Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

KIA
sadly, your version of "progress" sounds a great deal like the desire of Glen Beck to go back to the glory years of the Gilded Age. Generally, we tend to think of "progress" as a move forward, not to the past.

Wow, we do think a like on one thing, we both think of progress as a move forward, not to the past.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

KIA
sadly, your version of "progress" sounds a great deal like the desire of Glen Beck to go back to the glory years of the Gilded Age. Generally, we tend to think of "progress" as a move forward, not to the past.

Does sitting and staying on welfare sound like progress to you? Remember, I didn't ask if it sounded like progress "for you", I asked if it sounded like progress "to you".

Originally Posted by MillieJim

I'd like to see a case for getting these 50somethings out of the workforce- but the logical way to do that would just be to lower the SS/Medicare eligibility age and be done with it. It would be nice not having to compete against people with 20 years more experience in trying to get a job.

I'm sorry. I'm a 50-something and I don't plan to leave the labor force anytime soon. Of course, I'm living like a 40-something, with a 15-year-old child that I'm going to be supporting for at least another 8 years.

from KIA

Does sitting and staying on welfare sound like progress to you?

We live in a nation where the official unemployment rate is over 10% and there are at least another 5% who are no longer even counted or are underemployed. Come back and talk to me about the evils of welfare when we have a nation with full employment.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I'm sorry. I'm a 50-something and I don't plan to leave the labor force anytime soon. Of course, I'm living like a 40-something, with a 15-year-old child that I'm going to be supporting for at least another 8 years.

Thought I'd take a shot; it seems to have been a pretty good justification for Social Security among the GIs - get the older workers out of the workforce and alleviate the structural unemployment problem. Two birds with one stone and all that.

My 50-something parents would love to retire early, but have dithered for years because of health care. They finally decided to take the plunge on partial retirement just recently, but even now they still plan to work part time for health insurance purposes.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I take it by "support" you mean their support of Obama. Hate to pop your bubble there, chief, but these guys were liberals long before Obama was a household name - at least in your household.

Are they a couple of liberals like you or are they closer to being a couple of liberals more like me?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Can you translate this from tinfoilnese to English?

I read the liberal hopes of crash and burn for years. The opportunity for crash and burns comes, I support liberal crash and burn and the liberals turn into pussy conservatives like BUSH fall in line for bailing those evil corporates out.

Originally Posted by playwrite

No dude, you're still in some sort of 1980 coma. I hate to wake you and tell you we have a $9 Trillion deficit - $5 Trillion caused by Bush's unaffordable tax cuts and a stupid expansion of Medicare; and another $3.5T caused by automatic counter-cyclical measure (e.g., food stamps, unemployment insurance) to deal with the biggest financial FUBAR since the 1930s or the last time the type of idiots you vote for were firmly 'in charge.' If this is your kind of progress, I think this is some kind of progress we can do without there chief, hey?

I didn't bend the rules to place unqualified buyers into houses. Liberal banks do that kinda stuff. But, the big wigs kicked enough of their profits in Obama's direction, so all is good in his eyes and he made sure they still got their bonuses. Me, I would've just laughed at them and kept their bonuses. Obama is to forgiving and way to eager to forget and move on.

Originally Posted by playwrite

And how does this 'come back to me' because 'you have nothing to do with me?' Can you put your tinfoilnese decoder ring back on and let me know what ya mean there, chief? I really don't have a clue when it comes to such gibberish.

It's really pretty simple, I have no direct attachment, involvement or relationship with you or any of your decissisions. Therefore, whatever you do pretty much should stay with you and should not be transferred over or be placed on me. Basically, you screw up, whatever you screwed up is your problem not my problem. Also, whatever additional problems your screw up causes or creates are your problems not my problems.

Now, who voted for more increased govt spending at a later date and with a highest level of debt? I didn't. You did. Dude, the debt is at 9 trillion and your still supporting and preaching deficit spending. Your still dishing out bonuses to failed business executives. Guess what liberal, this is all your baby now. The President is your baby. The congress is your baby. The senate is your baby.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

from KIA



We live in a nation where the official unemployment rate is over 10% and there are at least another 5% who are no longer even counted or are underemployed. Come back and talk to me about the evils of welfare when we have a nation with full employment.

