Millions out of work - a crumbling infrastructure - I have an idea!

[Rshermr]

Sure they are, Oldstyle. they just line up perfectly with the con web sites and fox. Perfectly. And have no basis in fact. I have no problem at all showing your statements to be without validity. None at all. But then, you have no source. No proof of your statements. Just what you want to believe and what you want others to believe. You are totally without integrity.

Which is it, Rshermr? You accuse me of gleaning everything I post from "con web sites and fox" but then you turn around and criticize me for not having a "source"? I thought my "source" was all these con web sites and fox? I know this is hard for someone like YOU to grasp, since you have to GOOGLE for ALL of your knowledge but I don't. I actually can come here and post off the top of my head and not sound like a complete idiot...unlike you.

Which is it, Rshermr? You accuse me of gleaning everything I post from "con web sites and fox" but then you turn around and criticize me for not having a "source"? I thought my "source" was all these con web sites and fox? I know this is hard for someone like YOU to grasp, since you have to GOOGLE for ALL of your knowledge but I don't. I actually can come here and post off the top of my head and not sound like a complete idiot...unlike you.

Actually you are lying again, oldstyle. Apparently it is so natural you do not even notice. I never said you gleen everything from con web sites. I also said some of it is your opinion. Which would include things you post from memory. Which, as it turns out, is most always wrong.

And then, Oldstyle, you miss the point entirely. I have no issue if you post something from memory. But if you are wrong, I am going to criticize your lack of a source. And I am going to use a good independent source to educate you. Which I seem to have to do ALL THE TIME. You need to get a clue, oldstyle. If you are using memory, your memory sucks, or your sources from which you got the info suck.

That last sentense, about being able to post from the top of your head without sounding like an idiot, simply proves you to be delusional. You waste peoples time. And your agenda, oldstyle, is really, really, really obvious.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, Oldstyle says:

What I find most amusing is that first you accuse me of stealing all of my thoughts from conservative web sites but then you turn around and accuse me of being a "liar" when off the top of my head I give what I remember to have happened. The truth is...YOU'RE the one who relies entirely on web sites for your information...I'm the one who's going from my memory. And because I don't have the numbers exactly correct...you accuse me of lying? Really?

Right, oldstyle. Odd how your memory Always, always, always has the story worse than it was and is. Never ever do you err on the side of the current administration. Always looks like the situation was worse thanit was. Funny how that happens. And no, I do not care why you are wrong. sorry you do not want to actually know what happened. And what, are you blaming me for providing you with the truth. And lying? yes, Really.

Let's look at another of your posts...

"So far, all of your numbers are wrong. Is it too much to expect you to use actual government numbers. I gave you the link. Do you need help with Google, or what. Or are you simply lying, hoping that no one will notice?
So, the rate topped out in October of 09, about 7 months after the stimulus was passed. And, apparently, you would like everyone to believe that it should have gone down immediately. Based on the Oldstyle theory of economic stimulus, apparently. Because you will find, as I did, no source that believes it should have gone down sooner. That is, if you actually used google and looked, which you will not. Because, you see, you know you will not find what you want to find to support your little lie.
So, let me ask you, Oldstyle. Did you ever hear of George W. Bush? Did you ever hear of the great republican recession of 2008. You know, the period when we had the worst economy since the great depression? The period when jobs were being lost at over 500,000 per month? The time when economists were pretty much universally saying that we could well end up in a depression with over 20% unemployument? Or, did you sleep through that period?
No, of course not. You know fully well. But, being a con tool, you would like to say that unemployment should have turned around immediately. Even though no independent economist said such a thing. And, of course, you do not get your talking points from those bat shit crazy con tool web sites, or fox. Sure, Oldstyle."

OK, lets see what you have to say about that.



Yup, my mistake. A month off. As I said, I make errors. the difference is, I do not lie. And do you see a difference between that and you "early next year" and what the truth was, which was October. So, 8 months versus a year or so. do you yet see that the two are not alike???

And I've NEVER made the contention that the unemployment numbers would go down sooner rather than later under the Democrats plan.

Maybe you should go back and re read your own posts, cowboy. You did not make the contention that they would go down, but that they should have gone down should the stimulus plan have worked. You have made that contention several times.

