Reminds me of the song "You spin me right round, right round, like a record baby, right round, right round..."

Well I know you think I am a tree hugging liberal, so why not take it from the most trusted news program in the US. Here are the facts. The guy who is funding this thing actually worked for the Bush Administration.

Reminds me of the song "You spin me right round, right round, like a top baby, right round, right round..."

Jet, you are saying the mosque is on the level because a BUSH insider is involved?

You have fallen off the sanity wagon after all

What does being conservative have to do with Bush? That man is/was a progressive in sheep's clothing.

Anti choice? Anti Stem Cell research? Whats progressive about that?

Your giving Bush way to much credit. The man was a easy going Red Neck figure head. It was his adviser's and fucking cabinet members that were the wolves who brought you 8 fucked up years of extreme right winged nut job decisions.

Obama is in the same boat, only he probably thinks he is actual control. He has a cabinet of left wing nub job's making similar fucked up decisions that is going to plauge us for decades to come.

Status quo for now, just a different group of wolves in the den.

I disagree strongly. The only problem with the Obamacare was that it did not have a public option. Universal health care should be mandatory. Its fucking stupid that when you get sick you go bankrupt.

Bilderbergs are jump starting the apocalypse so that the space beacons in Sputnik will go off to signal the zombie uprising clearly meant to release Godzilla so that the final battle with the flying spaghetti monster can commence.

That battle will trigger seismic machines set to transmit radio signals to the moon which will let the great inventor Herman R Spicy know that it is time to set off the space flare that will be the catalyst of knowing that the rapture is incoming and in doing so everyone except those who built a 1940's bombshelter and also fails to duck and cover will be wiped from the planet.

Now this will leave a select few to ressurect dinosaurs whose dna was stored in the arc of the covenant with the use of the secret island of doctor moreau which is in moon orbit.

By controlling these..."dinosaucers" all world banks will be emptied of gold and distributed equally among the apocalypse survivors before the extermination of the dinosaurs....again by the use of a giant space meteor stuck into a volcano by the flying spaghetti monster (that's right...Godzilla lost)

With dinosaurs dead again the democratic federation of the world will declare a new socialist regime and declare curling the new world sport.

All of this because Jet voted Obama.

Bilderbergs are jump starting the apocalypse so that the space beacons in Sputnik will go off to signal the zombie uprising clearly meant to release Godzilla so that the final battle with the flying spaghetti monster can commence.

That battle will trigger seismic machines set to transmit radio signals to the moon which will let the great inventor Herman R Spicy know that it is time to set off the space flare that will be the catalyst of knowing that the rapture is incoming and in doing so everyone except those who built a 1940's bombshelter and also fails to duck and cover will be wiped from the planet.

Now this will leave a select few to ressurect dinosaurs whose dna was stored in the arc of the covenant with the use of the secret island of doctor moreau which is in moon orbit.

By controlling these..."dinosaucers" all world banks will be emptied of gold and distributed equally among the apocalypse survivors before the extermination of the dinosaurs....again by the use of a giant space meteor stuck into a volcano by the flying spaghetti monster (that's right...Godzilla lost)

With dinosaurs dead again the democratic federation of the world will declare a new socialist regime and declare curling the new world sport.

All of this because Jet voted Obama.

Just a little story:

It was a little before 9AM, a beautiful morning ... I was out of the shower & dressed, just finishing up my last cup of coffee & geting ready to head out to a 10:00 meeting down in Westport, anywhere between a 20 & 45 minute drive depending on traffic, planned on missing most of the traffic by leaving after rush hour ... looking at the clock, I figured I was in good shape timewise.

I had the news on. A report comes on that a plane may have hit a skyscraper in lower Manhattan, I took a seat on the couch to see what was going on ... I had the remote in my hand .. was about ready to turn everything off & head out.

There was a live feed showing smoke pouring out of one of the towers ... not much more information, some speculation that a small aircraft lost control & hit the tower ... maybe a minute goes by ... I see a plane come into frame & then disappear into the 2nd tower ... then a huge ball of fire & smoke.

I couldn't believe what I just saw .... I sat there wondering if it was some other footage of the initial impact ... but smoke was still pouring out of the 1st tower hit ... the footage was being replayed, slow motion, full speed ... dozens of times. I still had the remote in my hand, I remember putting it down on the coffee table ... I could not take my eyes off the TV.

Knowing my brother worked in lower Mahattan, the Wall street subway station was his stop into Manhattan from his home in Brooklyn, I pick up the phone to give him a call, to see if he knew what was going on ... "All cell circuits are busy" was the message ... I tried over & over again ... same message.

Then the report turns to the Pentagon ... another plane crash ... I am thinking WTF!!! I am still trying to reach my brother ... nothing but the same message. Then the 1st tower comes down ... I notice the clock on my cable box, alomst 10AM, I had been sitting there for about an hour, seemed like 10 minutes.

My phone rings, it is my sister ... she is hysterical ... asking if I knew what was going on, another call coming in ... I click over, it's my mom ... she sez she can't get ahold of my brother, I told her I was trying too.