That's right, we live in nation where the official unemployment is over 10% and I would guess that there are atleast another 5-10% who are no longer counted or underemployed. So, why are you guys screwing around and messing with healthcare right now? BTW, the only evil of welfare is that it keeps the liberal idiots who totally ignore jobs and fixate on providing more healthcare and other valuable resources for the idiots don't do anything or pay anything. But, I can see where they fit in as far as liberal progress is concerned. Where's that wise liberal who said "it's the economy stupid"? Is he close enough to atleast whisper it into Obama's ear?

Have you not been paying attention?

The current health care bill will reduce the deficit over the next ten years according to the official Congressional office studies.

Every conservative in America should be jumping up and down for that ... if you truly believe in deficit reduction that is.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Have you not been paying attention?

The current health care bill will reduce the deficit over the next ten years according to the official Congressional office studies.

What else do the professional liars claim? Perpetual motion? Cold fusion?

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Have you not been paying attention?

The current health care bill will reduce the deficit over the next ten years according to the official Congressional office studies.

Every conservative in America should be jumping up and down for that ... if you truly believe in deficit reduction that is.

How much is it gonna reduce the deficit by? Is it 9 trillion, 8 trillion, 7 trillion, 6 trillion, 5 trillion, 4 trillion, 3 trillion, 2 trillion, 1 trillion, 1/2 trillion, 200 billion or less than 200 billion? BTW, I'd estimate the conservative jumping up and down point to be in the mid to high trillions. You might get a conservative rise with a reduction in the mid to low trillions.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

What else do the professional liars claim? Perpetual motion? Cold fusion?

Take it easy with the liar stuff. Mr. Oops could just be wrong. Mr. Oops could forget to factor something in, forget a decimal point or accidently add a zero or not take enoungh into account and adjust for this or that as well. I figure whatever savings there will be will be interest paid on the debt by then anyway. Hey, look at the bright side, if you stay in Washington state you might end up Chinese after we slice you off as payment for our debts.

this from CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office projects that the House Democrats' health care plan that includes a public option would cost $871 billion over 10 years, according to two Democratic sources.


Nancy Pelosi, right, here with Harry Reid, proposes a "more robust" public option. The CBO analyzed the plan.

CBO also found that the Democrats' bill reduces the deficit in the first 10 years.

So the people whose job it is to do the math on these things have made their findings. I suspect we will get the Paul Simon response as written in "The Boxer"....

....."a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

Or as the more common phrasing goes ... "don't confuse me with facts".

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

this from CNN



So the people whose job it is to do the math on these things have made their findings. I suspect we will get the Paul Simon response as written in "The Boxer"....

....."a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

Or as the more common phrasing goes ... "don't confuse me with facts".

Does it save "US" as much as it's gonna cost "US"? What's the savings or reduction? Give me facts!

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Does it save "US" as much as it's gonna cost "US"? What's the savings or reduction? Give me facts!

Its a calculate use of what year the bill actually starts and when it ends. Every bill is calculated for 10 years and the way its currently written, 6 or 7 years at roughly 900 billion dollars. Taxes start in 2010. It doesn't take into consideration the 200 billion that the House (separate bill) is going to pay Medicare payment to Doctor's. So let's now say it's now 1.1 trillion, I think Baucus agreed between 1 and 2.5 trillion will be the 10 year cost of the bill in its current form.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

I didn't bend the rules to place unqualified buyers into houses. Liberal banks do that kinda stuff. But, the big wigs kicked enough of their profits in Obama's direction, so all is good in his eyes and he made sure they still got their bonuses. Me, I would've just laughed at them and kept their bonuses. Obama is to forgiving and way to eager to forget and move on.

No, you need to substitute "greedy" whereever you see "liberal". People of all political persuations tried to hop on the housing boom gravy train.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Are they a couple of liberals like you or are they closer to being a couple of liberals more like me?



I read the liberal hopes of crash and burn for years. The opportunity for crash and burns comes, I support liberal crash and burn and the liberals turn into pussy conservatives like BUSH fall in line for bailing those evil corporates out.