Anyone with any experience with how government spends it's money knew THAT was wishful thinking to an extent that was laughable. What's amusing is that you've spent most of your time here PROVING that very point with you repeated demonstrations that the stimulus money WASN'T being spent in 2009!

Whatever, Oldstyle. You always want us to believe you are an expert on such things. You would think you were a civil engineer instead of a food services professional. Stupid contentions, but that would be you.

You really are a piece of work. You accuse me of "lying" because unemployment peaked in late October instead of my "early in the year" which is a whole two months later? You said that 7 months went by between the passage of ObamaCare and when unemployment peaked when it was actually 8 and a half months. So I'm a liar because I was off by two months citing off the top of my head but you're NOT when you distort numbers that you're taking from someone else's web site? Do you really not grasp what an idiot you make yourself out to be when you post this nonsense?

The problem that you have, Rshermr is that it was Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama who promised immediate jobs if the stimulus they sought was passed. I'm simply holding them to what THEY said we would get. In Nancy's case it was a preposterous 400,000 jobs created immediately. That never happened. It didn't even come CLOSE to happening! So were Nancy and Barry lying when they made those promises...or were they so monumentally clueless about how the process works that they promised something that anyone with a modicum of common sense KNEW wasn't going to occur?

"Whatever, Oldstyle." LOL...that's your comeback? Seriously?

 

[Oldstyle]

Yes. You keep trying to say that. But you are entirely wrong. Where did you get the idea that the CBO has been given a time period, and end date, if you will? Because, Oldstyle, the CBO has gone much further into the future than that. So, your information is wrong. So, don't get angry with you. I am telling you the truth. Apparently you are lying to yourself, since you have NO LINK FOR THE STATEMENTS THAT YOU ARE MAKING. Or maybe someone else is lying to you. And thanks a lot for your statement about the ongoing costs of Obamacare, which would be the affordable care act, should you actually use the correct name. And where are your sources to prove that the costs go way up after the first ten years? Who gave you that info. Or is it just Oldstyle common sense, which again lines up perfectly with the bat shit crazy con tool web sites, and fox. I know, you came up with those numbers independently. But you just can not provide the source.

Makes me believe you are a liar. Can not prove it. Maybe you just have unbelievable common sense. Ya think?? Attack, attack, attack. Eh, oldstyle.

Well, I used my "common sense" to see that when someone uses the first ten years of a program...in which during four of those ten years payments aren't being made...that the true cost of what ObamaCare is going to be is totally skewed. If you REALLY want to know what the cost of the program is going to be then you should get rid of the years when nothing is being paid out. The Democrats didn't DO that. They asked the CBO to crunch numbers for those first ten years. The proof of what I'm saying is that when the CBO did a followup ten year projection of costs...leaving out just one year at the front end and adding one at the back? The cost for ObamaCare increased substantially. And if you took away those four years when services won't be being paid for and replace them with four years where they WILL? Then the ten year cost of ObamaCare doubles.

Which is total nonsense. Just your poor common sense. So, you are saying that the cbo is stupid, and you are oh so smart. Sorry, oldstyle, I will put my money on the CBO. But thanks for your opinion. So, is it only you who sees the costs doubling. Are you saying no one else sees that. Including the CBO. You must have a link, oldstyle. But then, since you are simply lying again, you will have no link. dipshit. Quit wasting my time.

So let me get this straight...you really can't grasp that the numbers were "cooked" in that initial CBO estimate because they include the initial years of ObamaCare where money wasn't being paid out yet? And you need me to go find a "link" so that you can see that the costs of ObamaCare are going to be massively more expensive then one would have been led to believe from the initial 10 year projection that the CBO did? All I can say is WOW! Those poor students you "taught"? I'm sure it was an experience they'll never forget.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Republicans don't understand that the previous president's budget is in effect for nearly a year after he leaves office. Obama was sworn in at the beginning of the year, but he is stuck with Bush's budget until the end of October. That's they way it works. But because Obama was president and Bush's policies are failures, they must belong to Obama. Republicans simply can't face the truth. It causes too much pain.

Dean, the crumbling infrastructure was build by the 94% non-Republican scientists

When will you admit your mistakes?

Instead of designing stuff that makes your inner child happy, you need to design stuff that lasts

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We have a national rail system its called Amtrak.