It was the next day when he finally reached my mom & dad ... he was ok, he got off the subway maybe 10-15 minutes before the 1st tower went down ... once it went down, he and a huge crowd fled accross the Brooklyn bridge on foot ... he was pretty much still in shock when I talked to him.

The impact of that day for those of us around NYC is hard to explain ... for many of us, this issue has nothing to do with the political banter around "for or against" the building of the mosque ... nothing to do being liberal or conservative ... it is much more personal.

For me, it is just not right ... I don't feel the need have to explain why it is not right, especially to those who only see the politics behind it, those who believe if I oppose this building at this location that I am somehow intolerant ... that's a joke.

Why not put a Nazi memorial in Tel Aviv or on Normandy beach, or a Japanese cultural center in Pearl Harbor .. or a US atomic bomb historical research library in Hiroshima? Any of these ideas would demonstrate just how tolerant and far we have come? Well you wouldn't ... 'cause it is just wrong.

There really is no logical or legitimate argument for the building of this victory mosque at this location ... yes I said a "victory" mosque, because that is exactly what it will be viewed as to those who buy into the most extreme interpetations of Islam ... those who cheered & danced in the streets the days following ... actually celebrating the fact that so many people, just going about their day-to-day lives, were wiped out ... for what?

Socialist Commey Pinko.

Bilderbergs are jump starting the apocalypse so that the space beacons in Sputnik will go off to signal the zombie uprising clearly meant to release Godzilla so that the final battle with the flying spaghetti monster can commence.

That battle will trigger seismic machines set to transmit radio signals to the moon which will let the great inventor Herman R Spicy know that it is time to set off the space flare that will be the catalyst of knowing that the rapture is incoming and in doing so everyone except those who built a 1940's bombshelter and also fails to duck and cover will be wiped from the planet.

Now this will leave a select few to ressurect dinosaurs whose dna was stored in the arc of the covenant with the use of the secret island of doctor moreau which is in moon orbit.

By controlling these..."dinosaucers" all world banks will be emptied of gold and distributed equally among the apocalypse survivors before the extermination of the dinosaurs....again by the use of a giant space meteor stuck into a volcano by the flying spaghetti monster (that's right...Godzilla lost)

With dinosaurs dead again the democratic federation of the world will declare a new socialist regime and declare curling the new world sport.

All of this because Jet voted Obama.

We only think you're a tree hugging liberal because the things you say and advocate doing are tree hugger liberal things

The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006[43] showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air."[46]
A 2007 Pew Research Center poll of viewer political knowledge indicated that Fox News Channel viewers scored 35% in the high-knowledge area, the same as the national average. This was not significantly different than local news, network news and morning news, and was slightly lower than CNN (41%). Viewers of The O'Reilly Factor (51%) scored in the high category along with Rush Limbaugh (50%), NPR (51%), major newspapers (54%), Newshour with Jim Lehrer (53%) The Daily Show (54%) and The Colbert Report (54%).[47]
Research has shown that there is a correlation between the presence of the Fox News Channel in cable markets and increases in Republican votes in those markets.[48]
The documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism claims that Fox reporters and anchors, rather than citing an anonymous source in order to advance a storyline, Fox personalities allegedly use the phrase "some people say" to include unattributed conservative opinion and commentary into reports. In the film, Media Matters for America president David Brock noted that some shows, like Fox's evening news program, Special Report with Brit Hume, tend to exhibit editorializing attitudes and behavior when on the air.
A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA),[49] in the Winter 03-04 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of Fox News, the Fox Broadcasting Company, and local Fox affiliates were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three misperceptions:[50]
67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS).
The belief that "The U.S. has found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" was held by 33% of Fox viewers and only 23% of CBS viewers, 19% for ABC, 20% for NBC, 20% for CNN and 11% for NPR/PBS
35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)
In response, Fox News frequent guest Ann Coulter characterized the PIPA findings as "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids" and called it a "hoax poll."[51] Bill O'Reilly called the study "absolute crap."[52] Roger Ailes referred to the study as "an old push poll."[53] James Taranto, editor of OpinionJournal.com, the Wall Street Journal's online editorial page, called the poll "pure propaganda."[54] PIPA issued a clarification on October 17, 2003, stating that "The findings were not meant to and cannot be used as a basis for making broad judgments about the general accuracy of the reporting of various networks or the general accuracy of the beliefs of those who get their news from those networks. Only a substantially more comprehensive study could undertake such broad research questions," and that the results of the poll show correlation, but do not prove causation.[55][56]
A study published in November 2005 by Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science at UCLA, comparing political bias from such news outlets as the New York Times, USA Today, the Drudge Report, the Los Angeles Times, and Fox News’ Special Report, concluded "all of the news outlets we examine, except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress." In particular, Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume had an Americans for Democratic Action rating that was right of the political center. Groseclose used the number of times a host cited a particular think tank on his or her program and compared it with the number of times a member of the U.S. Congress cited a think tank, correlating that with the politician's Americans for Democratic Action rating.[57][58]
Geoff Nunberg, a professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley and a National Public Radio commentator, criticized the methodology of the study and labeled its conclusions invalid.[59] He pointed to what he saw as a Groseclose's reliance on interpretations of facts and data that were taken from sources that were not, in his view, credible. Groseclose and Professor Jeff Milyo rebutted, saying Nunberg "shows a gross misunderstanding [of] our statistical method and the actual assumptions upon which it relies."[60] Mark Liberman (a professor of Computer Science and the Director of Linguistic Data Consortium at the University of Pennsylvania), who helped post Groseclose and Milyo's rebuttal, later posted how the statistical methods used to calculate this bias pose faults.[61][62] Mark concluded "that many if not most of the complaints directed against G&M are motivated in part by ideological disagreement — just as much of the praise for their work is motivated by ideological agreement. It would be nice if there were a less politically fraught body of data on which such modeling exercises could be explored."[61]
A December 2007 study/examination by Robert Lichter of a self-described nonpartisan media watchdog group, the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that Fox News's evaluations of all of the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates combined was 51% positive and 49% negative, while the network's evaluations of the Republican presidential candidates 51% negative and 49% positive. The study, however, did find that Fox's coverage was less negative toward Republican candidates than the coverage of broadcast networks.[63] In addition, FAIR has noted that Lichter himself is a Fox News contributor. Also, on the January 10, 2008, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Lichter stated that he only examined the first half of the Special Report with Brit Hume.[citation needed]
The “2010 State of the News Media” Report by the Pew Center on Excellence in Journalism found that in 2009, Fox News Channel had average daytime audience of 1.2 million and nighttime viewership of 2.13 million, higher than its cable competitors. For 2009, CNN continued to lead Fox online, as CNN.com had more than 20.7 million unique visitors daily, compared to 12.7 million unique visitors daily at Fox.com. The report added that Fox spends $674 million on its news programs in 2009, and that 72 percent of this amount was for “producing its host-driven programs including multimillion-dollar salaries.” The remaining 28 percent ($188 million) went to administrative and overhead costs, including news staffing and bureaus. That figure is less than half of what is spent by CNN and HLN on its administrative and overhead costs.

