Simple questions - never answered.

[Wry Catcher]

Yes, clearly the Stimulus was a failure and because it was too small...$850B is fucking peanuts!

We needed a Stimulus of um, er, scientifically speaking, um using round numbers, um $5 Trillion. Yeah, that seems right, $5 Trillion of Stimulus an we could have kept unemployment to 9% ...I'm sure of it

The house Frank, fix the roof or let nature take its course? No idiotgram or hyperbolic response is acceptable.

 

[Bern80]

How would you balance the budget Frank? Consider, if you can (to do so requires thought, so I'm not sure you can, but try) that you are a homeowner.
Your home was purchased with all of your savings and money borrowed from the bank. You knew the home was in need of some repair, expecially the roof was old. During a few early fall lows the light rain leaked and stained the walls and now you've learned a large storm was blowing in with high winds and record rainfall expected.
Do you borrow money to fix the roof? Or do you let nature take it's course?

Extremely poor analogy. In this asanine hypothetical why did you spend all your money on him that you were going to need to spend more money on? That's just dumb. Oh wait, maybe this is a good illustration of our government after all.

Now whose being disagreable. The analogy is close to what Obama inherited from Bush&Co. To deny our nations 'roof' was incapable of protecting the rest of the assets is absurd, we were in free fall, panic had set in, blue chip companies failed or were in danger of failure and each day things looked darker.
IMO the stimulus was way too small, and there was no effort on the part of those who brought us to the brink to help.
Obama should be given credit for stepping up, instead he is blamed for eight years of fiscal irresponsibility by Bush&Co and six years of a Republican controlled Congress and their combined out of control spending.
If I understood, "...why did you spend all your money on him that you were going to need to spend more money on?", I'd provide an answer, but word salad makes little sense even when prefaced with an ad hominem attack.

Sorry, I'll rephrase. Why did you spend all your money on a home that was going to need yet more money spent on it for repairs? If all you had was enough to cover the purchase, but not the repairs it doesn't seem to make much sense to purchase that home.

As far as the stimulus is concerned, the moral dilema there is when do you sacrafice the future for the present or vic versa. There is only one upside to a subsidy, which is essentially what the stimulus was, and that is to the person recieving the subsidy. It inflates the price of whatever the reciever was selling and allows a business that was failing due to their poor management to stick around. It kept the economy from getting weaker in the short term, but prevented it from being stronger in the long run. It's the liberal theme you see through every liberal solution. You want solutions to problems you just never want to have to bare the burden of the solution yourself.

 

[Bern80]

Yes, clearly the Stimulus was a failure and because it was too small...$850B is fucking peanuts!

We needed a Stimulus of um, er, scientifically speaking, um using round numbers, um $5 Trillion. Yeah, that seems right, $5 Trillion of Stimulus an we could have kept unemployment to 9% ...I'm sure of it

The house Frank, fix the roof or let nature take its course? No idiotgram or hyperbolic response is acceptable.

Let nature (the economy) take its course. Things will be tough in the short run, but will turn out better in the long run.

 

[sangha]

I'm against all deficits Democrat or Republican. Bush and Delay are fucking Progressives traitors for not tackling gubbamint spending

bush* and Tom Delay are leftists?

And what about all those other republicans who voted for those huge deficits?

And what about Reagan? The man you laud is also responsible for a large portion of the national debt. The only President who increased the national debt more than Reagan was bush*

I guess Reagan was also a progressive traitor

Progressives are so fucking clueless on the economy and government.

1. Congress controls spending

2. Reagan was President not dictator, he did not control Congress

3. Bush and Delay were Big Spenders, just like Democrats

4. The only Congress to control spending was under Newt

1) Wingnut hypocrits say "Obama is spending too much", but when it comes to Reagan, Bush and bush* it's "Congress controls spending"

Presidents veto budgets they dont like and the GOP controlled congress for most of bush* term.

2) Wingnuts repeat themselves without realizing it and wingnuts forget that, under bush*, the GOP controlled congress

3) Wingnuts forget all about all those other republicans who voted for the spending. All politicians are Big Spenders, right or left. You're just too dumb to realize it.

4) Under Newt, the deficit and the budget and the national debt increased

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, clearly the Stimulus was a failure and because it was too small...$850B is fucking peanuts!