Took me 7 ******* hours to go from Penn Station NYC to Atlantic City NJ

 

[Rshermr]

Well, I used my "common sense" to see that when someone uses the first ten years of a program...in which during four of those ten years payments aren't being made...that the true cost of what ObamaCare is going to be is totally skewed. If you REALLY want to know what the cost of the program is going to be then you should get rid of the years when nothing is being paid out. The Democrats didn't DO that. They asked the CBO to crunch numbers for those first ten years. The proof of what I'm saying is that when the CBO did a followup ten year projection of costs...leaving out just one year at the front end and adding one at the back? The cost for ObamaCare increased substantially. And if you took away those four years when services won't be being paid for and replace them with four years where they WILL? Then the ten year cost of ObamaCare doubles.

Which is total nonsense. Just your poor common sense. So, you are saying that the cbo is stupid, and you are oh so smart. Sorry, oldstyle, I will put my money on the CBO. But thanks for your opinion. So, is it only you who sees the costs doubling. Are you saying no one else sees that. Including the CBO. You must have a link, oldstyle. But then, since you are simply lying again, you will have no link. dipshit. Quit wasting my time.

So let me get this straight...you really can't grasp that the numbers were "cooked" in that initial CBO estimate because they include the initial years of ObamaCare where money wasn't being paid out yet? And you need me to go find a "link" so that you can see that the costs of ObamaCare are going to be massively more expensive then one would have been led to believe from the initial 10 year projection that the CBO did? All I can say is WOW! Those poor students you "taught"? I'm sure it was an experience they'll never forget.

I know what the cbo projections are. And they are not what you are saying. So, you made the statement. You need to prove it. I see no reason at all to believe it.

It is always interesting to see you squirm when you are caught in a lie. You make statements, are asked to prove it, and you then simply attack. Typical con methodology, oldstyle. Nice con form.

And, Oldstyle. You did just what I said you would do. You found no source to support you. None at all. Hell, oldstyle, you should be congratulating me on calling what you would do next perfectly and accurately.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[the costs of ObamaCare are going to be massively more expensive then one would have been led to believe from the initial 10 year projection that the CBO did? .

yes this is so true. Obama had no trouble lying to the American people.


"At the time of Obamacare’s passage, Democrats touted the fact that the CBO had then said that the gross cost of Obamacare’s insurance coverage provisions would be “only” $938 billion. But that was for 2010 through 2019, while Obamacare wouldn’t really even go into effect until 2014. Now, the CBO says that the gross cost of Obamacare’s insurance coverage provisions over the 9-year span from 2014 through 2022 would be $1.674 trillion. Even if one were to assume that Obamacare’s annual costs, which the CBO says would rise by between 3.6 and 9.5 percent during each of the final five years of its scoring, would suddenly stop rising altogether in 2023 and would remain at $256 billion — the cost for 2022 — the tally for Obamacare’s real first decade (2014-23) would be $1.930 trillion."

The CBO also says that — despite its colossal cost and its unprecedented expansion of power and control over Americans’ lives — Obamacare would, as of a decade from now, leave 30 million people uninsured.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...illion-leave-30-million-uninsured_649066.html

 

[Rshermr]

You really are a piece of work.

Wow. An attack from a con tool. What a surprise. Well, that would be your opinion. My opinion of you is that you are a lying dipshit.

You accuse me of "lying" because unemployment peaked in late October instead of my "early in the year" which is a whole two months later? You said that 7 months went by between the passage of ObamaCare and when unemployment peaked when it was actually 8 and a half months. So I'm a liar because I was off by two months citing off the top of my head but you're NOT when you distort numbers that you're taking from someone else's web site? Do you really not grasp what an idiot you make yourself out to be when you post this nonsense?

I simply expect you to have a clue. Which you do not. I do not care that I was off a month. Nor do I care if you were off two months. Of course, you said early next year, and now you are saying the first of January. But, who cares. What is funny is that you are so proud of quoting off the top of your head, and you are almost always wrong. Prety stupid, eh, dipshit.

The problem that you have, Rshermr is that it was Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama who promised immediate jobs if the stimulus they sought was passed. I'm simply holding them to what THEY said we would get. In Nancy's case it was a preposterous 400,000 jobs created immediately. That never happened. It didn't even come CLOSE to happening! So were Nancy and Barry lying when they made those promises...or were they so monumentally clueless about how the process works that they promised something that anyone with a modicum of common sense KNEW wasn't going to occur?