I didn't bend the rules to place unqualified buyers into houses. Liberal banks do that kinda stuff. But, the big wigs kicked enough of their profits in Obama's direction, so all is good in his eyes and he made sure they still got their bonuses. Me, I would've just laughed at them and kept their bonuses. Obama is to forgiving and way to eager to forget and move on.

It's really pretty simple, I have no direct attachment, involvement or relationship with you or any of your decissisions. Therefore, whatever you do pretty much should stay with you and should not be transferred over or be placed on me. Basically, you screw up, whatever you screwed up is your problem not my problem. Also, whatever additional problems your screw up causes or creates are your problems not my problems.

Now, who voted for more increased govt spending at a later date and with a highest level of debt? I didn't. You did. Dude, the debt is at 9 trillion and your still supporting and preaching deficit spending. Your still dishing out bonuses to failed business executives. Guess what liberal, this is all your baby now. The President is your baby. The congress is your baby. The senate is your baby.

There's a lot here that I can agree with. There really are just two big differences.

At first blush, on seems only to be semantics, but something deeper is going on with you and not with me. You label everything that is wrong in the world as "liberal." You've evolved that into some weird tap-dance about you being a "good liberal" which is different than "evil liberal" which is now what you attribute all our woes to. This is really silly shit that just reflects an intellectual laziness on your part to avoid putting some serious effort into understanding what is really going on in the world, really thinking about it, and really trying to articulate what you believe. Basically, the differences between you and me in this regard is that I think I have more confidence in your ability to do better than you do.


The other differences is expectations. Perhaps you truly believed that Obama and crew could come in, and within a year, clean up the mess of not just the previous eight years but all the accumulated shit that has happened since the start of the 3T back in 1980. If that's what you believe, then the difference between you and me is that I'm not that gullible. On the other hand, if you just want to point out - "nay-nay na-na-nay Obama hasn't fixed the world yet" then the difference between you and me is that you are an twit and I am not.

God, I'm sorry, but I hate these people -

Goldman Sachs Holiday Fete - 2009 at the Palais Versailles

APERITIFS & HORS D'OEUVRES

Finest Golden Chartreuse Elixir
DOM Benedictine
Selection of Trappist 'Biere Belgique'
Chateauneuf du Papes - Balthazars of Domaine du Pegau 2000
Minted-Green Dacquiris Flowing From a Kozlowski-Inspired Ice Sculpture Fountain.
(Holy Water or non-alcoholic beverages available on request)
With Canapes of 'Pigs-in-a-Blanket', 'Devilled-Eggs', Blood Sausage; Godiveau Lyonnais;
* * * * * * *

FIRST COURSE

Shark-Fin Soup
or
Fish & Loaves (fish is sustainably caught from the banks of Iceland)
or
"Salade Romanov" of Lobster & Black Truffles Sprinkled With Gold Foil
* * * * * * *

MAIN COURSES
(Served Smorgasbord or "All You Can Eat-Style", to satiate the most unsatiable of appetites)

Roasted Market Goose Entier with "Couilles Brasse" With Scalped Pototoes
Chateaubriand of Milk-FED Beef avec une Sauce Banquiere
Braised Roebucks in a Creme-de-la-Creme Sauce
Banquette-Holding a 'Surf And Turf' with a bonus of sauce fine-blanc
Traditional Stuffed Turkey in a "Sangfroid" sauce
Freshly-Slaughtered Cutest Spring Lamb (Roasted on a Spit) in a Minted Sauce
"Stuffed Sucking Pig Five-Ways" (Chef's Surprise)
* * * * * * *

DESSERT

Cherry-Picked-Bonus Jubilee
Sponge Cake with a Luxurious Creme Anglaise
Grand-Sized Profiterole Balls with a Rich Chocolate Sauce
Gaffes with a Blanc-Fine Syrup
* * * * *

PETITS-FOURS

American Sponge-Drops
Bittersweet Karma Cookies

WTF? - "Freshly-Slaughtered Cutest Spring Lamb (Roasted on a Spit) in a Minted Sauce"

Are these people F-ing vampires???!

