THANK YOU BARACK OBAMA !!!!!!!!!!! A GREAT PRESIDENT.

147 replies [Last post]
Jennifer Nettles's picture
Joined: 2010-03-01

BondGuy wrote: To tell the truth he's been dealt a tough hand. In admins past the prez has been able to come to consensus with the opposing party for the good of the nation. Not so these days! The repubs stand as a rock in the road regardless of the human cost. They've, in my opinion, absolutely polarized the country. You need to put the meth pipe down.   Owebama et al has taken EVERYTHING they possible could without reguard for the other side beginning with Judd Gregg (R) bailing from a cabinet position when he reliezed what kind of mission these gusy were on.I have NEVER seen an admin. so incredible closed to outside views or opinionThe hieght of his MF arrogance was basically cheating on healthcare using reconcilliation which was NEVER intended for a bill of thise scope AND to trump that the GD american people did not want it (fact)remember  "we won"how about fukcing the bondholders and teh constitution with GM commie motors?how about cheating the system with that bihct idiot elizabeth warren?  forget fair   forget years of convention.......i want it so I will gd do it.how about after mass loss coming out like a spoiled 12 year old kid and preading out volker and geithner and talking about ramming through the Volker rule.    Even Tim geitner was uncomforably with this arrogant small minded move.this dude is as shallow as they come.You dems can use your jedi mind trick spin to make it look like teh right has been the ones putting the road blocks up but its total bullshti.this guy is the great dividerand you know what is really, really cool?    Im very proud of the american people because they see right through this guy.   he got away with his slick bullsti a number of time but, eventually people have figured out that this dude is full of crapand thats why nov 2nd is going to be monumentaltake your medcine bond.its overowebama is a lame duck at best.bush tax cuts staying, pal.   new sherriffs in town.bubba was smart in 1994.   he listened to the people and accepted his need to changethis arrogant punk has dug his feet in and it is going to cost him BIG time.record turnouthouse blowout and senate majoritythanks for playingdrive safelyowebama couldnt pass gashis fall is trully incrediblefrom 73% to 43%the greatest degree of "disapprove" everowebama getting his a^% ripped out in these town meetings?PRICELESS i wont even comment on your feelings that govt works.how stupid(ps  ok one commet   HELLOOOOOO.  the post office is chap 11.  negative net worth-zero   yes it works copericui because it have UNLIMITED taxing power to piss away OUR money.   helllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllo) how the fukc can u have such great insights into out business and be so totally freakin retarted on this stuff.    

N.D.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-13

BondGuy wrote:My question for you: Regarding the woman with breast cancer who is refused treatment because she has no insurance, if we repeal healthcare, and she dies for lack of treatment, who's fault is that?  Not the rich guy that allocated half his capital via estate planning to the Mayo Clinic so the IRS and Big Govie cannot allocate it for him. It went STRAIGHT to the charity of choice because EVERYONE KNOWS the private sector will help her 1000x more than any government health care plan.Come on dude, you make this too easy. What is your REAL problem?REP = Individualism           DEMS = Collectivism 

Jennifer Nettles's picture
Joined: 2010-03-01

N.D. wrote:BondGuy wrote:My question for you: Regarding the woman with breast cancer who is refused treatment because she has no insurance, if we repeal healthcare, and she dies for lack of treatment, who's fault is that?  this does not happen in the USA.   duh duh duh duh it does happen in your perfect world (ie canada, sweden,france etc)duh.    those systems SUCKS.    she would wait in line while she dies man   you cant be this freakin stupidthe PM of canada went to cleveland clinic for a bypass.  duhyou got money anywhere on this planet?you come to USA for healthcareduh duh duh

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

lovindaindy wrote:BondGuy wrote:lovindaindy wrote:Democrats are not the party of the people.  How do you figure that?Democrats are the party of a beneficial society.  Republicans are the party of personal responsibility.  We need both.They are not mutually exlusive.I take exception to your take on the wars being wasteful.  As a veteran of those wars, I can tell you that more good was done than evil and that the protections of the citizens of this country actually occurred because we had those wars.Unless you have seen with your own eyes, you are only guessing and using what the media tells you (it's not as wonderful as FoxNews makes it out to be, but neither is it as horrible and UNNECESSARY as MSNBC makes it out to be).   Lowest common denominator - repubs = money  and dems = people. Right now we are polarized.As for the war, no question the media wisted things to their POV. That's not the issue. The issue is, why were we there? Lot of blood spilled and money spent. For what? For safety of our citizens.  If terrorists are attacking troops (who are trained to fight), they tend to be less focused on our citizenry.  Make no mistake, when our troops are out of Afghanistan and Iraq, we WILL be attacked again.   Lovin, are you serious with this take? I ask because while you are factually correct that the our citizenry in the United Staes hasn't been attacked since 2001, the "too busy to attack civillians" terrorist have committed major attacks in Russia, Britain, Spain. Turkey, Indonesia, India, tunisia, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Morroco, and Egypt. What, we didn't tie up enough of their resources? Or, were they getting enough satisfaction killing Americans in iraq that they figured they's cut the mainland a break? Not to mention the close call in we just had in Times Square! The reason we went to war with iraq was WMDs. Remember Colin Powell making our case for invasion to the UN? But, as you've written your own reasons, the failure in Iraq has caused several re-writes of our reasoning for war. I wonder which lie the history books will tell 100 years from now?I was aganst the war at first because i thought, "This is bullshit!" Anyone who had read Bush knew that attacking Iraq was on his first term agenda six months before 9/11. He just need justification. Butttt, I changed my mind when Colin Powell made his case for war to the U.N. Though there was no terrorist connection I agreed that iraq was too dangerous to leave alone. We needed to rid the world of the WMDs. Of course we all know what happened next. A seven year quagmire where, if anything, the terrorist used our occupation as a training ground. If, 30 years from now iraq emerges as a true democracy instead of the puppet government now in place, and if tribal warfare doesn't return and Iraq turns that corner, OK, at least something was accomplished and i could support the effort. So you know, the experts believe the odds are against that outcome. All that said, doesn't reflect poorly on the military that was asked to do the dirty work and put in harm's way. As always our military kicked ass and acted with the highest levels of honor. Sorry we disagree.

Jennifer Nettles's picture
Joined: 2010-03-01

BondGuy wrote: Lovin, are you serious with this take? I ask because while you are factually correct that the our citizenry in the United Staes hasn't been attacked since 2001, the "too busy to attack civillians" terrorist have committed major attacks in Russia, Britain, Spain. Turkey, Indonesia, India, tunisia, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Morroco, and Egypt. What, we didn't tie up enough of their resources? Or, were they getting enough satisfaction killing Americans in iraq that they figured they's cut the mainland a break? Not to mention the close call in we just had in Times Square! The reason we went to war with iraq was WMDs. Remember Colin Powell making our case for invasion to the UN? But, as you've written your own reasons, the failure in Iraq has caused several re-writes of our reasoning for war. I wonder which lie the history books will tell 100 years from now?I was aganst the war at first because i thought, "This is bullshit!" Anyone who had read Bush knew that attacking Iraq was on his first term agenda six months before 9/11. He just need justification. Butttt, I changed my mind when Colin Powell made his case for war to the U.N. Though there was no terrorist connection I agreed that iraq was too dangerous to leave alone. We needed to rid the world of the WMDs. Of course we all know what happened next. A seven year quagmire where, if anything, the terrorist used our occupation as a training ground. If, 30 years from now iraq emerges as a true democracy instead of the puppet government now in place, and if tribal warfare doesn't return and Iraq turns that corner, OK, at least something was accomplished and i could support the effort. So you know, the experts believe the odds are against that outcome. All that said, doesn't reflect poorly on the military that was asked to do the dirty work and put in harm's way. As always our military kicked ass and acted with the highest levels of honor. Sorry we disagree.bondyou're correct.i was wrongIraq was insane.   war is insane.    wolkowitz, pearl et al are dead wrong.western europe has it right here.   war ends badly. 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Jennifer Nettles wrote:My question for you: Regarding the woman with breast cancer who is refused treatment because she has no insurance, if we repeal healthcare, and she dies for lack of treatment, who's fault is that?  this does not happen in the USA.   duh duh duh duh it does happen in your perfect world (ie canada, sweden,france etc)duh.    those systems SUCKS.    she would wait in line while she dies man   you cant be this freakin stupidthe PM of canada went to cleveland clinic for a bypass.  duhyou got money anywhere on this planet?you come to USA for healthcareduh duh duhQuote:  jen, your ignorance really is astounding! Only to be surpassed by your selfishness. You don't care who pays for treatment for the poor as long as it's not you. You are deluding yourself. No surprise for the average tea bagger!How delusional are you or would this be stupidity? Just look at this answer: "This does not happen in the USA duh  duh duh duh!"  you go on to say "if you've got money anywhere on the planet you come to the USA for healthcare. duh duh duh." Your point that the USA has the best health care system and treatment in the world is well expressed by you telling me how freakin stupid i must be not to realize it. Mensa candidate Jen, here's a news flash for you: The USA does not have the world's best healthcare or healthcare system. No doubt, if you live near a major medical center you are going to get first class treatment. But, turns out most of don't. And turns out that the treatment given isn't the best. Who knew?According to the World Health Organzation's latest rankings the USA ranks, are you ready, 37th in the world in healthcare. OUCH!!!! 37th, how the eff is that possible? In another study the highly respected Commonwealth Fund ranked the USA last out of the five major nations in the delivery of healthcare. WE ranked behind Austrailia, Canada, New Zealand, The United Kingdom, and Germany in delivery of and access to quality health care. Interestingly, the report cites the disparity in access to quality healthcare between rich and poor in the USA as one reason for the poor showing. it also points to the waiting time to see specialist, and the disparty in quality medical treatment determined by location. Jen, look up the term "Drank the Kool-Aid" and then look in a mirror. You are apparently easily an led individual. That doesn't bode well for the IQ.As for my example, the woman without insurance denied treatment for breast cancer? She's real, and this did happen in this country. How do i know? I got her treatment.  She's the sister of a good friend. A waitress without health insurance. Turns out one of my good clients is one of the top oncologist in the country. You know, the type of guy people with money fly to our country to see. But, he's no miracle worker. This woman went too long without treatment. We're hopeful, but to tell you the truth, it doesn't look good. The good news for you, ND, and the rest of you self centered bastards, is her treatment didn't cost you a dime! just the way you like it! that she will probably die, no skin off you back, but more importantly no money out of your wallet!By the way, the doctor who treated this woman is disgusted that in this country this could happen to any woman. I told him, you need to meet some of the people on the RR forum. it will open your eyes!I noted that neither you or ND answered my question about fault. 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Jennifer Nettles wrote:BondGuy wrote: Lovin, are you serious with this take? I ask because while you are factually correct that the our citizenry in the United Staes hasn't been attacked since 2001, the "too busy to attack civillians" terrorist have committed major attacks in Russia, Britain, Spain. Turkey, Indonesia, India, tunisia, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Morroco, and Egypt. What, we didn't tie up enough of their resources? Or, were they getting enough satisfaction killing Americans in iraq that they figured they's cut the mainland a break? Not to mention the close call in we just had in Times Square! The reason we went to war with iraq was WMDs. Remember Colin Powell making our case for invasion to the UN? But, as you've written your own reasons, the failure in Iraq has caused several re-writes of our reasoning for war. I wonder which lie the history books will tell 100 years from now?I was aganst the war at first because i thought, "This is bullshit!" Anyone who had read Bush knew that attacking Iraq was on his first term agenda six months before 9/11. He just need justification. Butttt, I changed my mind when Colin Powell made his case for war to the U.N. Though there was no terrorist connection I agreed that iraq was too dangerous to leave alone. We needed to rid the world of the WMDs. Of course we all know what happened next. A seven year quagmire where, if anything, the terrorist used our occupation as a training ground. If, 30 years from now iraq emerges as a true democracy instead of the puppet government now in place, and if tribal warfare doesn't return and Iraq turns that corner, OK, at least something was accomplished and i could support the effort. So you know, the experts believe the odds are against that outcome. All that said, doesn't reflect poorly on the military that was asked to do the dirty work and put in harm's way. As always our military kicked ass and acted with the highest levels of honor. Sorry we disagree.bondyou're correct.i was wrongIraq was insane.   war is insane.    wolkowitz, pearl et al are dead wrong.western europe has it right here.   war ends badly. Did you mean Paul Wolfowitz? If you did, our failure to achieve the goals of the Wolfowitz Doctrine in Iraq proves in fact he was wrong.