We needed a Stimulus of um, er, scientifically speaking, um using round numbers, um $5 Trillion. Yeah, that seems right, $5 Trillion of Stimulus an we could have kept unemployment to 9% ...I'm sure of it

The house Frank, fix the roof or let nature take its course? No idiotgram or hyperbolic response is acceptable.

Right, the house is leaking because we spent all the money so the only answer is to spend mo' money!

Is $5 Trillion to little? I meant to say $15 Trillion! Yeah, that should get those shovel ready projects funded and save or create maybe 45 million jobs!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

bush* and Tom Delay are leftists?

And what about all those other republicans who voted for those huge deficits?

And what about Reagan? The man you laud is also responsible for a large portion of the national debt. The only President who increased the national debt more than Reagan was bush*

I guess Reagan was also a progressive traitor

Progressives are so fucking clueless on the economy and government.

1. Congress controls spending

2. Reagan was President not dictator, he did not control Congress

3. Bush and Delay were Big Spenders, just like Democrats

4. The only Congress to control spending was under Newt

1) Wingnut hypocrits say "Obama is spending too much", but when it comes to Reagan, Bush and bush* it's "Congress controls spending"

Presidents veto budgets they dont like and the GOP controlled congress for most of bush* term.

2) Wingnuts repeat themselves without realizing it and wingnuts forget that, under bush*, the GOP controlled congress

3) Wingnuts forget all about all those other republicans who voted for the spending. All politicians are Big Spenders, right or left. You're just too dumb to realize it.

4) Under Newt, the deficit and the budget and the national debt increased

You're too fucking dumb to read what I wrote. I'm not just saying that to be mean either, you're a fucking idiot and I won't answer you again

 

[sangha]

Progressives are so fucking clueless on the economy and government.

1. Congress controls spending

2. Reagan was President not dictator, he did not control Congress

3. Bush and Delay were Big Spenders, just like Democrats

4. The only Congress to control spending was under Newt

1) Wingnut hypocrits say "Obama is spending too much", but when it comes to Reagan, Bush and bush* it's "Congress controls spending"

Presidents veto budgets they dont like and the GOP controlled congress for most of bush* term.

2) Wingnuts repeat themselves without realizing it and wingnuts forget that, under bush*, the GOP controlled congress

3) Wingnuts forget all about all those other republicans who voted for the spending. All politicians are Big Spenders, right or left. You're just too dumb to realize it.

4) Under Newt, the deficit and the budget and the national debt increased

You're too fucking dumb to read what I wrote. I'm not just saying that to be mean either, you're a fucking idiot and I won't answer you again

Reagan supported an signed budgets that increased the deficit and the national debt. Republicans voted for those budgets.

And you praised Reagan and then you called him a Big Spender and a progressive traitor. That's what you wrote

You just can't decide which side you're on.

 

[Bern80]

1) Wingnut hypocrits say "Obama is spending too much", but when it comes to Reagan, Bush and bush* it's "Congress controls spending"

Presidents veto budgets they dont like and the GOP controlled congress for most of bush* term.

2) Wingnuts repeat themselves without realizing it and wingnuts forget that, under bush*, the GOP controlled congress

3) Wingnuts forget all about all those other republicans who voted for the spending. All politicians are Big Spenders, right or left. You're just too dumb to realize it.

4) Under Newt, the deficit and the budget and the national debt increased

And this is the ever popular refrain of you liberals. Essentially that bad behavior on the part of the right justifies bad behavior on the part of the left. yeah you stick with that.

 

[sangha]

1) Wingnut hypocrits say "Obama is spending too much", but when it comes to Reagan, Bush and bush* it's "Congress controls spending"

Presidents veto budgets they dont like and the GOP controlled congress for most of bush* term.

2) Wingnuts repeat themselves without realizing it and wingnuts forget that, under bush*, the GOP controlled congress

3) Wingnuts forget all about all those other republicans who voted for the spending. All politicians are Big Spenders, right or left. You're just too dumb to realize it.

4) Under Newt, the deficit and the budget and the national debt increased

And this is the ever popular refrain of you liberals. Essentially that bad behavior on the part of the right justifies bad behavior on the part of the left. yeah you stick with that.