The problem you have, Oldstyle, is that you think that anything that politicians say should be believed without question. Apparently are very, very naive. No, I did not believe the statements completely. But then, I understood they were politicians, and that this was a political battle between cons who wanted the economy to fail, and the administration which was trying to help the economy.
So, you say you are not a con tool. I may not be real smart, but I am old. And I have seen enough of people attacking Pelosi, and calling a sitting president Barry, to know when I am addressing a con tool. Really, oldstyle, it just does not pass the giggle test.

 

[Rshermr]

In answer to the following?

"So, oldstyle, you tell me I know nothing of economics. Why don't you bring on a component of economics that you understand better than I. We can discuss it."

Rshermr

Fine then...let's discuss your backing of Obama's tax raises on the wealthy. Since liberals are supposedly working from a Keynesian fiscal model would you care to point out to me where it is that Keynes advocated for tax raises in a weak economy? It's my belief that the Obama Administration's fiscal policy of calling for tax increases at this time is based solely on sating the far left of their party and has nothing to do with sound Keynesian economic policy.[/QUOTE]
So, oldstyle has another great question. Jessus H christ.

In answer to the following?

"So, oldstyle, you tell me I know nothing of economics. Why don't you bring on a component of economics that you understand better than I. We can discuss it."

Rshermr

Fine then...let's discuss your backing of Obama's tax raises on the wealthy. Since liberals are supposedly working from a Keynesian fiscal model would you care to point out to me where it is that Keynes advocated for tax raises in a weak economy? It's my belief that the Obama Administration's fiscal policy of calling for tax increases at this time is based solely on sating the far left of their party and has nothing to do with sound Keynesian economic policy.[/QUOTE]

Sure. Neither this president, not the liberals that you seem to think you know, base their policies strictly on keynsian models. So, that would be your answer.

Beyond that, what you just asked was a very, very, very naive question. So, why don't you show to me the last time we saw tax decreases work in a bad economy with high unemployment. Remember, you tried this before, and failed miserably.

Now, Oldstyle, since we have dispensed with your naive economic question, let me ask you what you are suggesting. I suspect it is Supply Side Economics. Can you show me when that has ever worked???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

why don't you show to me the last time we saw tax decreases work in a bad economy with high unemployment.

They work by definition since they shrink the government and expand the private sector which is 100% responsible for new inventions and so for all economic growth from the stone age to here.

If you stimulate the private sector you get growth; if your stimulate the public sector you get decline.

Liberals know this but they are so addicted to buying votes with welfare entitlements and make work jobs they just can't stop.

 

[daveman]

So gubmint has been in charge of this "infrastructure" thingy for decades now and y'all tell us that it's crumbling?

Excuse me if I ask if that's supposed to be any evidence that they're the ones best suited to fix it?

And remember, this is the same government they want to make all your healthcare decisions for you.

 

[daveman]

This post isn't normal:

Someone who clearly doesn't understand that nothing lasts forever. Pity.

The most famous Republican scientist in the world is Michael Behe who gave us the term "irreducible complexity". A term that has made him a laughing stock and the most discredited scientist in the world. The most famous Republican scientist is also the most discredited. You have to admit, there is a certain "symmetry" there.


Republicans insist there must be more than 6% of scientists who are Republican. After all, NASA was created by Republicans as was the interstate highway system. But like nearly all the racists and KKK joined the Republican Party, so did all the scientists leave. The greatest right wing institutions of learning are no more than tier four. Republicans taking credit for anything scientific is like Republicans taking credit for Lincoln or taking out Bin Laden. If only what they "imagine" were real. But alas, it isn't. It's only what they "imagine".

...but on meth it is.

 

[daveman]

Republicans don't understand that the previous president's budget is in effect for nearly a year after he leaves office. Obama was sworn in at the beginning of the year, but he is stuck with Bush's budget until the end of October. That's they way it works. But because Obama was president and Bush's policies are failures, they must belong to Obama. Republicans simply can't face the truth. It causes too much pain.