Jennifer Nettles's picture
Joined: 2010-03-01

BondGuy wrote:[Did you mean Paul Wolfowitz? If you did, our failure to achieve the goals of the Wolfowitz Doctrine in Iraq proves in fact he was wrong.paul w  neo con  yes(the peeps who wrote document for bush 1 saying iraq HAD to be taken out)dude  im agreeing with youim eating crowsucking upadmitting being wrongyou're still trying to fight 

Jennifer Nettles's picture
Joined: 2010-03-01

first, I am not saying our system is not without major flaws.   it has manythe answer is not the MF govtthe answer is creating a system with the proper INCENTIVES.free market incentivesThe WHOthats funnysame amount of credibility as the UN or the Noble Prize freak shows.The USA healthcare system ahs one huge flawits very expensive.besides that, there is NO ONE on the planet even close to the quality of care of the US systembio-tech, new drugs,docs, educations, technology etc etc etcno one close the world health organizationthats funnyDIDNT THAT FAT ASS MIKE MOORE SAY CUBA WAS BETTER?ok   go get your GD bypass in havanathats funny please answer this question:its a simple questionlasik eye care works.     why?plastics work    why?costs go down every yearquality of product and care goes up every yearits delivered perfectly free markets are workpeople can shop the productthey can compare and contrastthey have incentives to get it cheaper FREE MF MARKETS  BOND, MY BROTHERcompetitionits a wonderful MF thing and it worksTHIS IS THE ANSWERnot govt bullshtiGET FREE MARKET INCENTIVES INTO HEALTHCAREDUH    DUH   DUH    DUH   DUHcan u shop and mri?how much does crap cost when u go to teh hospital?its a clusterfukeu think govt will fix this? please   bond  ANSWER THIS QUESTIONWHY DOES LASIKS AND PLASTICS WORK?    

Jennifer Nettles's picture
Joined: 2010-03-01

bondhealthcare is very complex.there are some things we agree on:no preventative care and then using the ER when youre really sick is dumbeveryone should have good healthcare in americawe need the correct incentivesincentives on costincentives fro preventive caresmoke?  pay morefat ass  pay morehigh BP  pay morethe "death panel" are great!its insane keeping people alive and speading all that money near the end when they are toastowebams answer is have govt fix thisright  that will work well 

N.D.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-13

BondGuy wrote:As for my example, the woman without insurance denied treatment for breast cancer? She's real, and this did happen in this country. How do i know? I got her treatment.  She's the sister of a good friend. A waitress without health insurance. Turns out one of my good clients is one of the top oncologist in the country. You know, the type of guy people with money fly to our country to see. But, he's no miracle worker. This woman went too long without treatment. We're hopeful, but to tell you the truth, it doesn't look good. The good news for you, ND, and the rest of you self centered bastards, is her treatment didn't cost you a dime! just the way you like it! that she will probably die, no skin off you back, but more importantly no money out of your wallet!By the way, the doctor who treated this woman is disgusted that in this country this could happen to any woman. I told him, you need to meet some of the people on the RR forum. it will open your eyes!I noted that neither you or ND answered my question about fault. Nice, "self centered bastards" huh? You are really a piece of work.As for your question... BondGuy wrote:My question for you: Regarding the woman with breast cancer who is refused treatment because she has no insurance, if we repeal health care, and she dies for lack of treatment, who's fault is that? I will not point figures like you have chosen to do post after post. If you choose to blame the lack of health care or her passing on one political party or even worse yet blame the "rich" then I would have to completely disagree. But as far as options go for someone in this situation, I would suggest:  http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Support/financial-resourceshttp://www.thewellnesscommunity.org/hc/Initiatives/Cancer-Costs/Cost-Information/No-Health-Insurance.aspxhttp://blog.cincovidas.com/managing-the-costs-of-treatmentCancer Care, a non-profit org., offers free support and counseling for cancer patients by oncology social workers. They have face-to-face counseling and counseling on the phone. Support groups on the phone are available too and are moderated by an oncology social worker. Call 800-813-HOPE. They can also give you info about financial resources. http://www.cancercare.org/Gilda's Club - www.gildasclub.org - they offer free social and emotional support. Not sure if they may have financial information but check it out just in case.Live Strong - www.livestrong.org - offers one-on-one support.American Cancer Society - can also give you financial, support, etc. information available in different cities.Hill-Burton Hospital Program - ever heard of it?National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland?Our church sponsors fund raisers for people in our community that have been diagnosed with all types of illnesses or just fell on hard times.It can feel overwhelming to face cancer without health insurance. Many without insurance are able to obtain excellent care, but it usually takes persistence and creativity.  From what I can tell BG, you think it is ok for the government to stick its hands into my pocket and pull out whatever it wants, keeping part of it for its self and allocating the rest as they see fit. I on the other hand prefer to keep their hands out of my pockets and I will dip into when and for what amount that I choose. The rich use charitable contributions to avoid paying taxes. Not because they want to spend the money on a fancy new boat that sails the blue water so elegantly (like the one you bought). They avoid paying taxes so they can determine who, when and how much money to donate or not. The great thing about this country is having the freedom of choice. Everyday people like you take away a little bit more of our “choice” to help those that cannot help them self.

lovindaindy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-05-07

Bondguy - I'm sorry we disagree too.  Except that I'm right.When you capture someone and they specifically tell you that they came from Syria or Iran or Palestine because they knew going to Iraq they could "kill Americans", and that is the consensus for ALL of the people you capture on raids, it's called statistically significant.  Western Europe and the rest of the world has shown their weakness.  Bending knee to radicalism thinking that they won't, with the sweep of a sword, cut your head off.This is one of those situations, that, unless you have been there (actually on the ground running missions - NOT in the TOC or back at the FOB like a good little Fobbit), you CAN'T know what you are talking about.Not to mention, that when I wasn't running missions I was helping the Iraqi people.  You aren't going to make Iraq a democracy overnight.  They are not going to be able to sustain their own military overnight.  It takes a LOT of time.  Further, the Iraq War as people try to call it, is actually the Persian Gulf War.  It was a resumption of hostilities.  Bush didn't need an excuse.  He didn't START that war.  HIs father did.  The problem was that, as much as I love Clinton, he didn't have the balls to attack after Saddam REPEATEDLY violated the cease-fire agreement.  So basically, Bush did his job.  I am proud to have served in that conflict.  The good done FAR outweighs any perceptions that people here got from watching the news. 

N.D.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-13

lovindaindy wrote:So basically, Bush did his job.  I am proud to have served in that conflict.  The good done FAR outweighs any perceptions that people here got from watching the news.I completely agree and thank you for your service sir. 

N.D.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-13

Difference Between Republicans and Democrats 

  1. 1. You know you're a Republican if...You wouldn't mind if the Commonwealth of Massachusetts seceded from the Union. You know you're a Democrat if...You wish the Republic of Texas had never become a state.

 

  1. 2. A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.
  2. The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republican's pocket and got out twenty dollars. He kept $15 for administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5.

 The rich choose to cut out the administration fees and make tax deductible charitable contributions to the organization of their choice. Sometimes it is done during the persons life and sometimes it is done thru estate planning. Either way, you bet your sweet ass it is given to those that need it...