No, it shows that cutting spending is a myth that only rightwingers fall for, even though they don't really believe in it. That's why they elect Big Spenders and cheer while republicans spend like drunken sailors on leave

It proves that Big Spending neither creates nor destroys job, by definition, as the righting wackadoodles constantly claim. Big Spending rolls on, and we have had both job creation and job destruction

 

[Wry Catcher]

Extremely poor analogy. In this asanine hypothetical why did you spend all your money on him that you were going to need to spend more money on? That's just dumb. Oh wait, maybe this is a good illustration of our government after all.

Now whose being disagreable. The analogy is close to what Obama inherited from Bush&Co. To deny our nations 'roof' was incapable of protecting the rest of the assets is absurd, we were in free fall, panic had set in, blue chip companies failed or were in danger of failure and each day things looked darker.
IMO the stimulus was way too small, and there was no effort on the part of those who brought us to the brink to help.
Obama should be given credit for stepping up, instead he is blamed for eight years of fiscal irresponsibility by Bush&Co and six years of a Republican controlled Congress and their combined out of control spending.
If I understood, "...why did you spend all your money on him that you were going to need to spend more money on?", I'd provide an answer, but word salad makes little sense even when prefaced with an ad hominem attack.

Sorry, I'll rephrase. Why did you spend all your money on a home that was going to need yet more money spent on it for repairs? If all you had was enough to cover the purchase, but not the repairs it doesn't seem to make much sense to purchase that home.
Let's assume the home was given to Frank, who had been homeless because of his drinking problem. Franks parents had kicked him out on his 35th birthday and he moved in all of his clothing and furniture. His Roy Rogers Horsey Bed and other valuable items are at risk from the rains. Does he borrow the money or let the home be damaged.

As far as the stimulus is concerned, the moral dilema there is when do you sacrafice the future for the present or vic versa. There is a cost-benefit to spending money on the infrastructure, remember IKE built a nation of highways and bridges some of which are now 50 + years old There is only one upside to a subsidy, which is essentially what the stimulus was, and that is to the person recieving the subsidy.The stimulus provided private sector jobs, which allowed skilled and unskilled workers to earn income, pay on their mortgage, buy food, clothing and maybe stimulate their local economy by attending movies or eating out; they also paid taxes on goods and income as well as improving something of benefit to the general public (like fixing pot holes or building/repairing bridges. It inflates the price of whatever the reciever was selling and allows a business that was failing due to their poor management to stick around.baloney It kept the economy from getting weaker in the short term, but prevented it from being stronger in the long run.How, many of the construction jobs are on-going It's the liberal theme you see through every liberal solution.more baloney You want solutions to problems you just never want to have to bare the burden of the solution yourself.

more baloney

 

[Foxfyre]

1. Cut capital gains to 5%.

2. No corporate income tax for the first 5 years of any new business

Effect: GDP doubles in 5 years

Simple solution, which benefits the few. Unless you believe the profit generated will trickle down.
Consider, corporate and industrial profits are today being used to influence elections more than in anytime past, not being used to hire the unemployed and expanding our economy. The spread between the wealthiest and the middle class is greater than at anytime but for the period before the '29 Crash.
The average middle-class American doesn't pay capital gains, his/her investments are generally in IRA's which are taxed as ordinary income when taken as retirement income and tax free when invested in a Roth.
Frank, you're not smart enough to be a wealthy person - unless you have inhertited wealth or are a drug dealer - so why do you believe what you believe?
[brainwashed** I suspect]
** maybe only a light rinse was required.

"Trickle down" was an unfortunate term to be coined because it triggers an image different than Reagan intended. Reagan, as all supply sider capitalists know, knew that poor people don't create jobs. Only successful, prosperous people create jobs. And since it is mostly successful, prosperous people who are the rich, that translates to:

It is necessary for people to become rich in order for there to be jobs available to the poor.​

And once you start creating jobs for the poor, the prosperity doesn't 'trickle down'. It 'bubbles up'. Put 10 million people to work in permanent jobs who aren't working now and you have 10 million new consumers who will increase activity to produce the consumed good and soon 10 million more are at work. And it continues to 'bubble up' from there. And all those new taxpayers who are paying into instead of draining the system will start bringing down the deficits. If we do it well enough, we'll eliminate the deficits and start bringing down the debt.