Its amazing that smart people like you guys believe in this plain bullshit. Just Fox saying things over and over does not make them true. Take WMD and Bush, or Saddam and Osama's supposed ties. Its all lies and your guys blindly believe it.
The most frustrating thing is that you all would support policies that make YOUR lives worse, supporting the greed in corporate America that the conservative right represents. I mean take the $200 million a day they claimed that the latest Presidential trip took, or the 135 ship escort. I cant believe anyone is stupid enough to buy that bill of goods. There are countless well documented examples of this kind of shit, here are a couple:

1. Saddam WMD were taken from him after the first Gulf war. He did not want to admit to having none, because he was terrified of Iran and did not think the USA would really invade.

2. Saddam and Osama hated each other, one was secular the other jihadist. There is no evidence they collaborated, and no reason to ever think they did or would. Al Quada wanted to undermine Iraq and set themselves up there, but were generally not able to do so until we were kind enough to eliminate not just Saddam but the entire Baathist secular establishment.

3. That 200 million a day was not for Obama vacation, but rather his trip to India. It is also grossly off the mark. also remember, that all those personnel involved are going to still be drawing a check whether they are in India that week or not. Honestly, making big foreign trips to important countries like India is directly related to national security and what a President should be doing.

Since 1983, FRONTLINE has served as American public television's flagship public affairs series. Hailed upon its debut on PBS as "the last best hope for broadcast documentaries," FRONTLINE's stature over 28 seasons is reaffirmed each week through incisive documentaries covering the scope and complexity of the human experience.


When FRONTLINE was born, however, the prospects for television news documentaries looked grim. Pressure was on network news departments to become profitable, and the spirit of outspoken journalistic inquiry established by programs like Edward R. Murrow's See It Now and Harvest of Shame had given way to entertainment values and feature-filled magazine shows. Therefore, it fell to public television to pick up the torch of public affairs and carry on this well-established broadcast news tradition.

Since its inception, FRONTLINE has never shied away from tough, controversial issues or complex stories. In an age of anchor celebrities and snappy sound bites, FRONTLINE remains committed to providing a primetime venue for engaging reports that fully explore and illuminate the critical issues of our times. Starting with the 2010-2011 season, the series is expanding to a year-round broadcast presence that will include adding several magazine-format programs, which will enable FRONTLINE to respond more quickly to breaking news stories.

To support the creation of these new segments and programs, FRONTLINE has begun deepening its existing partnerships with ProPublica, the Center for Investigative Reporting, and other respected news organizations. New partnerships with NPR, Planet Money, and other news outlets, meanwhile, are supporting FRONTLINE's efforts to cultivate a new, younger generation of producers and reporters.

"TELEVISION'S LAST FULLY SERIOUS BASTION OF JOURNALISM."
Newsday
Over the years, FRONTLINE has built a reputation for powerful reporting that tackles the tough, controversial, and complex stories that shape our times. From Martin Smith's on-the-ground reporting in Obama's War to Michael Kirk's investigation into the hidden history of the financial crisis; from Ofra Bikel's examination of America's racial divide over the O.J. Simpson verdict, to special reports like The Age of AIDS or Bush's War, and provocative journeys like Hedrick Smith's search for the answer to the question, Is Wal-Mart Good for America? FRONTLINE gives its award-winning journalists and filmmakers the time needed to thoroughly research a story and the time on-air to tell the story in a compelling way.