Jennifer Nettles's picture
Joined: 2010-03-01

N.D. wrote:BondGuy wrote:As for my example, the woman without insurance denied treatment for breast cancer? She's real, and this did happen in this country. How do i know? I got her treatment.  She's the sister of a good friend. A waitress without health insurance. Turns out one of my good clients is one of the top oncologist in the country. You know, the type of guy people with money fly to our country to see. But, he's no miracle worker. This woman went too long without treatment. We're hopeful, but to tell you the truth, it doesn't look good. The good news for you, ND, and the rest of you self centered bastards, is her treatment didn't cost you a dime! just the way you like it! that she will probably die, no skin off you back, but more importantly no money out of your wallet!By the way, the doctor who treated this woman is disgusted that in this country this could happen to any woman. I told him, you need to meet some of the people on the RR forum. it will open your eyes!I noted that neither you or ND answered my question about fault. Nice, "self centered bastards" huh? You are really a piece of work.As for your question... BondGuy wrote:My question for you: Regarding the woman with breast cancer who is refused treatment because she has no insurance, if we repeal health care, and she dies for lack of treatment, who's fault is that? I will not point figures like you have chosen to do post after post. If you choose to blame the lack of health care or her passing on one political party or even worse yet blame the "rich" then I would have to completely disagree. But as far as options go for someone in this situation, I would suggest:  http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Support/financial-resourceshttp://www.thewellnesscommunity.org/hc/Initiatives/Cancer-Costs/Cost-Information/No-Health-Insurance.aspxhttp://blog.cincovidas.com/managing-the-costs-of-treatmentCancer Care, a non-profit org., offers free support and counseling for cancer patients by oncology social workers. They have face-to-face counseling and counseling on the phone. Support groups on the phone are available too and are moderated by an oncology social worker. Call 800-813-HOPE. They can also give you info about financial resources. http://www.cancercare.org/Gilda's Club - www.gildasclub.org - they offer free social and emotional support. Not sure if they may have financial information but check it out just in case.Live Strong - www.livestrong.org - offers one-on-one support.American Cancer Society - can also give you financial, support, etc. information available in different cities.Hill-Burton Hospital Program - ever heard of it?National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland?Our church sponsors fund raisers for people in our community that have been diagnosed with all types of illnesses or just fell on hard times.It can feel overwhelming to face cancer without health insurance. Many without insurance are able to obtain excellent care, but it usually takes persistence and creativity.  From what I can tell BG, you think it is ok for the government to stick its hands into my pocket and pull out whatever it wants, keeping part of it for its self and allocating the rest as they see fit. I on the other hand prefer to keep their hands out of my pockets and I will dip into when and for what amount that I choose. The rich use charitable contributions to avoid paying taxes. Not because they want to spend the money on a fancy new boat that sails the blue water so elegantly (like the one you bought). They avoid paying taxes so they can determine who, when and how much money to donate or not. The great thing about this country is having the freedom of choice. Everyday people like you take away a little bit more of our “choice” to help those that cannot help them self.wowN.D.   what an awesome post.excellent 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

N.D. wrote:BondGuy wrote:As for my example, the woman without insurance denied treatment for breast cancer? She's real, and this did happen in this country. How do i know? I got her treatment.  She's the sister of a good friend. A waitress without health insurance. Turns out one of my good clients is one of the top oncologist in the country. You know, the type of guy people with money fly to our country to see. But, he's no miracle worker. This woman went too long without treatment. We're hopeful, but to tell you the truth, it doesn't look good. The good news for you, ND, and the rest of you self centered bastards, is her treatment didn't cost you a dime! just the way you like it! that she will probably die, no skin off you back, but more importantly no money out of your wallet!By the way, the doctor who treated this woman is disgusted that in this country this could happen to any woman. I told him, you need to meet some of the people on the RR forum. it will open your eyes!I noted that neither you or ND answered my question about fault. Nice, "self centered bastards" huh? You are really a piece of work.As for your question... BondGuy wrote:My question for you: Regarding the woman with breast cancer who is refused treatment because she has no insurance, if we repeal health care, and she dies for lack of treatment, who's fault is that? I will not point figures like you have chosen to do post after post. If you choose to blame the lack of health care or her passing on one political party or even worse yet blame the "rich" then I would have to completely disagree. But as far as options go for someone in this situation, I would suggest:  http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Support/financial-resourceshttp://www.thewellnesscommunity.org/hc/Initiatives/Cancer-Costs/Cost-Information/No-Health-Insurance.aspxhttp://blog.cincovidas.com/managing-the-costs-of-treatmentCancer Care, a non-profit org., offers free support and counseling for cancer patients by oncology social workers. They have face-to-face counseling and counseling on the phone. Support groups on the phone are available too and are moderated by an oncology social worker. Call 800-813-HOPE. They can also give you info about financial resources. http://www.cancercare.org/Gilda's Club - www.gildasclub.org - they offer free social and emotional support. Not sure if they may have financial information but check it out just in case.Live Strong - www.livestrong.org - offers one-on-one support.American Cancer Society - can also give you financial, support, etc. information available in different cities.Hill-Burton Hospital Program - ever heard of it?National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland?Our church sponsors fund raisers for people in our community that have been diagnosed with all types of illnesses or just fell on hard times.It can feel overwhelming to face cancer without health insurance. Many without insurance are able to obtain excellent care, but it usually takes persistence and creativity.  From what I can tell BG, you think it is ok for the government to stick its hands into my pocket and pull out whatever it wants, keeping part of it for its self and allocating the rest as they see fit. I on the other hand prefer to keep their hands out of my pockets and I will dip into when and for what amount that I choose. The rich use charitable contributions to avoid paying taxes. Not because they want to spend the money on a fancy new boat that sails the blue water so elegantly (like the one you bought). They avoid paying taxes so they can determine who, when and how much money to donate or not. The great thing about this country is having the freedom of choice. Everyday people like you take away a little bit more of our “choice” to help those that cannot help them self.ND, you've out done yourself here! That's quite the list! If only my friend's sister had known you her outcome would have been so much better! You are the man!Obviously, there are a couple problem's here, well, more than a couple. You continue to show just how disconnected from reality you really are.Let me explain:I note that your list does  not include any oncologist, surgery centers or treatment centers. The list does include a lot of organizations that can point the way to the highway, but not one that will give a ride to the destination. So it goes in cancer treatment. And, just so we cover the base, the woman in my example went to Livestrong, Susan G. Komen and the ACS and got lot's of "we're rooting for you" type support, but no treatment or treatment options. She also went to a couple of local organzations and got nowhere. So as not to mislead anyone, Komen did come through in the end with some help, after my oncologist pushed a lot of buttons. But, on her own, this woman got nada !!!! And, as i said the designated treatment center stonewalled her. On her own, this woman would probably already be dead. if you had any actual experience with helping people in this situation you would know that for as well meaning as some of these organizations are, they aren't overly effective in getting uninsured people treated. I note your list was constructed with the use of a computer with web access. How much did that computer cost you? What's the monthly charge from Comcast, or Verizon? Do you think a poor person could afford that fee? I know, how ridiculous, right? In the past others on this very forum told me it was ridiculous to  say that a person has no web access. Hmm, kinda arrogant attitude don'tchathink?Even if these organizations did treat cancer patients, how would a poor person find them? Luck?I note that all of these organzitions fulfill your requirement for helping those who you refuse to help. Again, you are off the hook.Do you support any of these organizations in a meaningful way? Let's talk about your church. Fund raisers eh? Wow, that's nice. I mean that sincerely. But, again I have a problem with this. There is an ethical dilemma with churches filled with right wing republicans helping poor people. That is; help them on Sunday, vote against them on Tuesday.  ND, you've demonstrated on this thread that you are against every social program ever invented to help the poor. So, you deny thousand of poor help, and in fact, vote for things that hurt the poor, but then help a few of the families you've hurt? And, somehow this evens the score? All good with ND's christians? The ethics problem is, if highest ethical standard is doing the right thing 100% of the time how do you justify voting against these people? help'em on Sunday, Hurt'em on Tuesday.As for charitable contributions i can only speak for myself. I give charitble contributions to organzations and people I believe in. That I get to deduct it from my taxes doesn't enter into the equation. If you understood what charity is, you would know it's not about saving tax dollars. it's about giving, not saving!  it's about the cause!!!!  For example, my grandson has Autism. It's heartbreaking!!! So, that gets a lot of dough right now. We work with a few good organizations, Elliott Sadler, and some others. You really need to get a clue. There is one other person i can speak for with regard to charitable contributions, you. You don't give from the heart, you give from the pocketbook. You give to save paying taxes. At least that's what you've posted here. That's sad! my sinerest hope for you is that life doesn't test you to a degree that you find out just how sad. Sorry the boat bothers you so much. We kinda like it.       

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

N.D. wrote:Difference Between Republicans and Democrats 

  1. 1. You know you're a Republican if...You wouldn't mind if the Commonwealth of Massachusetts seceded from the Union. You know you're a Democrat if...You wish the Republic of Texas had never become a state.

 

  1. 2. A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.
  2. The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republican's pocket and got out twenty dollars. He kept $15 for administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5.

