Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Thank God, we haven't lost hope.As opposed to the Democrats who are for Hope and Change.
Yeah. The 2012 election is right around the corner. Step one was taking the House in 2010, so monstrosities like card check and cap n trade couldn't become law. Step Two is taking the Senate and White House in 2012 so we can roll back the damage that's been done.
That's change you can hope for.
The right wants the economy to fail, so they can win the next election.
But the recovery is underway.
So sorry, Republicans.
As a person who spent much of his college career studying it and having the study of history as a hobby, it seems I sure as hell know better than you.No, they only differ in HOW they accomplish the same result.Fascism and Socialism are two different things.
Liberalism=Marxism=Socialism=Progressivism=Communism=Fascism
They only differ in how they get to the same position of absolutist neo-feudalist control where the government has total say on you as their property.
Sorry, but I don't desire to be a peasent or serf.
You don't really know what feudalism is, do you?
Oh is THAT the spin we're going to use to exempt previous votes that you now hold others responsible for? You wonder why the left has no credibility OR the right when they do this?And all of this changes the fact that refusing to raise a debt ceiling when you revenues only cover half your expenses will cause treasury prices to drop through the floor - how?
You're confused. I didn't say the reactionary right wanted to fix the economy in a different way than the radical left. I said they want to destroy it. This is abundantly clear by their actions in Congress. They weren't just toying with the debt ceiling for politics, they were clearly 100% willing to allow it to be hit and to suffer the punishing consequences of trillions of dollars in treasuries being dumped all at once by panicked bond investors. I have yet to find a single person on this board or anywhere who says they would buy treasuries if the debt ceiling hadn't been raised. For a bond's price to not fall into oblivion, there has to actually be willing buyers. Do you understand economics?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWOMsugKkfk]Obama Vote's Against Raising Debt Ceiling in 2006 - YouTube[/ame]
now take your stupid thread and eat it.
Obama and everyone else who has voted against a debt ceiling raise before this year wasn't actually going to go through with it in the end - the tea party was plenty willing to do it.Its healthy that Congress debates the issue of the debt every time the ceiling gets close - what's not healthy is doing your best to make sure investors really believe you're going to do it.
Link to a neutral cost/effectiveness study?Thank God, we haven't lost hope.
Yeah. The 2012 election is right around the corner. Step one was taking the House in 2010, so monstrosities like card check and cap n trade couldn't become law. Step Two is taking the Senate and White House in 2012 so we can roll back the damage that's been done.
That's change you can hope for.
Cap n trade is already law for NxO and sulfur emissions and is far from a "monstrosity" - it works quite will. Emissions of those chemicals has been reduced drastically and it didn't put anyone out of business.
Can't figure out how card check is a monstrosity unless you just want to give employers time to threaten their workers.
apparently only where socio-liberal-fascists want them... in government unions. I hear DC is the only area booming and 7 of the 10 richest counties in the nation are.The right wants the economy to fail, so they can win the next election.
But the recovery is underway.
So sorry, Republicans.
The recovery has been underway for over 2 years. Where are the jobs?
Link to a neutral cost/effectiveness study?Yeah. The 2012 election is right around the corner. Step one was taking the House in 2010, so monstrosities like card check and cap n trade couldn't become law. Step Two is taking the Senate and White House in 2012 so we can roll back the damage that's been done.
That's change you can hope for.
Cap n trade is already law for NxO and sulfur emissions and is far from a "monstrosity" - it works quite will. Emissions of those chemicals has been reduced drastically and it didn't put anyone out of business.
Can't figure out how card check is a monstrosity unless you just want to give employers time to threaten their workers.
Otherwise, you're claiming something without proof.
Better still, can you show me how many of those industries affected by these laws have survived since its passing or moved overseas where there are no such laws?
Why does the reactionary right want the world economy to fail? Seriously, why?
Why does the reactionary right want the world economy to fail? Seriously, why?
Yeah, sure. We're all hoping our 401Ks and home values continue to spin downward. It's so much fun losing money.
Sarcasm off.
Back to reality -
God, you're a fucking idiot.
Do you think the U.S. defaulting on its debt burden would have caused home and 401k values to go up?
they just dont get it.
They refuse to take in new information unless it backs their already historically failed ideas.
The right wants a world Depression because a Dem is in power... Just like when a Rep was in power the Dems wanted a world Depression. The question is do you blame Reps for a world Depression when it happened when Dems were the ones that wanted it so bad under Bush, you know, when it all fell apart? Or do you realize you're a fucking hack idiot who started another Trolling thread?
There are so many stupid fucking threads posted on here lately I think I'm getting dumber from just reading them.
No, it's not a "negative statement". Businesses surviving regulations are very provable. I'd like to see the number of steel companies in the US BEFORE these regs went into place and after. I'd like to see the amount of money spent on these regulation's enforcement, plus the cost to businesses who then put the proper equipment into place, versus the net 'positive' affect on the environment. You claim that it's such a good trade off of quality of life versus jobs/business, I'd like to see proof as to how this is so. You make an unproven allegation and expect the rest of us to just roll over, spread the legs and take it up the tail pipe your unproven fantasy is true.Link to a neutral cost/effectiveness study?Cap n trade is already law for NxO and sulfur emissions and is far from a "monstrosity" - it works quite will. Emissions of those chemicals has been reduced drastically and it didn't put anyone out of business.
Can't figure out how card check is a monstrosity unless you just want to give employers time to threaten their workers.