Cutting the capital gains tax; making the Bush tax rates permanent for another decade or so, etc. will spur the 'rich' to take the risk to get back to work and hire those first 10 million or more permanent workers. History has proved that this works time and again.

We aren't saying eliminate all taxes. That would be stupid. But we can eliminate all the government doesn't absolutely have to have and let a growing economy and GDP do its work.

It does require the political class to accept a smaller instead of ever increasing government. And it does require the elite class envy group to understand that a rising tide lifts all boats, even those of the rich.

 

[Bern80]

Now whose being disagreable. The analogy is close to what Obama inherited from Bush&Co. To deny our nations 'roof' was incapable of protecting the rest of the assets is absurd, we were in free fall, panic had set in, blue chip companies failed or were in danger of failure and each day things looked darker.
IMO the stimulus was way too small, and there was no effort on the part of those who brought us to the brink to help.
Obama should be given credit for stepping up, instead he is blamed for eight years of fiscal irresponsibility by Bush&Co and six years of a Republican controlled Congress and their combined out of control spending.
If I understood, "...why did you spend all your money on him that you were going to need to spend more money on?", I'd provide an answer, but word salad makes little sense even when prefaced with an ad hominem attack.

Sorry, I'll rephrase. Why did you spend all your money on a home that was going to need yet more money spent on it for repairs? If all you had was enough to cover the purchase, but not the repairs it doesn't seem to make much sense to purchase that home.
Let's assume the home was given to Frank, who had been homeless because of his drinking problem. Franks parents had kicked him out on his 35th birthday and he moved in all of his clothing and furniture. His Roy Rogers Horsey Bed and other valuable items are at risk from the rains. Does he borrow the money or let the home be damaged.

As far as the stimulus is concerned, the moral dilema there is when do you sacrafice the future for the present or vic versa. There is a cost-benefit to spending money on the infrastructure, remember IKE built a nation of highways and bridges some of which are now 50 + years old There is only one upside to a subsidy, which is essentially what the stimulus was, and that is to the person recieving the subsidy.The stimulus provided private sector jobs, which allowed skilled and unskilled workers to earn income, pay on their mortgage, buy food, clothing and maybe stimulate their local economy by attending movies or eating out; they also paid taxes on goods and income as well as improving something of benefit to the general public (like fixing pot holes or building/repairing bridges. It inflates the price of whatever the reciever was selling and allows a business that was failing due to their poor management to stick around.baloney It kept the economy from getting weaker in the short term, but prevented it from being stronger in the long run.How, many of the construction jobs are on-going It's the liberal theme you see through every liberal solution.more baloney You want solutions to problems you just never want to have to bare the burden of the solution yourself.

more baloney

balogna? You believe those financial institutions would have survived had the government not bailed them out? The later about liberal solutions I know you will never accept being a liberal yourself, but the FACT is it is observable time and time again. You complain and complain about problems and the very last place you are willing to look as the cause of the problem (or the potential solution) is yourself. You're upset that health care costs are too high. TAKE FUCKING CARE OF YOURSELF and costs will fall. You whine about how unfair credit companies and lenders are. STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE.

You can't change what you don't acknowledge and as a rule liberals never acnkowledge their own role in the problems they piss and moan about.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sorry, I'll rephrase. Why did you spend all your money on a home that was going to need yet more money spent on it for repairs? If all you had was enough to cover the purchase, but not the repairs it doesn't seem to make much sense to purchase that home.
Let's assume the home was given to Frank, who had been homeless because of his drinking problem. Franks parents had kicked him out on his 35th birthday and he moved in all of his clothing and furniture. His Roy Rogers Horsey Bed and other valuable items are at risk from the rains. Does he borrow the money or let the home be damaged.