 The rich choose to cut out the administration fees and make tax deductible charitable contributions to the organization of their choice. Sometimes it is done during the persons life and sometimes it is done thru estate planning. Either way, you bet your sweet ass it is given to those that need it...ND, again with a post showing a serious disconnect with reality. The problem - you beleive this is truth.Apparently you are not aware that prior to the 2008 financial debacle that 45% of the homeless were Mentally ill? And, today that number still stands between 25 and 35%? Your republican businessman give the mentally ill a job?it gets worse for you - Guess who put the mentally ill on the streets? if you guessed dems you guessed wrong. Repubs all the way. Ronnie threw them out of the hospitals and onto the streets. Repubs have kept them there since. Repubs own the businesses. Is it more likely that a repub would have fired or laid off that homeless person or offer him a job? Obvious answer there as well.Have you ever seen a republican conservative give money to a street person? Dude, i work in a big city, as nettlesome would say, put down the meth pipe!Your joke really is a joke, though not in the way you mean. You need to get another joke where you lose the homeless person. At least then you wouldn't be doing a dig on yourself. Again, the sad point is, your party put the mentally ill on the street and now you make jokes about it. Your self centered you is showing it's slip. 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

lovindaindy wrote:Bondguy - I'm sorry we disagree too.  Except that I'm right.When you capture someone and they specifically tell you that they came from Syria or Iran or Palestine because they knew going to Iraq they could "kill Americans", and that is the consensus for ALL of the people you capture on raids, it's called statistically significant.  Western Europe and the rest of the world has shown their weakness.  Bending knee to radicalism thinking that they won't, with the sweep of a sword, cut your head off.This is one of those situations, that, unless you have been there (actually on the ground running missions - NOT in the TOC or back at the FOB like a good little Fobbit), you CAN'T know what you are talking about.Not to mention, that when I wasn't running missions I was helping the Iraqi people.  You aren't going to make Iraq a democracy overnight.  They are not going to be able to sustain their own military overnight.  It takes a LOT of time.  Further, the Iraq War as people try to call it, is actually the Persian Gulf War.  It was a resumption of hostilities.  Bush didn't need an excuse.  He didn't START that war.  HIs father did.  The problem was that, as much as I love Clinton, he didn't have the balls to attack after Saddam REPEATEDLY violated the cease-fire agreement.  So basically, Bush did his job.  I am proud to have served in that conflict.  The good done FAR outweighs any perceptions that people here got from watching the news. So were on the same page, my perceptions aren't media based.Your argument that you had to be there to know what your talking about is far off base. Do i know what it's like to shoot someone in war? No! But i don't have to know that to know that the Vietnam war was a failure. Iraq is no different. The latest casualty count for Iraq that i can find is 4424 American service men and woman dead. Over 31,000 wounded. If you have different numbers, by all means please share it. That being the cost, question: What did we gain in exchange?   

Jennifer Nettles's picture
Joined: 2010-03-01

BondGuy wrote:ND, again with a post showing a serious disconnect with reality. The problem - you beleive this is truth.Bond:After you last 3 postsyou're disconnect with reality is monumentalwhat a total bunch of convoluted bullshtiyou sound foolishyou are officially ND's little bicthgame,set, matchps: where is all your guilt coming from.    I think we need to explore that.are you catholic? 

N.D.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-13

BondGuy wrote:ND, you've out done yourself here! That's quite the list! If only my friend's sister had known you her outcome would have been so much better! You are the man!Thank you and I do not mind the facetious tone of your response. I had this list fresh in my mind (along with many others) because we are on the tail end of going through the same thing (all be it a different kind of cancer) with my father-n-law. Long story short, he is "financially" poor but is a good man that unfortunately made many bad decisions in life. My wife has been with him two states away for two weeks now. The doctors hope for two months. Like I said before, It can feel overwhelming to face cancer without health insurance. Many without insurance are able to obtain excellent care, but it usually takes persistence and creativity.  I do not know anything about you friend's sister or her situation. But I will say that there are many programs, community groups, libraries, families and friends that can help. I am guessing but find it hard to believe that people are that cold and very shrug where you are at. Here in the south, we are passionate about helping people in our communities directly and not behind or through an inefficient government body. But I must add that someone has to ask for help before anyone will know they need it. BondGuy wrote:As for charitable contributions i can only speak for myself. I give charitble contributions to organzations and people I believe in. That I get to deduct it from my taxes doesn't enter into the equation. If you understood what charity is, you would know it's not about saving tax dollars. it's about giving, not saving!  it's about the cause!!!!  For example, my grandson has Autism. It's heartbreaking!!! So, that gets a lot of dough right now. We work with a few good organizations, Elliott Sadler, and some others. You really need to get a clue. There is one other person i can speak for with regard to charitable contributions, you. You don't give from the heart, you give from the pocketbook. You give to save paying taxes. At least that's what you've posted here. That's sad! my sinerest hope for you is that life doesn't test you to a degree that you find out just how sad. Sorry the boat bothers you so much. We kinda like it.  You can't have it both ways. Either the government does "charitable" work or not. According to you, the rich are against the poor because the rich do not support government "charitable" programs. But the rich give to the poor in so many different ways besides via tax code. Why do you act like it is a "bad thing" for the rich to give their money to charitable organizations directly? Do you actually hold yourself above others because you allocate your "excess" income to those that need it via IRS and multiple governmental bodies? Its not a rich/poor thing like you try to make it out to be. It is a control thing. The rich want to control what they have and what they give. The fewer hands it can go through the more affect they feel will be provided from their dollars. You understand leverage right? The excess expenses of "middle management"? The government is inefficient in every way imaginable.p.s. the boat doesn't bother me as much as I am sure it bothers the homeless people you speak of that could be fed, clothed and sheltered with the money you spent on the boat. I don't fault you for rewarding yourself for many years of hard work and building a successful business. I do think it is hypocritical for you to make statements about what other people choose to do with THEIR money.

lovindaindy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-05-07

BondGuy wrote:lovindaindy wrote:Bondguy - I'm sorry we disagree too.  Except that I'm right.When you capture someone and they specifically tell you that they came from Syria or Iran or Palestine because they knew going to Iraq they could "kill Americans", and that is the consensus for ALL of the people you capture on raids, it's called statistically significant.  Western Europe and the rest of the world has shown their weakness.  Bending knee to radicalism thinking that they won't, with the sweep of a sword, cut your head off.This is one of those situations, that, unless you have been there (actually on the ground running missions - NOT in the TOC or back at the FOB like a good little Fobbit), you CAN'T know what you are talking about.Not to mention, that when I wasn't running missions I was helping the Iraqi people.  You aren't going to make Iraq a democracy overnight.  They are not going to be able to sustain their own military overnight.  It takes a LOT of time.  Further, the Iraq War as people try to call it, is actually the Persian Gulf War.  It was a resumption of hostilities.  Bush didn't need an excuse.  He didn't START that war.  HIs father did.  The problem was that, as much as I love Clinton, he didn't have the balls to attack after Saddam REPEATEDLY violated the cease-fire agreement.  So basically, Bush did his job.  I am proud to have served in that conflict.  The good done FAR outweighs any perceptions that people here got from watching the news. So were on the same page, my perceptions aren't media based.Your argument that you had to be there to know what your talking about is far off base. Do i know what it's like to shoot someone in war? No! But i don't have to know that to know that the Vietnam war was a failure. Iraq is no different. The latest casualty count for Iraq that i can find is 4424 American service men and woman dead. Over 31,000 wounded. If you have different numbers, by all means please share it. That being the cost, question: What did we gain in exchange?   We gained several things:1)  Battle-hardened veterans who can lead our soldiers in tomorrow's wars.2)  Removal of a genocidal maniac3)  An ally4)  I don't know about others, but my squad alone captured or killed over 50 terrorists from various countries.5)  A foothold in the Middle east (although that's gone now, and that IS thanks to Obama)6)  Professional military relationships between individual officers and NCOs on both sides7)  Good will of the MAJORITY of Iraqi people. 8)  Integration among schools in Iraq.9)  A generation of Iraqis who "get it".I could go on.Not to marginalize the deaths (I have a family member among them, buried in Arlington), but the percentage of deaths pursuant to these two wars is not statistically significantly different from those killed in training accidents.  And guess what?  Training accidents dropped SIGNIFICANTLY during these wars.  What does this tell you?  Training works!  Same goes for injuries.Iraq IS different.  Significantly different.  Those who served in both wars can tell you.  I'm not old enough.As for your breast cancer friend, I'm sorry.But I certainly don't think that it is my responsibility to pay her medical bills.  Health care isn't a right.  Just like retirement isn't a right.  We tried to say home ownership was a right, but look where that got us.  College is a right now apparently, and guess where that's leading?

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Nettlesome - Instead of attacking me, attack what i've written. Oh, that's right, you can't ! because what I've posted is truth. Ronnie threw the homeless to the street and said the money saved would be funneled to community mental health care intiatives. Funny thing though, the money never made it to the community. Ronnie was looking to cut spending, he found a helpless group thast couldn't fight back. How very republican! The rest is history. You said you aren't racist. Thanks for clearing that up. I could talk about the 'Southern Strategy" and how it's legacy is still in play in the repub party. That would really piss you off. You are a confused individual. You agree that the bailouts were necessary, yet you fully support the Tea Party which totally disagrees with that viewpoint. And i'm the one who sounds foolish? So, the next time we need an economy saving bailout, what, we just let the ship roll over? 

N.D.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-13

BondGuy wrote:Nettlesome - Instead of attacking me, attack what i've written. Oh, that's right, you can't ! because what I've posted is truth. Ronnie threw the homeless to the street and said the money saved would be funneled to community mental health care intiatives. Funny thing though, the money never made it to the community. Ronnie was looking to cut spending, he found a helpless group thast couldn't fight back. How very republican! The rest is history. You said you aren't racist. Thanks for clearing that up. I could talk about the 'Southern Strategy" and how it's legacy is still in play in the repub party. That would really piss you off. You are a confused individual. You agree that the bailouts were necessary, yet you fully support the Tea Party which totally disagrees with that viewpoint. And i'm the one who sounds foolish? So, the next time we need an economy saving bailout, what, we just let the ship roll over?   You continue to make accusations without citing any sources... Reagan may not have wanted to increase the size of government but he did sign the McKinney-Vento Act.I hate to use wikipedia as a source but it is the easiest for this reply and can led you, and anyone else that may be curious about your accusations, a place to start looking.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinney-Vento_Act wrote:It was the first significant federal legislative response to homelessness, and was passed and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on July 22, 1987. This legislation is considered landmark legislation for the homeless.You are obviously in way over your head boy. You have been exposed for what you are. Best advice for you is to just forget this thread is here and go back to helping newbs pitch bonds.p.s. Nettles does not have to agree with the entire platform to align personal beliefs with a platform.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

