the employee base will cost them going forward. Obamacare is the 800lb gorilla.

Call it what you like.
I call it like I see it.

That's what I was afraid of. You're welcome to the last word in this thread.

Who duped him?
The $3 cut for $1 tax promise on Wikipedia says a citation is needed.
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Democrat-controlled House and some knee-jerk members of the Senate.

David Stockman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Citations needed but the numbers don't lie.

It's actually quite well known. They did it to Bush Sr. also.
Reagan's Regret

• A bipartisan group of members of Congress known as the “Gang of 17” (sound familiar?) came up with TEFRA—the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act—which former Reagan administration official Gary Hoitsma described as "a legislative package sold to President Reagan as a grand compromise constituting a 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to tax increases."
• When TEFRA was passed and signed by Reagan, the 40th President described it as “a limited loophole-closing tax increase to raise more than $98.3 billion over three years in return for ... agreement to cut spending by $280 billion during the same period."
• Reagan came to regret his support for TEFRA, and years later he wrote: “The Democrats reneged on their pledge [to cut spending] and we never got those cuts.”
• "I believe that the TEFRA compromise—the 'Debacle of 1982'—was the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration," Edwin Meese III, Reagan’s counselor at the time, wrote in his 1992 book, With Reagan: The Inside Story. "It was a complete departure from our tax-cutting mandate, failed to reduce the growth of government spending [and] did not decrease the deficit. ... Judged by the results, TEFRA was not only a mistake, it was an abject lesson in how not to reduce the deficit."

If you're concerned about a citation for the compromise, you've got the US Attorney General under Reagan citing it in his book, a Reagan Administration official, and Reagan himself in at least two speeches. Is this where I accuse you of using Wikipedia as the "be all"?

Sound supply side methodology huh?
Impressive.

Compared to today? Seemingly of Divine Intervention.

You're taking his 8 years in office and comparing it to Obama's first term.
Disingenuous.
Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Umm... no? The chart cited shows the first years of Reagan vs the first years of Obama. The avg numbers you cite at the close of Reagan's 2nd term is still exponentially better than what we have today and we had a great deal more to show for it.

The republicans spiteful stab in Bush's, America's back is alright with you?
Seems to me you're running straight into the nutty right's arms.
Oh boy...

Grow up.

Freaking hypocrite.
What happened to personal responsibility, not relying on "stolen" money.
But yeah, call on this guy to write a cheque for 5 billion.

Freaking hypocrite.
Never mind that it's legal, like collecting Social Security.

Wait a minute, you're equating withholding more than a billion dollars in tax revenue for over 9 years with a retired person collecting Social Security for cancer treatment? Friggin' shameless.

History is something you can learn from, your "ilk" seems to have forgotten an awful lot, or just ignore what doesn't fit into your point of view.

It hasn't forgotten that Democrats cannot be trusted with compromise. End of story.

The turtle is dead, long live the turtle.

Quit using me to stalk turtle777. If you've got a problem take it up with him. Otherwise stfu. Thank you.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Quit using me to stalk turtle777. If you've got a problem take it up with him. Otherwise stfu. Thank you.

LOL, looks like screamer is begging for attention.

-t

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Grow up.


Grow up.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yeah... seriously. Nice non-rebuttal.

Seriously.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yeah... lend money to lending institutions with regulations that hamper lending. Only a paper-ideology leftist would come up with such a brilliant scheme. They're doing their job alright, distorting the private market.

Now you've dropped another notch into the abyss.
I wouldn't want to "put words in your mouth", but let those greedy f&%$s that created the problem have free rein?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're aware that there's a great deal of liquidity throughout the private sector, not just the lending institutions. They will not hire when they're not certain what the employee base will cost them going forward. Obamacare is the 800lb gorilla.

Uncertainty is always there when starting or expanding a business.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's what I was afraid of. You're welcome to the last word in this thread.

The impression I get from a post is what I go by.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The Democrat-controlled House and some knee-jerk members of the Senate.

Really?