Credible, thoughtful reporting combined with powerful narrative, a good story well told: That is at the heart of FRONTLINE's commitment to its viewers.

So how is this the Republicans fault I dont get it?????

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America

Flat Tax!!

No Exemptions.

No Married Status.

Everyone files separately.

Under $44,000 = 0%

$44,000-$70,000 = 9%

$70,000 - $150,000 = 16%

$150,000 - $210,000 = 21%

$210,000 and over = 26%

Its not wealth distribution, its called fair taxation with due representation...

Saying that the top rates were higher in years past to pay for wars is also somewhat disingenuous, as noone will argue that taxing to pay for necessary national defense is in any way equivalent to "social redistribution of wealth". You are comparing apples and oranges, and that line of attack does not hold merit.

Direct Iraq War costs:

As of February 2010, around $704 billion has been spent based on estimates of current expenditure rates[1], which range from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimate of $2 billion per week to $12 billion a month, an estimate by economist Joseph Stiglitz.[2]
Those figures are significantly more than typical estimates published just prior to the start of the Iraq War, many of which were based on a shorter term of involvement. For example, in a March 16, 2003 Meet the Press interview of Vice President Dick Cheney, held less than a week before the Iraq War began, host Tim Russert reported that "every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement."[3].
[edit]Appropriations
See also: Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund
FY2003 Supplemental: Operation Iraqi Freedom: Passed April 2003; Total $78.5 billion, $54.4 billion Iraq War
FY2004 Supplemental: Iraq and Afghanistan Ongoing Operations/Reconstruction: Passed November 2003; Total $87.5 billion, $70.6 billion Iraq War
FY2004 DoD Budget Amendment: $25 Emergency Reserve Fund (Iraq Freedom Fund): Passed July 2004, Total $25 billion, $21.5 billion (estimated) Iraq War
FY2005 Emergency Supplemental: Operations in the War on Terror; Activities in Afghanistan; Tsunami Relief: Passed April 2005, Total $82 billion, $58 billion (estimated) Iraq War
FY2006 Department of Defense appropriations: Total $50 billion, $40 billion (estimated) Iraq War.
FY2006 Emergency Supplemental: Operations Global War on Terror; Activities in Iraq & Afghanistan: Passed February 2006, Total $72.4 billion, $60 billion (estimated) Iraq War
FY2007 Department of Defense appropriations: $70 billion(estimated) for Iraq War-related costs[4][5]
FY2007 Emergency Supplemental (proposed) $100 billion
FY2008 Bush administration has proposed around $190 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan[6]
FY2009 Obama administration has proposed around $130 billion in additional funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan.[7]
FY2011 Obama administration proposes around $159.3 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.[8]
[edit]Indirect and delayed costs
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.[9][10]
Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, and possibly more in the most recent published study, published in March 2008.[11] Stiglitz has stated: "The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions...Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq."[11]
The extended combat and equipment loss have placed a severe financial strain on the U.S Army, causing the elimination of non-essential expenses such as travel and civilian hiring.[12][13]


The UH-60 Black Hawk that crashed on September 21, 2004.
[edit]Long-term health care costs
A recent study indicated that the long term health care costs for wounded Iraq war veterans could range from $350 billion to $700 billion.[14]
[edit]Military equipment lost
The U.S. has lost a number of pieces of military equipment during the war. The following statistics are from the Center for American Progress:[15]; they are approximations that include vehicles lost in non-combat-related accidents as of 2009.

Holy crap, I started looking into the WHO report... and even I am shocked by what I found, and not in a good way.

"Governments should be the “stewards” of their national resources, maintaining
and improving them for the benefit of their populations. In health, this means
being ultimately responsible for the careful management of their citizens’ wellbeing." - excerpt from WHO report.

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_ch6_en.pdf

Citizens should be responsible for their own well-being, not the Govt. Or at least have the option to do so.

Looking elsewhere in the report, it is clear that a primary criteria for the WHO ranking was based specifically ON how "socialized" the health care was. Actual availability and quality of care either did not factor, or were weighted low on this particular health report.

This WHO ranking , being largely a measurement of Socialization, is therefore null and void for legitimate use in a debate of this nature. Saying the USA ranks low on a WHO list due to lack of Socialization, is not in itself, an argument for Socialization.

I knew there was something pretty fishy when Columbia ranked higher than the USA.

Adult mortality, measured as the probability of dying after the 15th birthday but before the 60th, dropped 19 percent for men and 34 percent for women over the past 40 years.

The country with the lowest adult male mortality was Iceland, with 65 premature deaths per 1,000 men. The highest was Swaziland, with 765 premature deaths per 1,000 men. For women, the country with the lowest rate was Cyprus (38 deaths per 1,000) and the one with the highest was Zambia (606 deaths per 1,000).

The United States ranked 45th in the mortality rate for men, which stood at 130, and 49th in the rate for women, which was 77. The average decline over the four decades was less than 1 percent a year.