Otherwise, you're claiming something without proof.
I said it didn't put anyone out of business. That's a negative statement. It cannot be proven. Yet between the two of us, neither of us can cite an example of a business that went under because of the acid rain program.
If you'd like to read scholarly works on the economic aspects of the program, try Google scholar. I doubt you'll put forth the effort, because you, like myself, probably don't have time to become an expert at everything.
The primary affected industry is coal burning power plants. I feel like you have failed to even try to understand anything on your own, as it should be obvious as to why moving coal burning power plants overseas doesn't really work if you're trying to sell power to people in the U.S. Seriously, your above comment is just stupid.Better still, can you show me how many of those industries affected by these laws have survived since its passing or moved overseas where there are no such laws?
If you're incapable of understanding government policy and explaining your opinions on it to others, do yo concoct some lame analogy to side-step revealing your ignorance?
Not if Congress doesn't VOTE to increase spending. Do you understand how our government works at all?
BY ALL MEANS, PROVIDE SOME EXAMPLES THEN.
Hey jackwad, does "share the wealth" or "fair share" ring any bells for you? Obama and his cohorts in congress want to increase taxes in order to continue spending at unprecedented levels and increase redistribution of wealth. They have no intention of reducing anything as entitelment spending is what they do. It's how they buy votes to stay in power. What, have you been off planet recently?
The super committe fails so lets go on a spending spree | Gregg Easterbrook
RealClearPolitics - Obama's Spending Addiction
Obama, Spending Three Times as Fast as Bush, Blames Bush - By Jim Geraghty - The Campaign Spot - National Review Online
Maybe you didn't yet the memo, but the Democrats are willing to make significant cuts in spending in exchange for tax hikes. Republicans on the other hand think they should only get their way and shouldn't have to give up anything.
You want me to PROVE that coal burning power plants are still in business?No, it's not a "negative statement". Businesses surviving regulations are very provable.Link to a neutral cost/effectiveness study?
Otherwise, you're claiming something without proof.
I said it didn't put anyone out of business. That's a negative statement. It cannot be proven. Yet between the two of us, neither of us can cite an example of a business that went under because of the acid rain program.
If you'd like to read scholarly works on the economic aspects of the program, try Google scholar. I doubt you'll put forth the effort, because you, like myself, probably don't have time to become an expert at everything.
The primary affected industry is coal burning power plants. I feel like you have failed to even try to understand anything on your own, as it should be obvious as to why moving coal burning power plants overseas doesn't really work if you're trying to sell power to people in the U.S. Seriously, your above comment is just stupid.Better still, can you show me how many of those industries affected by these laws have survived since its passing or moved overseas where there are no such laws?
.I'd like to see the number of steel companies in the US BEFORE these regs went into place and after. I'd like to see the amount of money spent on these regulation's enforcement, plus the cost to businesses who then put the proper equipment into place, versus the net 'positive' affect on the environment. You claim that it's such a good trade off of quality of life versus jobs/business, I'd like to see proof as to how this is so. You make an unproven allegation and expect the rest of us to just roll over, spread the legs and take it up the tail pipe your unproven fantasy is true
What makes you quite certain?As for the coal burning power plants, look at how many are in operation now versus pre-regulation and what those businesses profit margin is if you can. I am quite certain you will find a distinct decline in correlation with the regulations.
Case in point, Big Stone 2 Power Plant, an SD coal burning plant has been stopped precisely because of these kinds of out of control ecofascist regulations. Frivilous lawsuits, econazi protests and civil stupidity have stopped a project that would have provided thousands of jobs in a semi-remote area that would also allow for the expanding of the electrical grid's security in this nation. A net positive good for society. And this was to be a relatively clean construction that was going to be profitable IN SPITE of the regulations choking the industry that is desperate for more capacity.
You're the fool here. The evidence is hanging off your ass with it's jaws firmly locked.
Hey jackwad, does "share the wealth" or "fair share" ring any bells for you? Obama and his cohorts in congress want to increase taxes in order to continue spending at unprecedented levels and increase redistribution of wealth. They have no intention of reducing anything as entitelment spending is what they do. It's how they buy votes to stay in power. What, have you been off planet recently?
The super committe fails so let’s go on a spending spree | Gregg Easterbrook
RealClearPolitics - Obama's Spending Addiction
Obama, Spending Three Times as Fast as Bush, Blames Bush - By Jim Geraghty - The Campaign Spot - National Review Online
Maybe you didn't yet the memo, but the Democrats are willing to make significant cuts in spending in exchange for tax hikes. Republicans on the other hand think they should only get their way and shouldn't have to give up anything.
That's because we don't have a revenue issue, we have a spending problem.
Taxing more and giving them more money historically leads to one thing only, increased spending. Until they can cut and live within their means, the intelligent answer is to give them no more money. You can go back and read my apt analogy that you dissed earlier.
A better question is "Why does the reactionary left want government to rule our lives?"
Case in point, Big Stone 2 Power Plant, an SD coal burning plant has been stopped precisely because of these kinds of out of control ecofascist regulations. Frivilous lawsuits, econazi protests and civil stupidity have stopped a project that would have provided thousands of jobs in a semi-remote area that would also allow for the expanding of the electrical grid's security in this nation. A net positive good for society. And this was to be a relatively clean construction that was going to be profitable IN SPITE of the regulations choking the industry that is desperate for more capacity.
You're the fool here. The evidence is hanging off your ass with it's jaws firmly locked.