I gotta hand it to you two, ND and nettlesome. I'll getting a good laugh here. In my opening post on this thread i stated 'Stupidity on parade!" Wow, was that understatement ! ND, at first i took you as nettle's intelligent alter ego. But, not so much now. Both of you are unaware of not only what is happening now but have absolutely no idea of the history of the republican party.  Your blind support is emblematic of of why we are so polarized today. the facts don't matter. To top it off, you are fully engaged on finacial issues and just as disengaged on social welfare issues. Help yourself, all over it! help your poor brother - no effin way! Like i said - self centered bastards!You've got to go back 23 years to find an example where a republican did something good for the poor. That should tell you something right there. And, if you really knew the truth you wouldn't have brought his up.  Because you are obviously unware let me tell how it was 30 years ago. Reagan slashed every soical program he could get his hands on. The mentally ill, denfenseless, were an easy target. So were the poor. The budget for low cost housing went from 32 billion under Carter to under 7 billion under reagan. You can't cut a housing budget by 80% without hurting people.This move ballooned the homeless into a national problem. Thus the McKinney Act. Which reagan, realizing he couldn't  win a Veto agaist a dem congress and senate, signed RELUCTANTLY! The repubs have taken every opportunity to gut this act ever since. Reagan didn't want to help the homeless, he was forced to. Patti Davis in a article written for Parade Magazine: I was afraid i'd be recognised while jogging ( on the streets of DC) and confronted about the homeless. What would i say if asked why i didn't argue wtih my father about this national tragedy? How do you argue with someone who states the people who are sleeping on the streets of america 'Are homeless by choice?"Patti was referring to Reagans's response to the question  posed shortly before Christmas "How do feel about the homeless sleeping in the park across the street from the White House?" His response 'it is their choice to be sleeping out there"ND, I believe reagan sums up your view of the poor quite well. You've shown quite clearly that you don't understand the root cause of the issues. it is you who is in way over his head. That you are supported by the resident Mensa Member here on RR  doesn't help your cause.You've also made it clear that you don't donate to charity unless there is something in it for you. For you, charity is a financial issue. And, somehow you still see yourself as a good Christian?I don't get that, and i never will. "What's in it for me?' Not in any Bible i've ever read, yet you, and nettle live by these words. Lastly, on your cheap shot about the boat, giving the money to the poor, is that Communism or socialism? Because it's one or the other, and since it's your beleif system maybe you could explain it to me? ( and don't let the Tea baggers find out you feel this way. That'll really get'em riled up!)  

Jennifer Nettles's picture
Joined: 2010-03-01

OBama May Be In Deep Trouble

Chief Justice John Roberts,
U.S. Supreme Court.

According to sources who watch the
inner workings of the federal government, a
smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be
inevitable.

Ever since Obama assumed the office of
President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional
issues.

Critics have complained that much, if
not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks
on the power of the federal government.

Obama certainly did not help himself in
the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address
early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First
Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during
the time of an election.

The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit
well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who
publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not
true,'
when Obama told
a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.

As it has turned out, this was a
watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial
branches of the federal government.
Obama
publicly declared war on the court
, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation
that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this
nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice
John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush
Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and so on.

And it is no accident that the one
swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that
he has no
intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.'

Apparently, the Court has
had enough.

The Roberts Court has signaled, in a
very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which
Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven.

A ruling against Obama on any one of
these important issues could potentially cripple the
Administration.

Such a thing would be long
overdue.

First, there is ObamaCare,
which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from
forcing citizens to purchase something.

And no, this is not the same thing as
states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the
intellectually-impaired claim.

The Constitution limits
FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not
everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car
insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.

In the ObamaCare world, however, no
citizen can 'opt out.'

Second, sources state that
the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in
Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the
office of President.

The charge goes far
beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible
fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a
high school student in Hawaii.

And that is only the tip of
the iceberg.

Third, several cases involving possible
criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could
potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot
water with the Court.

Frankly, in the years this writer has
observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption
of this Administration, not even during the Nixon
years.

Nixon and the
Watergate conspirators look
like choirboys compared to the jokers that
populate this Administration.

In addition, the Court will eventually
be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ suing the state of
Arizona.

That, too, could send
the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the
Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal
aliens.

And finally, the biggie that could
potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest
revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to
pursue the New Black Panther Party.

The group was caught on tape
committing

felonies by
attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying
away from the polls
.

A whistle-blower who resigned from the
DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against
Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the
New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape
calling for the murder
of white people and their babies.

N.D.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-13

It is really getting old now but for whatever reason, I will reply yet again... BondGuy wrote:....This move ballooned the homeless into a national problem. Thus the McKinney Act. Which Reagan, realizing he couldn't win a Veto agaist a dem congress and senate, signed RELUCTANTLY! The repubs have taken every opportunity to gut this act ever since. Reagan didn't want to help the homeless, he was forced to.... So you are saying that Reagan was able to single handedly throw the mentally handicap and disabled out on the streets without the help of congress  but "reluctantly" signed the Stewart B. McKinney Act? You do know that Stewart McKinney was a Repub and the chief sponsor of the Urgent Relief for the Homeless Act, don't you? It was changed to the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act before Reagan signed it into law. Pres Clinton changed it to McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act in 2000.note: 1.  The Dems controlled the House and Repubs controlled the Senate during Reagan's 8 years. So anything Reagan signed must of had bipartisan support.2. The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act had very limited changes when Clinton signed the act in 2000 (nearly the last thing he did in office besides pardons which is another story for another day) and the numbers of homeless did not reverse while Clinton was in office.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

N.D. wrote:It is really getting old now but for whatever reason, I will reply yet again... BondGuy wrote:....This move ballooned the homeless into a national problem. Thus the McKinney Act. Which Reagan, realizing he couldn't win a Veto agaist a dem congress and senate, signed RELUCTANTLY! The repubs have taken every opportunity to gut this act ever since. Reagan didn't want to help the homeless, he was forced to.... So you are saying that Reagan was able to single handedly throw the mentally handicap and disabled out on the streets without the help of congress  but "reluctantly" signed the Stewart B. McKinney Act? You do know that Stewart McKinney was a Repub and the chief sponsor of the Urgent Relief for the Homeless Act, don't you? It was changed to the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act before Reagan signed it into law. Pres Clinton changed it to McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act in 2000.note: 1.  The Dems controlled the House and Repubs controlled the Senate during Reagan's 8 years. So anything Reagan signed must of had bipartisan support.2. The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act had very limited changes when Clinton signed the act in 2000 (nearly the last thing he did in office besides pardons which is another story for another day) and the numbers of homeless did not reverse while Clinton was in office.ND, I was laughing because the fact that Reagan screwed the poor and the homeless not disputed. Well, not by informed folks and certainly not by folks who lived through it. It's a sky is blue fact.  yet, you are unaware.Follow me here - Reagan comes in as a fiscal conservative who is going to curb spending. He cuts federal spending for the mentally ill forcing hospitals to close. He also cut spending to all programs that help the mentally ill. AND< YES HE COULD DO THIS WITH A PEN WITHOUT HOUSE AND SENATE APPROVAL. When the hospitals closed the patients had no where to go. Those who weren't taken by family went to the streets. Those of who lived and worked in big citiies saw the immediate effect of this move. Likewise the 80% cut in fed housing assistance put hundreds of thousands on the streets. Homelessness became a national problem in a time of prosperity. Reagan turned a blind eye.Reagan also fired the Air traffic Controllers without house or senate approval. But, that' another issue.5 years later homelessness is a national issue. A repub from a liberal NE state who today would probably be labeled a RINO sponsors a bill that is labeled a first step in helping the homeless. it turned out to be the last step as well. Early on Reagan gained congressional support for his cost cutting because he promised to reroute the money to local community programs that could do the same job for less money. ND, does this sound familiar? The result would be the same help  rendered for a lot less money. Turned out to be an even better deal for Reagan when he failed to deliver on his promise. The money to local groups and programs, both advocates for the poor, and the mentally ill, never showed up. The money saved went instead to national defense. Then the outrage started.  Go back and read those quotes, from Reagan and his daughter. And, the real punch line is that reagan didn't cut spending. He took deficit spending to new levels ballooning the deficit to a point that when Bush came in as "Mr read my lips no new taxes" he had to raise taxes. That cost him!Lastly, on your comment that nettlesom can support the TP while not agreeing with everything they stand for. I agree up to a point. But, you don't go to a steakhouse to order the fish. Likewise, you don't support a party who's central plank is exactly the opposite of what you believe. If the bailouts were a wedge issue for the TP, OK, I can see it. The bailouts are the only issue for the TP. Again, why would anyone who knows the truth about the bailouts support the TP?  It makes no sense.

N.D.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-13

BondGuy wrote:ND, I was laughing because the fact that Reagan screwed the poor and the homeless not disputed. Well, not by informed folks and certainly not by folks who lived through it. It's a sky is blue fact.  yet, you are unaware.Follow me here - Reagan comes in as a fiscal conservative who is going to curb spending. He cuts federal spending for the mentally ill forcing hospitals to close. He also cut spending to all programs that help the mentally ill. AND< YES HE COULD DO THIS WITH A PEN WITHOUT HOUSE AND SENATE APPROVAL. When the hospitals closed the patients had no where to go. Those who weren't taken by family went to the streets. Those of who lived and worked in big citiies saw the immediate effect of this move. Likewise the 80% cut in fed housing assistance put hundreds of thousands on the streets. Homelessness became a national problem in a time of prosperity. Reagan turned a blind eye.Reagan also fired the Air traffic Controllers without house or senate approval. But, that' another issue.5 years later homelessness is a national issue. A repub from a liberal NE state who today would probably be labeled a RINO sponsors a bill that is labeled a first step in helping the homeless. it turned out to be the last step as well. Early on Reagan gained congressional support for his cost cutting because he promised to reroute the money to local community programs that could do the same job for less money. ND, does this sound familiar? The result would be the same help  rendered for a lot less money. Turned out to be an even better deal for Reagan when he failed to deliver on his promise. The money to local groups and programs, both advocates for the poor, and the mentally ill, never showed up. The money saved went instead to national defense. Then the outrage started.  Go back and read those quotes, from Reagan and his daughter. And, the real punch line is that reagan didn't cut spending. He took deficit spending to new levels ballooning the deficit to a point that when Bush came in as "Mr read my lips no new taxes" he had to raise taxes. That cost him!Lastly, on your comment that nettlesom can support the TP while not agreeing with everything they stand for. I agree up to a point. But, you don't go to a steakhouse to order the fish. Likewise, you don't support a party who's central plank is exactly the opposite of what you believe. If the bailouts were a wedge issue for the TP, OK, I can see it. The bailouts are the only issue for the TP. Again, why would anyone who knows the truth about the bailouts support the TP?  It makes no sense.Honestly I do not even want to shoot holes in your posts anymore. I try again and again to back my statements up with facts and/or sources so my statements can be verified and debated. You continually state your opinions, lame assumptions and ridiculous accusations. If you would like to provide rebuttals to my posts, try citing sources and/or references to your statements. Otherwise just shut the fukc up and let this thread die... 