Holy crap, I started looking into the WHO report... and even I am shocked by what I found, and not in a good way.

"Governments should be the “stewards” of their national resources, maintaining
and improving them for the benefit of their populations. In health, this means
being ultimately responsible for the careful management of their citizens’ wellbeing." - excerpt from WHO report.

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_ch6_en.pdf

Citizens should be responsible for their own well-being, not the Govt. Or at least have the option to do so.

Looking elsewhere in the report, it is clear that a primary criteria for the WHO ranking was based specifically ON how "socialized" the health care was. Actual availability and quality of care either did not factor, or were weighted low on this particular health report.

This WHO ranking , being largely a measurement of Socialization, is therefore null and void for legitimate use in a debate of this nature. Saying the USA ranks low on a WHO list due to lack of Socialization, is not in itself, an argument for Socialization.

I knew there was something pretty fishy when Columbia ranked higher than the USA.

You should read more on Who before you judge them on one sentence. They are a 62 year old highly respected organization.

I have read plenty about the org in the past. What I looked for in that particular report, as I initially indicated I would, was the criteria used to concoct that ranking.

I am not saying the entire Org itself has never done anything usefull.. but using a report that ranks countries by their Socialization level of Health care as evidence that USA Health care quality and availability ranked below that of other, more heavily Socialized countries was a non-starter.

I mean come on, Colombia having better medical care than the USA?


And Social Security and Medicare... were more or less tolerable, structurally speaking, under the later Clinton years I would say. I am not going to argue for or against relatively minor changes, but as society had come to depend on them, it would be unwise to suddenly remove or alter them in any significant fashion.

Also, people have already paid into them. If you paid your medicare/SS taxes all your life you certainly have a valid claim to reap the return.

Flat Tax!!

No Exemptions.

No Married Status.

Everyone files separately.

Under $44,000 = 0%

$44,000-$70,000 = 9%

$70,000 - $150,000 = 16%

$150,000 - $210,000 = 21%

$210,000 and over = 26%

Its not wealth distribution, its called fair taxation with due representation...

But in your definition, this is socialism in your definition!

What about the taxes and funding the wars in my post above?

And I am saying we should not be spending the 700b. In fact that is the entire gist of what I am saying in general - the spending has to stop. The govt expansion has to stop. The welfare state was barely sustainable as it was, adding to it will not help.

Typically, the first step of getting out of a hole is to stop digging. Instead Obama and Pelosi busted out the largest set of mining equipment they could find and went to go find a new path to China. Thats a problem. It seems natural to me, to question the wisdom of expanding govt and spending to record levels when your currency is already weak and your economy already teetering on the brink of depression.

You are correct about corruption costing, just remember that the more bureaucracy we accumulate, the more corruption we will have to deal with. Every layer of bureaucracy that gets added, makes accountability that much further removed from your average joe.

What about him? You know well that I did not support Bush. Raising taxes to pay for those wars does not appear to be necessity.

I am talking about long term structural issues, regarding recurring and ballooning expenses. Though TARP is questionable. Long term, politicizing banking will do liekly more harm than a non-TARP meltdown. Though finance is such a complex issue, it cannot be intelligently discussed with one and two liners, and how alternatives would have worked will forever be entirely speculative.

Also talking about our current Obama supported monetary policy where the Fed just keeps printing more and more cash to inflate our way into less debt. ( relatively speaking )

Again you make my point though, with all the Bush expenses - combined with the general state of the deficit and economy, how can you begin to justify Obamacare.

You also havent responded to any of my queries.

H.R. 3590 would, among other things, establish a mandate for most
residents of the United States to obtain health insurance; set up insurance
exchanges through which certain individuals and families could receive
federal subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of purchasing that
coverage; significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid; substantially reduce
the growth of Medicare’s payment rates for most services (relative to the
growth rates projected under current law); impose an excise tax on
insurance plans with relatively high premiums; and make various other
changes to the federal tax code, Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.
The reconciliation proposal includes provisions related to health care and
revenues, many of which would amend H.R. 3590. (The changes with the
largest budgetary effects are described below.) The reconciliation proposal
also includes amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965, which
authorizes most federal programs involving postsecondary education.
(Those provisions and their budgetary effects are described below as well.)
Estimated Budgetary Impact of the Legislation
CBO and JCT estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation—H.R. 3590
and the reconciliation proposal—would produce a net reduction in federal
deficits of $143 billion over the 2010–2019 period as result of changes in
direct spending and revenues (see Table 1). That figure comprises
$124 billion in net reductions deriving from the health care and revenue
provisions and $19 billion in net reductions deriving from the education
provisions. Approximately $114 billion of the total reduction would be onbudget;
other effects related to Social Security revenues and spending as
well as spending by the U.S. Postal Service are classified as off-budget.
CBO has not completed an estimate of the potential impact of the
legislation on discretionary spending, which would be subject to future
appropriation action.

Comming up tomorrow: why posting excerpts out of context is bad, deceptive, and what YOU can do about it. Stay tuned!