The original TEFRA bill as passed by the House lowered taxes.[7] The Republican-controlled Senate replaced the text of the original House bill with a number of tax increases, and the bill became law after President Ronald Reagan signed it.

Revisionism?
Yeah, it's a real word.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's actually quite well known. They did it to Bush Sr. also.
Reagan's Regret

• A bipartisan group of members of Congress known as the “Gang of 17” (sound familiar?) came up with TEFRA—the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act—which former Reagan administration official Gary Hoitsma described as "a legislative package sold to President Reagan as a grand compromise constituting a 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to tax increases."
• When TEFRA was passed and signed by Reagan, the 40th President described it as “a limited loophole-closing tax increase to raise more than $98.3 billion over three years in return for ... agreement to cut spending by $280 billion during the same period."
• Reagan came to regret his support for TEFRA, and years later he wrote: “The Democrats reneged on their pledge [to cut spending] and we never got those cuts.”
• "I believe that the TEFRA compromise—the 'Debacle of 1982'—was the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration," Edwin Meese III, Reagan’s counselor at the time, wrote in his 1992 book, With Reagan: The Inside Story. "It was a complete departure from our tax-cutting mandate, failed to reduce the growth of government spending [and] did not decrease the deficit. ... Judged by the results, TEFRA was not only a mistake, it was an abject lesson in how not to reduce the deficit."

Or trust Republicans.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If you're concerned about a citation for the compromise, you've got the US Attorney General under Reagan citing it in his book, a Reagan Administration official, and Reagan himself in at least two speeches. Is this where I accuse you of using Wikipedia as the "be all"?

Not concerned, the numbers didn't need a citation.
If Wikipedia is wrong on the numbers, show me.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Compared to today? Seemingly of Divine Intervention.

Or grow a pair.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Umm... no? The chart cited shows the first years of Reagan vs the first years of Obama. The avg numbers you cite at the close of Reagan's 2nd term is still exponentially better than what we have today and we had a great deal more to show for it.

The situation was how many times worse?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Grow up.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yeah... seriously. Nice non-rebuttal.

Seriously.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Wait a minute, you're equating withholding more than a billion dollars in tax revenue for over 9 years with a retired person collecting Social Security for cancer treatment? Friggin' shameless.

This is shameless,

Ayn Rand Received Social Security, Medicare � Patia Stephens
Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophically.” Lane died in 1968.

Wilder and Paterson stuck to their principles and Rand, well.

Gets the admiration.
Shameful.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It hasn't forgotten that Democrats cannot be trusted with compromise. End of story.

Only if you ignore the truth.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Quit using me to stalk turtle777. If you've got a problem take it up with him. Otherwise stfu. Thank you.

Act like the blind partisan living in mommy's basement you get pointed out as a....

You really disappoint me.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by screener 

Revisionism?
Yeah, it's a real word.

No one asked you if revisionism is real while accusing you of it.

Not concerned, the numbers didn't need a citation.
If Wikipedia is wrong on the numbers, show me.

Let go of your feelings padawan, already did.

The situation was how many times worse?

Okay, how many?

This is shameless,
Wilder and Paterson stuck to their principles and Rand, well.
Gets the admiration.
Shameful.

I'm sure Wilder and Paterson appreciate your support for their ideological integrity as conservatives... posthumously.

Act like the blind partisan living in mommy's basement you get pointed out as a....
You really disappoint me.

This only proves you have no idea how your act is generally regarded.

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Let go of your feelings padawan, already did.

Never, as long as there is a "Darth" side I'll keep on fighting.

And no you didn't, ignoring what doesn't fit your agenda isn't showing me anything but your move to the turtleneck side.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Okay, how many?

You really forgot what Bush Jr. left for the next president?
Really?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm sure Wilder and Paterson appreciate your support for their ideological integrity as conservatives... posthumously.

This is the best you can come up with?
Really?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This only proves you have no idea how your act is generally regarded.

You couldn't possibly think I care what anyone thinks of me do you?
Ignoring the truth because of the delivery will bite you in the end.