loneMADman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-05-10

The pissing back and forth is getting tiresome, but I need to clarify one article of fact:BondGuy is 100% correct in saying that the President (in this case Reagan) has absolute near control over WHETHER and WHEN money is spent.  In fact, that is the very definition of the EXECUTIVE branch.  It executes upon the laws enacted by Congress.  So while the President absolutely cannot spend money Congress has not approved (one reason why Iran-Contra was a big deal BTW), he absolutely 100% CAN WITHHOLD spending of money approved by Congress.  It's not often done, because in large doses it's tantamount to declaring war on the legislative branch, but it has been done, more often by Reagan than any other President.So ND, there is a "fact" of yours refuted. BTW, you say BondGuy just spews opinions and not facts.  I agree with you that some of what he writes can be explained as subjective bias, but respectfully disagree with you that he does so more than most on this forum.  And I cannot be respectful of you completely condoning Nettlesome for being the biggest spewer of faux (FOX?) facts, idealogy and loony conspiracy theories.  Your unwillingness to call him out when he agrees with you forces me to conclude that you merely feign objectivity.  Lastly, when BondGuy has used facts, you have usually failed to lay a glove on him, and merely introduced numerous faux facts of your own, like the one above.  You are better than Nettlesome, if only because you can string a coherent thought together, but you're no BondGuy, whether I occasionally agree with you or not.

N.D.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-13

loneMADman wrote:The pissing back and forth is getting tiresome, but I need to clarify one article of fact:BondGuy is 100% correct in saying that the President (in this case Reagan) has absolute near control over WHETHER and WHEN money is spent.  In fact, that is the very definition of the EXECUTIVE branch.  It executes upon the laws enacted by Congress.  So while the President absolutely cannot spend money Congress has not approved (one reason why Iran-Contra was a big deal BTW), he absolutely 100% CAN WITHHOLD spending of money approved by Congress.  It's not often done, because in large doses it's tantamount to declaring war on the legislative branch, but it has been done, more often by Reagan than any other President.So ND, there is a "fact" of yours refuted. Nowhere in your rambling does it point to a source or reference to "refute" my fact. You guys really are so drunk on the lib spin that you believe that since you read it somewhere on a blog it must be true??? I know the "powers" a prez is given. duh What I did not see in either of your posts is a reputable (or any for that fact) source that shows:1. Republicans stick it to the poor.2. Reagan threw mentally ill people in the streets thus creating a homelessness epidemic.The homeless problem actually started before Reagan took office and escalated during his term but it was not because he "threw" the mentally ill and disabled into the streets. To blame one man for these things or even a single political party, is absolutely absurd. Especially during a true bipartisan congress as we had in the 80s.The mentally ill and disabled issues began in the late 60s as the first of the baby boomers began to enter society as young adults. The deinstitutanalzation movement also escalated the number of homeless people by not allowing people to be institutionalized against their will which is a good thing IMO.You can blame many people for the unfortunate results of several pieces of legislation but for BG to attempt to use his opinion as facts to single out the individual or individuals that are directly responsible for this concern is ABSURD.loneMADman wrote:BTW, you say BondGuy just spews opinions and not facts.  I agree with you that some of what he writes can be explained as subjective bias, but respectfully disagree with you that he does so more than most on this forum.  And I cannot be respectful of you completely condoning Nettlesome for being the biggest spewer of faux (FOX?) facts, idealogy and loony conspiracy theories.  Your unwillingness to call him out when he agrees with you forces me to conclude that you merely feign objectivity.  Lastly, when BondGuy has used facts, you have usually failed to lay a glove on him, and merely introduced numerous faux facts of your own, like the one above.  You are better than Nettlesome, if only because you can string a coherent thought together, but you're no BondGuy, whether I occasionally agree with you or not. I would be glad to start over with an accusation from BondGuy and a fact or source or reference to support his facts. Unless he would like to change his facts and say it is his opinion the Gipper launched the poor, mentally ill and disabled out on the streets because he is opposed to these demographics.If you feel that I have "introduced numerous faux facts" please point them out so I can cite my source of reference or restate the post as my opinion.

loneMADman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-05-10

ND, either you don't know the powers a president is granted or you are incapable of admitting you were wrong about even one specific fact.  Why would I take the time to point out others when you are obviously irredeemable?By the way, BondGuy and I are not the same person and I didn't write what he did.  You could be a little more discerning in your wild attacks, but making fine distinctions clearly isn't your thing. 

Jennifer Nettles's picture
Joined: 2010-03-01

God bless you Ronnie.  Forgive them.Ronnie cut marginal tax rates from 70% in 1979.  And started a monster economic run that HELPED EVERYONE (duh).  Please repeat this 100 time Bond et al.  IT HELPS EVERYONE.THE ANSWER IS A MAN WITH A mf JOB not govt bullshti that NEVER works.free markets create wealth.    greed creates wealth.   that lifts EVERYONE.cut taxes, cut regulation.   supply side, voodoo, trickle down economics WORKS  periodeverytime  (including 2002)Ronnie HELPED the poor more then any president in my lifetime by a mile. A MAN WITH A JOB IS THE ANSWER.NOT A MAN WITH YOUR BULLSHTI HANDOUT GIVEAWAY WEALTH DISTRIBUTION COMRADE PUTIN CRAP The supply siders highlighted the positive evidence
from two earlier major tax cuts—the Coolidge-Mellon cuts of the 1920s
and the Kennedy tax cut of the 1960s. Between 1921 and 1926, three
major tax cuts reduced the top marginal rate from 73 percent to 25
percent. The Kennedy tax cut reduced rates across the board, and the
top marginal rate was sliced from 91 percent to 70 percent. Both of
these tax cuts were followed by strong growth and increasing
prosperity. In contrast, the huge Hoover tax increase of 1932—the top
rate was increased from 25 percent to 63 percent in one year—helped
keep the economy depressed. As the economy grew slowly in the 1970s and
the unemployment rate rose, supply-side economists argued that these
conditions were the result of high tax rates due to high inflation.
The
supply-side economic policy of cutting high marginal tax rates,
therefore, should be viewed as a long-run strategy to enhance growth
rather than a short-run tool to end recession. Changing market
incentives to increase the amount of labor supplied or to move
resources out of tax-motivated investments and into higher-yield
activities takes time. The full positive effects of lower marginal tax
rates are not observed until labor and capital markets have time to
adjust fully to the new incentive structure.

Because
marginal tax rates affect real output, they also affect government
revenue. An increase in marginal tax rates shrinks the tax base, both
by discouraging work effort and by encouraging tax avoidance and even
tax evasion. This shrinkage necessarily means that an increase in tax
rates leads to a less than proportional increase in tax revenues.
Indeed, economist Arthur Laffer (of “Laffer curve” fame) popularized
the notion that higher tax rates may actually cause the tax base to
shrink so much that tax revenues will decline, and that a cut in tax
rates may increase the tax base so much that tax revenues increase.

How
likely is this inverse relationship between tax rates and tax revenues?
It is more likely in the long run when people have had a long time to
adjust. It is also more likely when marginal tax rates are high, but
less likely when rates are low. Imagine a taxpayer in a 75 percent tax
bracket who earns $300,000 a year. Assume for simplicity that the 75
percent tax rate applies to all his income. Then the government
collects $225,000 in tax revenue from this person. Now the government
cuts tax rates by one-third, from 75 percent to 50 percent. After the
tax cut, this taxpayer gets to keep $50, rather than $25, of every
$100, a 100 percent increase in the incentive to earn. If this doubling
of the incentive to earn causes him to earn 50 percent more, or
$450,000, then the government will get the same revenue as before. If
it causes him to earn more than $450,000, the government gets more
revenue.

Now
consider a taxpayer paying a tax rate of 15 percent on all his income.
The same 33 percent rate reduction cuts his rate from 15 percent to 10
percent. Here, take-home pay per $100 of additional earnings will rise
from $85 to $90, only a 5.9 percent increase in the incentive to earn.
Because cutting the 15 percent rate to 10 percent exerts only a small
effect on the incentive to earn, the rate reduction has little impact
on the amount earned. Therefore, in contrast with the revenue effects
in high tax brackets, tax revenue will decline by almost the same
percentage as tax rates in the lowest tax brackets. The bottom line is
that cutting all rates by a third will lead to small revenue losses (or
even revenue gains) in high tax brackets and large revenue losses in
the lowest brackets. As a result, the share of the income tax paid by
high-income taxpayers will rise.
Supply-side
economics has exerted a major impact on tax policy throughout the
world. During the last two decades of the twentieth century, there was
a dramatic move away from high marginal tax rates. In 1980, the top
marginal rate on personal income was 60 percent or more in forty-nine
countries. By 1990, only twenty countries had such a high top tax rate,
and by 2000, only three countries—Cameroon, Belgium, and the Democratic
Republic of Congo—had a top rate of 60 percent or more. In 1980, only
six countries levied a personal income tax with a top marginal rate of
less than 40 percent. By 2000, fifty-six countries had a top marginal
income tax rate of less than 40 percent.1

The
former socialist economies have been at the forefront of those moving
toward supply-side tax policies. Following the collapse of communism,
most of these countries had a combination of personal income and
payroll taxes that generated high marginal tax rates. As a result, the
incentive to work was weak and tax evasion was massive. Russia was a
typical case. In 2000, Russia’s top personal income tax rate was 30
percent and a 40.5 percent payroll tax was applied at all earnings
levels. If Russians with even modest earnings complied with the law,
the tax collector took well over half of their incremental income.
Beginning in January 2001, the newly elected Putin administration
shifted to a 13 percent flat-rate income tax and also sharply reduced
the payroll tax rate. The results were striking. Tax compliance
increased and the inflation-adjusted revenues from the personal income
tax rose more than 20 percent annually during the three years following
the adoption of the flat-rate tax. Further, the real growth rate of the
Russian economy averaged 7 percent during 2001–2003, up from less than
2 percent during the three years prior to the tax cut.