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is a federal agency within the legislative branch of the United States government. It is a government agency that provides economic data to Congress.[1] The CBO was created as an independent nonpartisan agency by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
With respect to estimating spending for Congress, the Congressional Budget Office serves a purpose parallel to that of the Joint Committee on Taxation for estimating revenue for Congress, the Department of the Treasury for estimating revenues for the Executive and estimates required for the Congressional budget process. This includes projections on the effect on national debt[2] and cost estimates for legislation.
Section 202(e) of the Act requires submission by CBO to the House and Senate Committees on the Budget periodic reports about fiscal policy and to provide baseline projections of the federal budget. This is currently done by preparation of an annual Economic and Budget Outlook plus a mid-year update. The agency also each year issues An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for the upcoming fiscal year per a standing request of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. These three series are designated essential titles distributed to Federal Depository Libraries and are available for purchase from the Government Printing Office. CBO also prepares reports and issues briefs and provides testimony often in response to requests of the various Congressional Committees. It also issues letters responding to queries made to it by members of Congress.

Cause like a good Liberal he just throws a bunch of so called facts at you hoping to distract you as he bends you over and slips it in.

Lol, Jet - its about how you interpret the facts, how many facts you assimilate and interpret at one time, and how deeply you follow the path of consequence.

In all honesty, can you say that yourself or any liberal anywhere has actually ever tried to objectively work out all the ramifications? To be honest most people do not try to do that, liberal or otherwise. What lots of folk seem to do is take what sounds good to them, then rationalize against that.

Anyhow, Jet, hearing you talk that like is quite ironic - seeing as you already have a track record in this very conversation of using "facts" without actually understanding the nature of said facts, or what they mean.

Prime example - the WHO report. You appeared to be very convinced that the WHO report was primarily concerned with quality and availability of care. Instead, it was primarily concerned with who was paying for the care.

"Facts" do not mean much, if you do not take to the time to find out exactly which facts you are dealing with, what they actually mean, and what the ramifications might be.

I am also surprised that you would accuse me of all people of not thinking, and following GOP talking points. How often in the past several years have I even agreed with the GOP? Trying to make me sound like a partisan based on party affiliation just shows that denial of facts comes from all sorts of places.

Anyhow, I started looking at that CBO report. I will post on it later, but for now I can tell you that I found about what I expected and then some.

Two small nuggets for preview: 1, the report does not include "discretionary" items that need funded - even though there were like 80 lines of programs and mandates that still need funded, and will need to be funded for the Obamacare to work as intended. 2, the so called deficit reductions are based on extreme taxitation to a degree that it will be extremely harmful to ALL of us living in the USA.

Nah I dont get offended, or think the world will change. Just trying to prod this into a more interesting direction of conversation or get you to bust out some reasoning.

Kind of behind today, will post more later. And mostly, I do it cause im bored and it can be more interesting that link surfing.

You are telling me that a law passed that has 3k pages, and no one even said they read it all, is good?????

Nancy Pelosi said "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"

How the hell is that saving the Government or us the tax payer 143 billion dollars. They passed a bill that means its going to cost money!!!!!!!

The government doesn't save money they take and spend money.

You need to get off your Democrats only do good band wagon and if nothing else listen to what Derid is saying.

As for a flat tax you have it at say 15% for all and dont raise it based on how much you make or its not a flat tax.

Since we are talking Obamacare now, and its potential side effects, allow me to share with you the way it will affect me, and several others (either in my position or employed by people in my position).

I own two businesses, both of which employ people. In 2014, should I have to replace a staff member or expand and hire another, it will be mandatory for me to provide health care upon the first day of employment.
No probationary period, to make sure the employee is even worthwhile and reliable. No room to make benefits a negotiation point when talking compensation with a prospective employee, and worst of all, should I, after 6 months, decide that its "just not working out" and terminate the employee, I will be reponsible for contributing to their COBRA for the following year.
To further that, if I decide that it is in my businesses interests to change insurance carriers, if the benefits or premiums change even slightly (for better or for worse), I am legally obligated to switch to the so called public "option" that doesnt really exist, but one is legally required to switch to when any policy changes are made.

Or, instead of paying $5000 a year or better per employee for contributions to coverage, I could just take advantage of the horrible employment situation and refuse to provide any coverage at all, at the cost of $750 in fines each year, per employee.


This is all without talking about the "end of life counseling", or the fact that it truly goes against the very definition of freedom to force people individually to purchase a product. If it was not government doing it, it would be called "racketeering", "assault" and "extortion". Possibly it would be called "slavery" in extreme cases. Think about it.. Some fool points a gun at you, and tells you "buy X. If you do not, you will be sent a bill for it anyway, if you do not pay the bill, we will kidnap you and hold you against your will, if you resist the kidnapping, we will kill you".

Those extreme items aside, the reality is that I am currently restructuring my businesses. No more W-2 employees for me. Nope, every person working my Inn and running insurance claims for me is quickly becoming an independent contractor. They can pay their own social "security" taxes, they can plan their own 401k's, SARSUPs and Roth IRA's. They can pay for their own health care coverage.