As far as the stimulus is concerned, the moral dilema there is when do you sacrafice the future for the present or vic versa. There is a cost-benefit to spending money on the infrastructure, remember IKE built a nation of highways and bridges some of which are now 50 + years old There is only one upside to a subsidy, which is essentially what the stimulus was, and that is to the person recieving the subsidy.The stimulus provided private sector jobs, which allowed skilled and unskilled workers to earn income, pay on their mortgage, buy food, clothing and maybe stimulate their local economy by attending movies or eating out; they also paid taxes on goods and income as well as improving something of benefit to the general public (like fixing pot holes or building/repairing bridges. It inflates the price of whatever the reciever was selling and allows a business that was failing due to their poor management to stick around.baloney It kept the economy from getting weaker in the short term, but prevented it from being stronger in the long run.How, many of the construction jobs are on-going It's the liberal theme you see through every liberal solution.more baloney You want solutions to problems you just never want to have to bare the burden of the solution yourself.

more baloney

balogna? You believe those financial institutions would have survived had the government not bailed them out? The later about liberal solutions I know you will never accept being a liberal yourself, but the FACT is it is observable time and time again. You complain and complain about problems and the very last place you are willing to look as the cause of the problem (or the potential solution) is yourself. You're upset that health care costs are too high. TAKE FUCKING CARE OF YOURSELF and costs will fall. You whine about how unfair credit companies and lenders are. STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE.

You can't change what you don't acknowledge and as a rule liberals never acnkowledge their own role in the problems they piss and moan about.

Yes, Baloney. Check it on, Baloney | Define Baloney at Dictionary.com

I do take care of myself and my family. To suggest otherwise based on my expressed opinions simply demonstrates your ignorance and the emotional basis or your posts.
Take a moment and read the PM I will send you, for your eyes only.

 

[Bern80]

more baloney

balogna? You believe those financial institutions would have survived had the government not bailed them out? The later about liberal solutions I know you will never accept being a liberal yourself, but the FACT is it is observable time and time again. You complain and complain about problems and the very last place you are willing to look as the cause of the problem (or the potential solution) is yourself. You're upset that health care costs are too high. TAKE FUCKING CARE OF YOURSELF and costs will fall. You whine about how unfair credit companies and lenders are. STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE.

You can't change what you don't acknowledge and as a rule liberals never acnkowledge their own role in the problems they piss and moan about.

Yes, Baloney. Check it on, Baloney | Define Baloney at Dictionary.com

I do take care of myself and my family. To suggest otherwise based on my expressed opinions simply demonstrates your ignorance and the emotional basis or your posts.
Take a moment and read the PM I will send you, for your eyes only.

You didn't answer my question. Do you think all of the financial companies we bailed out would have survived had we not bailed them out?

If the above is what you have manged to do in your life why is it so unreasonable to place those same expectations on everyone. It seems to me if everyone who is capable did what you did (i.e. got a good job, planned for retirement, etc.) we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Your words don't explain the solutions I hear liberals constantly bring up. It's an observable fact Wry. You just don't see libs suggest or admit solutions to problems that involve themselves as part of the solution. I never heard a lib suggest in the healthcare debate that if we want health care costs to fall people should take better care of themselves. I never heard a lib suggest that individuals need to manage their money better if they want to avoid the pit falls of predatory lending or not pay exhorbitant credit card interest rates. Have you?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, clearly the Stimulus was a failure and because it was too small...$850B is fucking peanuts!

We needed a Stimulus of um, er, scientifically speaking, um using round numbers, um $5 Trillion. Yeah, that seems right, $5 Trillion of Stimulus an we could have kept unemployment to 9% ...I'm sure of it

The house Frank, fix the roof or let nature take its course? No idiotgram or hyperbolic response is acceptable.

The hole in the roof was caused by the Progressives lighting bonfires up on the roof so the only answer is to build bigger bonfires.

 

[Nosmo King]

"Trickle down" was an unfortunate term to be coined because it triggers an image different than Reagan intended. Reagan, as all supply sider capitalists know, knew that poor people don't create jobs. Only successful, prosperous people create jobs. And since it is mostly successful, prosperous people who are the rich, that translates to:

It is necessary for people to become rich in order for there to be jobs available to the poor.​

And once you start creating jobs for the poor, the prosperity doesn't 'trickle down'. It 'bubbles up'. Put 10 million people to work in permanent jobs who aren't working now and you have 10 million new consumers who will increase activity to produce the consumed good and soon 10 million more are at work. And it continues to 'bubble up' from there. And all those new taxpayers who are paying into instead of draining the system will start bringing down the deficits. If we do it well enough, we'll eliminate the deficits and start bringing down the debt.