Ukraine
soon followed Russia’s lead and capped its top personal income tax rate
at 13 percent. Beginning in 2004, the Slovak Republic imposed a
flat-rate personal income tax of 19 percent. Latvia and Estonia also
have flat-rate personal income taxes.

Supply-side
economics provided the political and theoretical foundations for what
became a remarkable change in the tax structure of the United States
and other countries throughout the world. The view that changes in tax
rates exert an impact on total output and that marginal rates in excess
of 40 percent exert a destructive influence on the incentive of people
to work and use resources wisely is now widely accepted by both
economists and policymakers. This change in thinking is the major
legacy of supply-side economics.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Nettlesome - question: Is the TP, of which you are a card carrying member, not screaming stop the spending? I get emails everyday from TP supporters asking how their grandchildren are gonna pay for all this out of control spending. The bailouts are the poster child for this irresponsible loading on of debt.I ask, because you've supplied the group, the three of us still reading this thread, with Reagan's economic policy. Did you know that Ronnie's tax cuts, combined with his own out of control spending tripled the national debt. And, I'll bet you didn't know that under Reagan the United States went from the world's largest creditor nation to it's largest debtor nation. Yeah, that's what happens when you borrow money to pay the bills. And, here we go again, the TP in the face of a mountainous national debt, rung up by two wars, wants taxs cuts again! Did you know that Bush referred to Ronnies' economic plan as "Voodoo economics?Yeah, we, the wealthy, prospered under Ronnie. But we were writing checks we couldn't cash.    

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

ND, in going back and forth with you here I'm reminded of Strother Martin's famous line from 'Cool Hand Luke.' I know you're thinking:"What we have here is failure to communitcate."But that's not the line I believe best applies.That  would be the Captain's next line:"Some men you just can't reach."Dman, thx for the reasoning. I too have tired of the pissing contest. I'll answer lovin on a couple points and then call it pissed out.  '

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

lovindaindy wrote:BondGuy wrote:lovindaindy wrote:Bondguy - I'm sorry we disagree too.  Except that I'm right.When you capture someone and they specifically tell you that they came from Syria or Iran or Palestine because they knew going to Iraq they could "kill Americans", and that is the consensus for ALL of the people you capture on raids, it's called statistically significant.  Western Europe and the rest of the world has shown their weakness.  Bending knee to radicalism thinking that they won't, with the sweep of a sword, cut your head off.This is one of those situations, that, unless you have been there (actually on the ground running missions - NOT in the TOC or back at the FOB like a good little Fobbit), you CAN'T know what you are talking about.Not to mention, that when I wasn't running missions I was helping the Iraqi people.  You aren't going to make Iraq a democracy overnight.  They are not going to be able to sustain their own military overnight.  It takes a LOT of time.  Further, the Iraq War as people try to call it, is actually the Persian Gulf War.  It was a resumption of hostilities.  Bush didn't need an excuse.  He didn't START that war.  HIs father did.  The problem was that, as much as I love Clinton, he didn't have the balls to attack after Saddam REPEATEDLY violated the cease-fire agreement.  So basically, Bush did his job.  I am proud to have served in that conflict.  The good done FAR outweighs any perceptions that people here got from watching the news. So were on the same page, my perceptions aren't media based.Your argument that you had to be there to know what your talking about is far off base. Do i know what it's like to shoot someone in war? No! But i don't have to know that to know that the Vietnam war was a failure. Iraq is no different. The latest casualty count for Iraq that i can find is 4424 American service men and woman dead. Over 31,000 wounded. If you have different numbers, by all means please share it. That being the cost, question: What did we gain in exchange?   We gained several things:1)  Battle-hardened veterans who can lead our soldiers in tomorrow's wars.2)  Removal of a genocidal maniac3)  An ally4)  I don't know about others, but my squad alone captured or killed over 50 terrorists from various countries.5)  A foothold in the Middle east (although that's gone now, and that IS thanks to Obama)6)  Professional military relationships between individual officers and NCOs on both sides7)  Good will of the MAJORITY of Iraqi people. 8)  Integration among schools in Iraq.9)  A generation of Iraqis who "get it".I could go on.Not to marginalize the deaths (I have a family member among them, buried in Arlington), but the percentage of deaths pursuant to these two wars is not statistically significantly different from those killed in training accidents.  And guess what?  Training accidents dropped SIGNIFICANTLY during these wars.  What does this tell you?  Training works!  Same goes for injuries.Iraq IS different.  Significantly different.  Those who served in both wars can tell you.  I'm not old enough.As for your breast cancer friend, I'm sorry.But I certainly don't think that it is my responsibility to pay her medical bills.  Health care isn't a right.  Just like retirement isn't a right.  We tried to say home ownership was a right, but look where that got us.  College is a right now apparently, and guess where that's leading?Lov i let the political shot you took at Clinton pass. But you've clearly got a political agenda in your support of the war. None of what you've posted rises to the level of being worth American blood. Peace in iraq is fragile at best. A paper army led by a puppet government. Not why we went to war! And, defianately not worth the life of your brothers, my sons, my grandchildrens parents. Not in my lifetime, not in your lifetime. Attacking Iraq was misguided, followed by prosecution that could only in the kindest terms be called a debacle. Not one nation in the middle east is lining up and saying "Oh please great Americans, please do for us what you did for Iraq." Yet, one of the misguided policy goals that is unfulfilled. Not to mention the three trillion dollar price tag! All borrowed money! Yet, you, like all conservatives don't want taxes to increase. You point to the dems as out of control spenders while turning a blind eye to the debt that your repubs rang up in war debt. Well, payment is due!!!You say you don't want health care for everyone? Too much money,eh? The health care bill will cost 940 billion over 10 years. So, Ok to spend 3 trillion to kill people in another land, but not OK to spend less than 1 trillion to help your countrymen? That sums it up?

lovindaindy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-05-07

BondGuy wrote:lovindaindy wrote:BondGuy wrote:lovindaindy wrote:Bondguy - I'm sorry we disagree too.  Except that I'm right.When you capture someone and they specifically tell you that they came from Syria or Iran or Palestine because they knew going to Iraq they could "kill Americans", and that is the consensus for ALL of the people you capture on raids, it's called statistically significant.  Western Europe and the rest of the world has shown their weakness.  Bending knee to radicalism thinking that they won't, with the sweep of a sword, cut your head off.This is one of those situations, that, unless you have been there (actually on the ground running missions - NOT in the TOC or back at the FOB like a good little Fobbit), you CAN'T know what you are talking about.Not to mention, that when I wasn't running missions I was helping the Iraqi people.  You aren't going to make Iraq a democracy overnight.  They are not going to be able to sustain their own military overnight.  It takes a LOT of time.  Further, the Iraq War as people try to call it, is actually the Persian Gulf War.  It was a resumption of hostilities.  Bush didn't need an excuse.  He didn't START that war.  HIs father did.  The problem was that, as much as I love Clinton, he didn't have the balls to attack after Saddam REPEATEDLY violated the cease-fire agreement.  So basically, Bush did his job.  I am proud to have served in that conflict.  The good done FAR outweighs any perceptions that people here got from watching the news. So were on the same page, my perceptions aren't media based.Your argument that you had to be there to know what your talking about is far off base. Do i know what it's like to shoot someone in war? No! But i don't have to know that to know that the Vietnam war was a failure. Iraq is no different. The latest casualty count for Iraq that i can find is 4424 American service men and woman dead. Over 31,000 wounded. If you have different numbers, by all means please share it. That being the cost, question: What did we gain in exchange?   We gained several things:1)  Battle-hardened veterans who can lead our soldiers in tomorrow's wars.2)  Removal of a genocidal maniac3)  An ally4)  I don't know about others, but my squad alone captured or killed over 50 terrorists from various countries.5)  A foothold in the Middle east (although that's gone now, and that IS thanks to Obama)6)  Professional military relationships between individual officers and NCOs on both sides7)  Good will of the MAJORITY of Iraqi people. 8)  Integration among schools in Iraq.9)  A generation of Iraqis who "get it".I could go on.Not to marginalize the deaths (I have a family member among them, buried in Arlington), but the percentage of deaths pursuant to these two wars is not statistically significantly different from those killed in training accidents.  And guess what?  Training accidents dropped SIGNIFICANTLY during these wars.  What does this tell you?  Training works!  Same goes for injuries.Iraq IS different.  Significantly different.  Those who served in both wars can tell you.  I'm not old enough.As for your breast cancer friend, I'm sorry.But I certainly don't think that it is my responsibility to pay her medical bills.  Health care isn't a right.  Just like retirement isn't a right.  We tried to say home ownership was a right, but look where that got us.  College is a right now apparently, and guess where that's leading?Lov i let the political shot you took at Clinton pass. But you've clearly got a political agenda in your support of the war. None of what you've posted rises to the level of being worth American blood. Peace in iraq is fragile at best. A paper army led by a puppet government. Not why we went to war! And, defianately not worth the life of your brothers, my sons, my grandchildrens parents. Not in my lifetime, not in your lifetime. Attacking Iraq was misguided, followed by prosecution that could only in the kindest terms be called a debacle. Not one nation in the middle east is lining up and saying "Oh please great Americans, please do for us what you did for Iraq." Yet, one of the misguided policy goals that is unfulfilled. Not to mention the three trillion dollar price tag! All borrowed money! Yet, you, like all conservatives don't want taxes to increase. You point to the dems as out of control spenders while turning a blind eye to the debt that your repubs rang up in war debt. Well, payment is due!!!You say you don't want health care for everyone? Too much money,eh? The health care bill will cost 940 billion over 10 years. So, Ok to spend 3 trillion to kill people in another land, but not OK to spend less than 1 trillion to help your countrymen? That sums it up?Actually, I don't have a problem with taxes.  As long as they are fair.  Sometimes taxes need to be raised.  Just like I don't think government spending is all that bad.  Government spending has a multiplicative effect on output.  However, only certain government spending has that effect.  For instance.  Military spending has the largest impact PER DOLLAR, than any other program as far as stimulating the economy.Also, how can you say what a bill WILL cost, when ten years haven't passed?  The forecasts on that bill are flawed, and were done by people bought and paid for by the Democratic party. Healthcare is not a public good.  Not EVERYONE benefits from this healthcare.  A military IS a public good.  EVERYBODY benefits from having a military.  Therefore, taxes should not go to pay for something that is NOT a public good.  So, BG, what IS a good reason to spill American blood?  Would you consider training for war a good reason?  I only ask because the profession of arms is incredibly dangerous.  In peacetime and wartime.  If a soldier dies in training, was it wasteful to spend money on his training?  If a pilot crashes a plane while training, should we disband the Air Force, since flying planes is too dangerous.As I said, the statistics speak for themselves.  During the previous ten years under Clinton, the EXACT percentage of soldiers died in TRAINING as have died in the last ten years of war.  What does that tell you?The Iraqi Army, police and National Guard have come a LONG way from when I was there.  Several of my buddies who just got back last year said the only thing separating us now from them in fighting ability, is technology, and practice.  They have the skills.Attacking Iraq was so far from misguided it is not even funny.  From PERSONAL experience I can tell you about the people we captured.  How they changed plans from attacking DoD schools in Germany, to attacking American soldiers because we were "the face of the crusaders". Countless stories like this.  The Egyptian brothers (lol, the Feddyi brothers!) who originally had planned to bomb a school in Ohio.  This, translated from one of their journals, complete with a drawing of cutting off a child's head.  Yet, the Americans were here, why not kill them here?You tell me BG.  Is your life, given in blood, to save the life of a 5 year-old American girl in Germany, worth it?  Is it worth it, to saveMine is.  I would do it every time.  These are the stories you don't hear.  You don't hear them from Fox.  You don't hear from MSNBC.  You don't hear them from CNN, or CBS.  I feel sorry for you if you don't think children are worth it.  But I will live the rest of my life knowing what I fought for, and what my brother died for.  And I know the truth.  Not the lies of the left, nor the exaggerations of the right.