How many budgets has Obama sent to Congress? And what was Congress' reaction?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So gubmint has been in charge of this "infrastructure" thingy for decades now and y'all tell us that it's crumbling?

Excuse me if I ask if that's supposed to be any evidence that they're the ones best suited to fix it?

And remember, this is the same government they want to make all your healthcare decisions for you.

ah but they are unfunded!! In the last 10 years federal spending has only gone from $2 trillion to $4 trillion, they just need a little more and then you'll see the magic for sure.

 

[rdean]

Republicans don't understand that the previous president's budget is in effect for nearly a year after he leaves office. Obama was sworn in at the beginning of the year, but he is stuck with Bush's budget until the end of October. That's they way it works. But because Obama was president and Bush's policies are failures, they must belong to Obama. Republicans simply can't face the truth. It causes too much pain.

How many budgets has Obama sent to Congress? And what was Congress' reaction?

What has been the Republican Congress reaction to anything Obama as done?

 

[rdean]

This post isn't normal:

Someone who clearly doesn't understand that nothing lasts forever. Pity.

The most famous Republican scientist in the world is Michael Behe who gave us the term "irreducible complexity". A term that has made him a laughing stock and the most discredited scientist in the world. The most famous Republican scientist is also the most discredited. You have to admit, there is a certain "symmetry" there.


Republicans insist there must be more than 6% of scientists who are Republican. After all, NASA was created by Republicans as was the interstate highway system. But like nearly all the racists and KKK joined the Republican Party, so did all the scientists leave. The greatest right wing institutions of learning are no more than tier four. Republicans taking credit for anything scientific is like Republicans taking credit for Lincoln or taking out Bin Laden. If only what they "imagine" were real. But alas, it isn't. It's only what they "imagine".

...but on meth it is.

Republicans are on "meth"? That explains it.

 

[rdean]

We have a national rail system its called Amtrak.

Took me 7 ******* hours to go from Penn Station NYC to Atlantic City NJ

There is your "Republican Design". And they want to keep it that way.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We have a national rail system its called Amtrak.

Took me 7 ******* hours to go from Penn Station NYC to Atlantic City NJ

There is your "Republican Design". And they want to keep it that way.

Only 6% of scientists are Republicans Dean so it had to be Democrat design

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Deany, since only 6% of scientists are Republicans, will you admit that it's almost a virtual certainty that the crumbled infrastructure was built by Democrats ?

Someone who clearly doesn't understand that nothing lasts forever. Pity.

The most famous Republican scientist in the world is Michael Behe who gave us the term "irreducible complexity". A term that has made him a laughing stock and the most discredited scientist in the world. The most famous Republican scientist is also the most discredited. You have to admit, there is a certain "symmetry" there.


Republicans insist there must be more than 6% of scientists who are Republican. After all, NASA was created by Republicans as was the interstate highway system. But like nearly all the racists and KKK joined the Republican Party, so did all the scientists leave. The greatest right wing institutions of learning are no more than tier four. Republicans taking credit for anything scientific is like Republicans taking credit for Lincoln or taking out Bin Laden. If only what they "imagine" were real. But alas, it isn't. It's only what they "imagine".

Behe is a Catholic, like Nancy Pelosi, he probably votes Democratic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So gubmint has been in charge of this "infrastructure" thingy for decades now and y'all tell us that it's crumbling?

Excuse me if I ask if that's supposed to be any evidence that they're the ones best suited to fix it?

Just because OUR government has not been able to appropriate its infrastructure spending effectively doesn't mean it can't be done. Evidence here:

China approves $157-billion infrastructure spending | Reuters

shows China's level of commitment to economic growth, and their commitment to continue. Are we China? Of course not, nor would we want to be, but if you're looking for evidence of how a healthy and modern infrastructure supports to a more efficient and robust economy, I can think of few better examples. There are a number of reasons why our current system does not support the economy we would like to have. Appropriate infrastructure is one of them.

Do you know of another body/entity better suited? If you think corporations, good luck getting them to spend the kind of money necessary to make us globally relevant again. They'd much rather outsource to a country like China that DOES have the infrastructure to support their objectives. It's much easier and cheaper for them.

You want to compare a third world country that is emerging as an economic superpower because it is moving away from a centrally managed economy with the US? Are you aware that the only reason they are spending that much money on infrastructure is because they don't fracking have any?