From a business standpoint, I provided these benefits and contributions as a matter of keeping employee loyalty, improving morale, and staying competitive in the employment arena. Paying your people decently and making sure they know they are being taken care of creates long term, competent employees, and ultimately saves money in the long run by cutting out costly mistakes and training expenditures.

However, I absolutely refuse to be made a slave to my employees. I refuse to be forced to provide anything. My employees are working for me of their own free will, and if I do not keep the same freedoms, I will close the goddamned doors in a heartbeat. Stating that I am morally and legally obligated to spend X amount of time or money in the service of another is saying that I am a slave (at the very least a temporary one).

My decision to offer specific wages and/or benefits are exactly that, my decision.

How the hell is that saving the Government or us the tax payer 143 billion dollars. They passed a bill that means its going to cost money!!!!!!!

Nuke the whales.

You are walking with blinders on Jet.

I would say the exact same thing to you.

Quick question. Do you have auto insurance that the government MADE you purchase?

I had a long drawn out conversation with you Jet, in my head and began to give it legs here, but alas I decided not to.

I'll just say the moral was being who you are and how you currently are in your life differs greatly from mine. While we deal in the same environments, work ethic and market of IT I can say having a wife and kids does play a role in one's thoughts about the current administration.

I'm not saying it's bad to be you or what you have, trust me, but not having the things I currently do allows you to think in a different light and I honestly and truly do feel if things were different you would have a very different aspect on life.

Not going into this here but I know from our one on one conversations in the past you respect who I am and what I believe in as well I to you so maybe in the future we can argue politics in a better arena

For now I'll continue to watch my FOX programming and continue to believe in those values I've grown into for this was not always the case and at a time long ago I would have considered myself a democrat by today's political terms but knowing what I've had, currently have and wish to continue to have you may call me a conservative.

Much love my friend..

Jey the reason the CBO was able to initially predict a deficit reduction, was because of the ENORMOUS level of taxes and fees imposed by the Obamacare bill, not because anything was being made more efficient.

I will probably not write in depth until Monday, but for now - on top of all the portions that have yet to recieve funding, and the huge taxes - its safe to say that there is no efficeny present. Did you take a look at that flowchart that plotted out the huge beuaracracy? Uhg.

Also, the estimates have been revised now to put the cost about 170B in the red... will post sources later when I address the bill in more depth.

Part of the problem, is that some of the base assumptions on revenue are flawed... not due to sloppy work on the part of the CBO - but rather revenues for yet to be implemented taxes are simply hard to nail down, because they depend heavily on market forces.

One example is that Obamacare introduces a 3.9% tax on all home sales. Obviously the type of revenue this tax will produce is an uncertainty, it depends on home prices and market activity.

Another example is raising the Capital Gains tax... but the more you raise the tax, the less economic activity occurs... and also the general market will fluctuate... making predicting revenues from said activity hard to predict.

Yet another factor, is changing estimates due to the number of companies that are expected to continue providing employer-based insurance as opposed to State managed health-exchanges. This number is being steadily revised downward, as under Obamacare it will be simpler and cheaper for most companies to simply stop offering insurance, and pay the fines instead.

Jet, why dont you stop for a minutes and actually "look" at what Obamacare is and does. Not what it was supposed to be, not what Obama said it would be, but what it actually is.

Good intentions do not necessarily translate into good policy. It just seems that you are so into what Obamacare intended to be, that you have yet to look at what it actually is or does.

Icky, just so you know, I dont personally benefit from Obamacare, but many people I know will. It has nothing to do with me.

I got some more research to do to catch up with Derid.

Icky, just so you know, I dont personally benefit from Obamacare, but many people I know will. It has nothing to do with me.

I got some more research to do to catch up with Derid.

Icky, just so you know, I dont personally benefit from Obamacare, but many people I know will. It has nothing to do with me.

Jet, you actually know someone who will benefit?

I honestly dont, all I know are people who a) will have their job in danger , b) people whose employer based plan will become degraded and lose their current coverage they are happy with, c) people who will have to lay people off and cut their employees hours , d) people who if this economy continues, are in danger of losing their business, and are further threatened by these huge taxes and e) people who will lose their employer based insurance , and have to seek private or govt insurance because they think their company seems likely to drop employee insurance.

It's easy to be generous with other people's money.

Yes why start with perfect when you can start at the bottom and work your way up and costing billions of extra just to start it.

First off when did she become my bonehead Sarah Palin.

Second my point was why pass something that needs work, like hey guys I just built a time machine but it only goes to one day 6/15/2010, but dont worry I will spend 999 billion and 15 years of fighting with my wife to make it work like it should.

List of Known Fortune 500's who have change their employee health care benefits and cited the looming 2018 "Cadillac Tax" as a "key" reason.

1) Google
2) Nike
3) GE
4) Boeing
5) Amazon
6) Adidas
7) McKesson
8) Ford
9) Intel
10) Microsoft

That is just off the top of my head. Boeing's change in health care in order not to be affected by the future tax is going to cost me personally around 4k per year. If I were married and had kids it would be more like 8-10k a year. I use to have "Gold Plated" health care the most of America would be jealous of. Now courtesy of that fucking nut bag Obama, I get hosed so that someone else can get covered.