Cutting the capital gains tax; making the Bush tax rates permanent for another decade or so, etc. will spur the 'rich' to take the risk to get back to work and hire those first 10 million or more permanent workers. History has proved that this works time and again.

We aren't saying eliminate all taxes. That would be stupid. But we can eliminate all the government doesn't absolutely have to have and let a growing economy and GDP do its work.

It does require the political class to accept a smaller instead of ever increasing government. And it does require the elite class envy group to understand that a rising tide lifts all boats, even those of the rich.

The rich have become richer. The wage and earnings gap has become wider. The jobs those beneficent rich were supposed to create were created overseas. Thanks supply siders! You made it so easy for the rich they no longer have the troubles the vast majority has!

Consumer spending drives the economy. The rich aren't in sufficient numbers to rely on their spending. The vast majority of consumers have been screwed blue by supply side economics. If the supply siders decided to trickle the benefits on those who do the most spending, the rich would still get rich and the jobs would be right here making the goods the consumers want.

 

[Foxfyre]

"Trickle down" was an unfortunate term to be coined because it triggers an image different than Reagan intended. Reagan, as all supply sider capitalists know, knew that poor people don't create jobs. Only successful, prosperous people create jobs. And since it is mostly successful, prosperous people who are the rich, that translates to:

It is necessary for people to become rich in order for there to be jobs available to the poor.​

And once you start creating jobs for the poor, the prosperity doesn't 'trickle down'. It 'bubbles up'. Put 10 million people to work in permanent jobs who aren't working now and you have 10 million new consumers who will increase activity to produce the consumed good and soon 10 million more are at work. And it continues to 'bubble up' from there. And all those new taxpayers who are paying into instead of draining the system will start bringing down the deficits. If we do it well enough, we'll eliminate the deficits and start bringing down the debt.

Cutting the capital gains tax; making the Bush tax rates permanent for another decade or so, etc. will spur the 'rich' to take the risk to get back to work and hire those first 10 million or more permanent workers. History has proved that this works time and again.

We aren't saying eliminate all taxes. That would be stupid. But we can eliminate all the government doesn't absolutely have to have and let a growing economy and GDP do its work.

It does require the political class to accept a smaller instead of ever increasing government. And it does require the elite class envy group to understand that a rising tide lifts all boats, even those of the rich.

The rich have become richer. The wage and earnings gap has become wider. The jobs those beneficent rich were supposed to create were created overseas. Thanks supply siders! You made it so easy for the rich they no longer have the troubles the vast majority has!

Consumer spending drives the economy. The rich aren't in sufficient numbers to rely on their spending. The vast majority of consumers have been screwed blue by supply side economics. If the supply siders decided to trickle the benefits on those who do the most spending, the rich would still get rich and the jobs would be right here making the goods the consumers want.

Nonsense. Until the housing bubble burst in 2008, we had at or near full employment. Anybody who really wanted to work could and could earn a living wage. The deficits were coming down dramatically year after year and, if the housing bubble hadn't burst, I do believe we would have achieved a balanced budget within the next year or two. Maybe you don't like supply side, but it sure as hell beats anything the so called 'progressives' have come up with to replace it. Totalitarianism, Socialism, Communism, Marxism--all have escalated the misery index, eroded freedoms AND opportunity EVERY SINGLE TIME they've been tried.

People who are willing to destroy just about about principle embraced in the concept of the USA in order to punish the 'rich' may just get their wish one of these days. But when they do, we will have given up all or most of the principles that had made us the greatest nation the Earth has ever seen.

Is it worth it just because you are so damned jealous of the rich?

 

[Bern80]

The rich have become richer. The wage and earnings gap has become wider. The jobs those beneficent rich were supposed to create were created overseas. Thanks supply siders! You made it so easy for the rich they no longer have the troubles the vast majority has!

Actually this argument proves that supply side economics does in fact work. Supply side economics in a nutshell says the easier you make it for business to conduct business, the better it will be for eveyrone. What government went and did is make it HARDER for business to do business in America.....so they left.