Jennifer Nettles's picture
Joined: 2010-03-01

BondGuy wrote:Nettlesome - question: Is the TP, of which you are a card carrying member, not screaming stop the spending? I get emails everyday from TP supporters asking how their grandchildren are gonna pay for all this out of control spending. The bailouts are the poster child for this irresponsible loading on of debt.I ask, because you've supplied the group, the three of us still reading this thread, with Reagan's economic policy. Did you know that Ronnie's tax cuts, combined with his own out of control spending tripled the national debt. And, I'll bet you didn't know that under Reagan the United States went from the world's largest creditor nation to it's largest debtor nation. Yeah, that's what happens when you borrow money to pay the bills. And, here we go again, the TP in the face of a mountainous national debt, rung up by two wars, wants taxs cuts again! Did you know that Bush referred to Ronnies' economic plan as "Voodoo economics?Yeah, we, the wealthy, prospered under Ronnie. But we were writing checks we couldn't cash. All bullshti.     Tip O'neill, not Ronnie.    liberal jedi spin crapYes  bush 1 said that.  who cares.read my lips:free markets create wealthgovt spending crowds out wealth creationgovt spending should be at an absolute minimumjust like J. Madison et al intended it.I cant be any clearer.   this is what i believe.   I also believe that EVERYONE will end up better off economically.I have told you many of examples of how govt FAILS. why dont you tell me the great successes of govt?      hell, how about one?one govt program that ENDED.   we did it!   success.   under budgetwar on drugs?hudfemawar on povertyloan modificationsirswelfarepublic housingany thing

Jennifer Nettles's picture
Joined: 2010-03-01

"Government spending has a multiplicative effect on output." Did you really say this?   You have got to be kidding me?    why don't you prove this to me?

lovindaindy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-05-07

Jennifer, it's economics 101.When government expenditures change, so does real GDP, which changes consumption expenditures.  Let's go back to the military example.    Military contractors are benefiting from increased business when spending because of increased military expenditures.  Workers in these industries spend more, in turn, multiplying the impact of increased government military spending.The multiplier's size depends on the marginal propensity to consume.MPC =  Additional consumption/Additional income  

Jennifer Nettles's picture
Joined: 2010-03-01

lovindaindy wrote:Jennifer, it's economics 101.When government expenditures change, so does real GDP, which changes consumption expenditures.  Let's go back to the military example.    Military contractors are benefiting from increased business when spending because of increased military expenditures.  Workers in these industries spend more, in turn, multiplying the impact of increased government military spending.The multiplier's size depends on the marginal propensity to consume.MPC =  Additional consumption/Additional incomeunderstandRELATIVE to private sector?thati is my (and supply side) case.that lame govt spending crowds out dynamic, wealth creating private spending.FDX, UPS vs the gd post officeAAPL vs HUDVMW vs FEMACSX,BNI vs amtrack 

lovindaindy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-05-07

Are you talking about crowding out of private investment?Supply-side in that case is usually referring to deficits.  Crowding out occurs because the real interest rate is affected by the deficit.  In which case, investors choose to invest in govies and not corporates.  For sure the private sector is ultimately the producer of goods and services, while the government is designed to consume.I do agree that governments competing with business are crap.  I think the biggest issues is where is the line between public and private goods.  A lot of disagreements here on that.  For sure, BG would say (and most non-conservatives - I know you don't want anybody to pigeon-hole you, like you are doing to others) that healthcare is a public good, and should thus be funded by taxpayers.What Tea Partiers are saying, is that the government being in the banking business is not a public good.  Both Republicans and Democrats would disagree.In this instance, I agree with Tea Partiers, but also agree that the bailouts were necessary.So, if they were billed as a risky investment (which is really all it was), then I'm ok with it.I have said from the beginning that ultimately the government will make money off of TARP (which will not be returned to taxpayers, but will be funneled into more government programs that do not benefit the public as a whole). 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Jennifer Nettles wrote:why dont you tell me the great successes of govt?      hell, how about one? One success? You are free to spew your misguided hate.  

lovindaindy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-05-07

That actually wasn't a government success.  That was a revolutionary success.  That revolution that was the result of an oppressive government.  Similar to what we've experienced the last forty years or so.

anabuhabkuss's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-02

Judge people's judgement; don't judge their intention. That's all I have to say. There's an interesting debate going on here in between all the insistent name calling, abuse of the english language, and **** swinging.Bondguy, you're better than this. Let them get the attention they desperately seek elsewhere.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Dad, do I have to come home now? I was having so much fun!Ana, point well taken ! 

Jennifer Nettles's picture
Joined: 2010-03-01

anabuhabkuss wrote:Judge people's judgement; don't judge their intention. That's all I have to say. There's an interesting debate going on here in between all the insistent name calling, abuse of the english language, and **** swinging.Bondguy, you're better than this. Let them get the attention they desperately seek elsewhere.blwo me fukc face.  liberals sukcintention this 

Jennifer Nettles's picture
Joined: 2010-03-01

bonds peeps.   well oiled machine FBI breaks up alleged plot to defraud Medicare of $100m  Operation carried out by Armenian-American gangsters was largest ever to steal from Medicare, say authorities

Armenian-American gangsters created a fictitious medical world, complete with fake doctors and fake patients, which they extended across the US in a scheme to defraud the Medicare system of more than $100m (£62.9m), federal prosecutors said yesterday.The FBI and other authorities claimed to have broken up the largest organised criminal operation to steal from Medicare since the system of healthcare support for elderly and disabled Americans was founded in 1965.Charges were brought against 73 people, mainly from New York and Los Angeles but also from New Mexico, Georgia and Ohio.The scam, which succeeded in stealing $35m from Medicare, having billed the system more than $100m, was the brainchild of the alleged ringleader of the gang, Armen Kazarian. Legal documents produced by the grand jury that issued the charges said Kazarian also travelled under aliases of Pzo and Qerop. He described himself as a "Vor", meaning "thief-in-law", an Armenian equivalent of a criminal godfather.Kazarian is alleged to have been a "substantial influence in the criminal underworld" while he was living in Azerbaijan under the Soviet Union. After the fall of communism, he emigrated to the US, bringing his criminal contacts and practices with him.He is accused of having established a criminal web known as the Mirzoyan-Terdjanian Organisation while keeping its ties open to Armenia.The two alleged leaders of the gang, alongside Kazarian, were based in New York and Los Angeles.The gang ran a range of illegal activities, prosecutors say, including contraband, immigration fraud, identity theft, bank fraud and money laundering. But the most elaborate part of the operation was the vast swindling of Medicare.The gang constructed a parallel universe that was entirely make-believe but which mirrored the structure of the real Medicare system. To begin with they stole the identities – including the dates of birth, social security numbers and medical licence details – of dozens of doctors.They then set up 118 phantom health clinics in 25 states across the country, and applied for permission to treat patients under the terms of Medicare, a scheme to support over 65-year-olds and certain categories of disabled people.Once accepted on to the programme, the fraudsters began billing for treatments such as ear, nose and throat procedures, skin allergies and bladder tests on behalf of 2,900 patients whose identities they had also stolen. The more than $35m that was already paid out by Medicare before the arrests were made went to bank accounts set up under false identities.The money would be withdrawn in cash and couriered to contacts in Armenia for disposal.

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×