Well fuck that! Let them go to college for 6 fucking years, put themselves through school working 3/4 time, and live like a fucking popper, to get 2 degrees, so that they can get a decent job with decent benefits, only to have them taken away because of some jack ass decided to give every piece of shit who can't cover them selves a piece of my pie.

Well fuck that bullshit right in its ass. I hate the dumb ass's we elected just as much as the dumb ass's they are replacing, but god I hope they repeal this pile of shit and force them to come back with something that isn't a steaming pile of bullshit.

It is actually my money, I am paying and not getting anything but fell good knowing they cant screw people like they used to. More is needed for sure, and this is not perfect, but it is a start.

PUBLICATIONS ISSUED IN THE PAST 90 DAYS
Fiscal Policy Choices
NOVEMBER 19, 2010 pdfblog post
CBO Director Doug Elmendorf's presentation to the Society of Government Economists

Fiscal Policy Choices
NOVEMBER 19, 2010 pdfblog post
CBO Director Doug Elmendorf's presentation to the National Tax Association

Preliminary Analysis of Rivlin-Ryan Health Care Proposal
NOVEMBER 17, 2010 pdf
Letter to the Honorable Paul Ryan

Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure
NOVEMBER 2010pdfadditional infoblog post

Unemployment Insurance Benefits and Family Income of the Unemployed
NOVEMBER 17, 2010 pdfblog post
Letter to the Honorable Jim McDermott

Managing Allowance Prices in a Cap-and-Trade Program
NOVEMBER 2010pdfblog post

Monthly Budget Review
NOVEMBER 2010pdfblog post
Based on the Monthly Treasury Statement for September and the Daily Treasury Statements for October

The Effect of the March Health Legislation on Prescription Drug Prices
NOVEMBER 4, 2010pdf
Letter to the Honorable Paul Ryan
(This is regarding a new proposal, and not the current laws. It is mostly talking about raising the retirement age.)

The Economic Outlook and Options for Fiscal Policy
OCTOBER 27, 2010 pdfblog post
CBO Director Doug Elmendorf's presentation to the Forecasters Club

CBO's Projections of Federal Receipts and Expenditures in the Framework of the National Income and Product Accounts
OCTOBER 2010pdf

Economic Effects of the March Health Legislation
OCTOBER 2010pdfblog post
CBO Director Doug Elmendorf's presentation at the Schaeffer Center of the University of Southern California

Save the federal government about $400 billion over next decade, some of which represents reductions in national health spending.

Total spending on health care now accounts for about 15 percent of GDP, and CBO projects that it will represent more than 25 percent by 2035. Therefore, changes in the performance of this part of the economy are increasingly critical to the performance of the economy as a whole.

I see whats going on!!!!!!

Jets fuckin with us

I WOULD NEVER! I AM A TROLL, k thx.

I want to recall a story for you that involves me personally a few years back before Ohio had ban on smoking.

In my workplace there was always a cafe that allowed smoking. Now lets not get into the facts about how it's harming me, et all but one day I was sitting there with my coworkers enjoying a smoke when some fat fucking hog of a woman, and that's literally an understatement, decided to bitch at me for smoking.

Not only was I killing myself but I was killing her. Oh not by second hand smoke but by the premiums she was forced to pay to cover costs of bogus lawsuits from smokers who sued. She literally went on and on about it until she decided to pop her .75 into the machine for, yet I'm sure, another Mr. Goodbar candy bar.

Now being one who is not going to take shit from anyone I stood up and asked her if she, a woman of such large stature, had diabetes. She promptly stated "yes, I do" which was explained to me because of her weight and sugar issues. I then asked her in clear retrospect of her bitching me out if she would like if they installed scales in front of the candy machine and if you did not meet a particular requirement they would not vend her the fucking candy. I mean, I'm paying for her ability to shove her fucking trough mouth with everything under the sun also upping my premiums to cover her medical costs to treat her diabetes.

She promptly shoved damn near the entire bar in her mouth and walked away.

It's THIS type of trash who see's the fault in everyone but herself that will bury us; nothing else.

Until this country wakes up and realizes our lazy, fat, over-indulging population of free loading individuals present a far bigger risk to our country it will continue to decline.

Some 40-50 years ago there was no "thyroid condition" or "My back hurts too much to work" issues because we simply labeled them trash but ever since we've placed these wretched examples of humans on pedestals and cowered in fear of actual ridicule that may, just possibly, lead them develop some sense of worth they may be valuable assets of society.

Sorry, long day and I'm just sick and tired of being one of "those" guys who doesn't expect a free hand out, doesn't expect things to be done for him and by all costs take care of me. If times were hard I would do everything imaginable to support my family and if that involved taking 3 jobs in the shitty possible places I would do so. I'm so sick and tired of hearing the younger generations bitch and moan about work, having to work or what they get paid. It's a personal responsibility to take care of your own and why must I feel taken advantage of because I do these things and our government wants to punish me and give to those very same lazy, fat fucking trash?

Sorry again, I'm done..

A little more. Fact is that there is no way to repeal this until you get a new President, and it is going to be hard even then.

I just re-upped my insurance here at work again, no increase, and no changes.