Originally Posted by playwrite

god, i'm sorry, but i hate these people -



wtf? - "freshly-slaughtered cutest spring lamb (roasted on a spit) in a minted sauce"

are these people f-ing vampires???!

!!!roflmao!!! :d :d :d

Hey, what's wrong with the font editor???

Playwrite

how much for a carry out order?

I'm just really glad that we have a strong central government that was able to quickly bail these guys out without any kind of debate or limits on their financial power.

Because, you know, if they didn't get their veal and cutest lambs the entire economy would crash & die forever and we would suddenly revert to an 18th century reality!!!1!1!!

Originally Posted by playwrite

God, I'm sorry, but I hate these people -



WTF? - "Freshly-Slaughtered Cutest Spring Lamb (Roasted on a Spit) in a Minted Sauce"

Are these people F-ing vampires???!

Reads like a joke to me. Check the descriptions a little more closely. "Cherry-PICKED cherries Jubilee?" That's satire if I ever saw it.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Reads like a joke to me. Check the descriptions a little more closely. "Cherry-PICKED cherries Jubilee?" That's satire if I ever saw it.

Of course it's a joke.

It's pretty sad to see people taking seriously a menu that lists

"Holy Water or non-alcoholic beverages available on request"
and a "Kozlowski-inspired ice scuplture"

How gullible are you all?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Of course it's a joke.

It's pretty sad to see people taking seriously a menu that lists

"Holy Water or non-alcoholic beverages available on request"
and a "Kozlowski-inspired ice scuplture"

How gullible are you all?

Well, you decide; here's the source -

http://nihoncassandra.blogspot.com/2...y-menu-in.html

Anyone who has also seen one of my all-time favorite flicks, knows not to question this person -

Back to healthcare reform!

Here's a little ground-truthing on some important aspects -

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3021

House-Passed and Senate Health Bills Reduce Deficit, Slow Health Care Costs, and Include Realistic Medicare Savings

Health reform legislation that has passed the House in one form and is before the Senate in another is facing a series of attacks that, taken together, suggest the legislation would do little to control health care costs and would increase budget deficits. Many of these charges are exaggerated or simply incorrect, based on the Center’s careful analysis of the legislation. In particular, a number of criticisms rest on a mistaken belief that, in recent years, Congress has repeatedly enacted provisions to achieve savings in Medicare and then generally blocked these provisions before they could take effect. Thus, critics say, no one should take seriously the provisions of the current bills that would produce Medicare savings. In fact, the Center’s analysis of major legislation affecting Medicare that Congress has enacted over the last two decades shows that Congress has permitted the vast majority of Medicare savings to take effect.
.
.
First, despite charges to the contrary, the health bills approved by the House and pending in the Senate contain a wide range of measures to reform the nation’s health care system and moderate the growth of health care costs over time, particularly in Medicare.
.
.
Second, the history of health legislation in recent decades demonstrates that, despite some critics’ charges, Congress has repeatedly adopted measures to produce considerable savings in Medicare and has let them take effect. For example, Congress took such action as part of major deficit-reduction packages in 1990 and 1993 and as part of more modest deficit-reduction packages in 1997 and 2005. Virtually all of the cuts that it enacted in 1990, 1993, and 2005 went into effect.
.
.
Third, critics complain that, under the House and Senate bills, total health care expenditures in the United States will rise in the near term, not fall. That’s no surprise, however, nor does it suggest something troubling about health reform. Providing insurance coverage for tens of millions of uninsured Americans will necessarily raise total health care spending in the short term. The real issues here are: (1) whether health reform includes provisions to cover the costs of these insurance expansions so that deficits and debt do not increase; and (2) whether health reform includes steps that begin to slow the rate of health cost growth so that total health spending is lower in the longer run than it otherwise would be. The House and Senate bills meet the first test, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), with the House bill reducing deficits by $138 billion over ten years, the Senate bill reducing deficits by $130 billion over that period, and both bills continuing to reduce deficits for at least a decade after that. The bills also hold promise for the second test, CBO says, although policymakers will need to do more to slow health cost growth as we learn more about how to do it, such as by applying the knowledge gained in the coming decade from pilot projects in the health bills, comparative effectiveness research, and the like.
.
.

From there, pretty intensive detail for those willing to dive in