 

[Wry Catcher]

balogna? You believe those financial institutions would have survived had the government not bailed them out? The later about liberal solutions I know you will never accept being a liberal yourself, but the FACT is it is observable time and time again. You complain and complain about problems and the very last place you are willing to look as the cause of the problem (or the potential solution) is yourself. You're upset that health care costs are too high. TAKE FUCKING CARE OF YOURSELF and costs will fall. You whine about how unfair credit companies and lenders are. STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE.

You can't change what you don't acknowledge and as a rule liberals never acnkowledge their own role in the problems they piss and moan about.

Yes, Baloney. Check it on, Baloney | Define Baloney at Dictionary.com

I do take care of myself and my family. To suggest otherwise based on my expressed opinions simply demonstrates your ignorance and the emotional basis or your posts.
Take a moment and read the PM I will send you, for your eyes only.

You didn't answer my question. Do you think all of the financial companies we bailed out would have survived had we not bailed them out?

If the above is what you have manged to do in your life why is it so unreasonable to place those same expectations on everyone. It seems to me if everyone who is capable did what you did (i.e. got a good job, planned for retirement, etc.) we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Your words don't explain the solutions I hear liberals constantly bring up. It's an observable fact Wry. You just don't see libs suggest or admit solutions to problems that involve themselves as part of the solution. I never heard a lib suggest in the healthcare debate that if we want health care costs to fall people should take better care of themselves. I never heard a lib suggest that individuals need to manage their money better if they want to avoid the pit falls of predatory lending or not pay exhorbitant credit card interest rates. Have you?

Honestly, have you ever read the fine print on a credit card application/letter changing the rules? I haven't, but we use a credit card for nearly all purchases, and pay it off each month. In this way we get a nice cash back check from Discover and AEX; now our credit union visa is doing the same.
However, my kids when in college before the meltdown used to get offers for credit cards several times a month, or more often.
Too many people spend today and worry about it later. Or make minimum payments and pay outrageous fees. Do I believe such people ought to get bailed out? No. Neither do I believe banks ought to get bailed out for making foolish loans.
That said I don't believe allowing a large bank or company to fail is wise, or to bail them out is socialism. Sometimes ideology needs to give way to pramatic solutions. And I abhor unproven ideas offered as immutable truths.

 

[Wry Catcher]

balogna? You believe those financial institutions would have survived had the government not bailed them out? The later about liberal solutions I know you will never accept being a liberal yourself, but the FACT is it is observable time and time again. You complain and complain about problems and the very last place you are willing to look as the cause of the problem (or the potential solution) is yourself. You're upset that health care costs are too high. TAKE FUCKING CARE OF YOURSELF and costs will fall. You whine about how unfair credit companies and lenders are. STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE.

You can't change what you don't acknowledge and as a rule liberals never acnkowledge their own role in the problems they piss and moan about.

Yes, Baloney. Check it on, Baloney | Define Baloney at Dictionary.com

I do take care of myself and my family. To suggest otherwise based on my expressed opinions simply demonstrates your ignorance and the emotional basis or your posts.
Take a moment and read the PM I will send you, for your eyes only.

You didn't answer my question. Do you think all of the financial companies we bailed out would have survived had we not bailed them out?
No. I suspect some would have failed, others would have sold their good will and any assets to another financial services company and some would have failed.

If the above is what you have manged to do in your life why is it so unreasonable to place those same expectations on everyone.I'm much smarter than the average, taller too It seems to me if everyone who is capable did what you did (i.e. got a good job, planned for retirement, etc.) we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Not everyone plans ahead; some do but preditors foiled them. Ask those at HP or Enron who got screwed.

Your words don't explain the solutions I hear liberals constantly bring up.not all liberals or progressives have the same ideas or plans It's an observable fact Wry. You just don't see libs suggest or admit solutions to problems that involve themselves as part of the solution.I'd be happy to pay a sur tax to reduce the debt, if we could trust that it would be applied to debt service. I also support a line-item veto for the POTUS, both sides of the aisle would feel the power of the pencil I never heard a lib suggest in the healthcare debate that if we want health care costs to fall people should take better care of themselves.I did, and I have. I believe free preventative health care available to all citizens is a cost effective way to mitigate long term health costs I never heard a lib suggest that individuals need to manage their money better if they want to avoid the pit falls of predatory lending or not pay exhorbitant credit card interest rates. Have you?

Yep, see above