The Goat Pen

puterbac wrote: Revenues went up after the tax cuts were put in place. About 48 straight months of Job Growth.

Nope. They went down and the deficit went up. http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/down ... al=s&show=

He still should have punched the bitch out cold.

Owlman wrote:
Nope. They went down and the deficit went up

The tax cuts were not put fully in place until 2003. If the blue line is income tax revenue it flattened out in 2003 after falling due to fewer people working and paying taxes. Despite taxes being lowered in 2003 across the board revenue starts increasing as more people are working as we had almost 4 straight years of job growth from 2003 to 2007.

Ed Schultz got suspended for 5 days for calling Laura Inghram a right wing slut

woonder what O'Reiley would have faced if he called Rachel Maddoe a left wing cunt

Ed is actually one of the more sensible liberal talk show hosts...which is to say, he's a blathering idiot.

His "apology" sounded like a guy who sees himself standing on the edge of the Keith Olbermann cliff...

[youtube]P1mQS3zxPF4[/youtube]

BTW, thank you puter for setting shit straight in here, again, as you have done so often.

And thanks to Owlman for posting that graph, which proved puter was correct about the effects of the tax cuts. Liberals, it seems, never seem to get the whole Laffer Curve thingy.

As for entitlement spending, it's clear that what we're doing now is unsustainable. But whenever anyone tries to address the problems in a responsible manner, the fear-mongering takes over immediately and you can't even have an adult conversation about it.

crashcourse wrote:Ed Schultz got suspended for 5 days for calling Laura Inghram a right wing slut

woonder what O'Reiley would have faced if he called Rachel Maddoe a left wing cunt

A raise.

Who was the last Fox "News" personality to get fined or suspended for anything they said? They back there guys to the hilt no matter how nasty, crazy, or even libelous their statements may be. The so called left wing media are a bunch of pansies when it comes to that shit.

Hell, Beck has gone batshit crazy and the only reason they aren't renewing his contract is because his ratings are falling. They know they can plug in another blond chick in his time slot and do much better at getting their agenda across and make more money on ad revenue. Its a win win.

No, puter was wrong. Bush first passed his tax cuts early in 2001. The primary reason I turned agaisnt Bush after voting for him in 2000. So much for non-deficit spending. (and unlike Reagan, who while he exploded the deficit with military spending and a tax cut early, signed tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. Not sure about 87, but no increase in 1988).

His ratings are still pretty good for his time slot. The problem was that many of Fox's advertisers refused to be used on his show or any show that advertised him.

I'm curious, what are some nasty, crazy, or even libelous their statements that they have made?

It's not about being libelous. Even what Ed Schultz said wasn't libelous since Ingraham is a public figure.

I'd put it more in the vein of outrageously contemptuous to the point it embarasses the brass and/or the mass. Beck has certainly said things as bad as Schultz, particulary in his Nazi references and his personal commentary on looks (as with McCain's daughter).

Health insurers have fantasized about taking over the Medicare market for soooooo long, but it was alway's a fool's dream. Like hitting the powerball, or finding a sunken treasure.

But now we can almost visualize it. To our industry Paul Ryan is Paul Bunyon/Jack Armstrong/Neil Armstrong/Mother Theresa/God. The man will never want for anything ever again. We will finally get to mine the treasure at the far right side of the tables. We know the REAL reason why they're called the golden years. To borrow part of a movie line: "Michael, we'll be bigger than U.S. Steel - x1,000,000." Cha-ching, baby...bang a gong, let's get it on!

And puter was absolutely correct - grandma will not be going over a cliff in her wheelchair. A good wheelchair will have a very tidy buyback...let's just say the grandkids won't be hurting for a new generation game console with all the accoutrements.

Hacksaw wrote:As for entitlement spending, it's clear that what we're doing now is unsustainable. But whenever anyone tries to address the problems in a responsible manner, the fear-mongering takes over immediately and you can't even have an adult conversation about it.

What Dora and I had was the closest I've ever come to an adult conversation about it.

Still got no where. In the end, all Dora cares about is that she gets hers. When she's dead, then we can change it. But not until.

>all Dora cares about is that she gets hers. When she's dead, then we can change it. But not until.

That's not true. I've contributed to the system all my adult life. And since I'm older than you, I've contributed more than you have. All this money has gone to people older than me & I have no problem with this. I'm still contributing without any benefit to myself & I'm cool with it.

Dora wrote:>all Dora cares about is that she gets hers. When she's dead, then we can change it. But not until.

That's not true. I've contributed to the system all my adult life. And since I'm older than you, I've contributed more than you have. All this money has gone to people older than me & I have no problem with this. I'm still contributing without any benefit to myself & I'm cool with it.

Dora, all the money you have contributed is long gone. Spent. There is no money in the SSI trust fund. None. No assets (unless you call debt an asset.) No gold or precious metals. No real estate. No stocks. Just US savings bonds.

In 1935, when FDR created SSI, the intent was that no one live long enough to get it. The minimum age for you to start getting that insurance check, was greater than the average lifespan. It was insurance for those unfortunate few that out-lived their working years!

Today, people spend up to one-third of their lifespan on Uncle Sam. SSI underwrites Caribbean cruises. The minimum age to receive benefits should be raised to 75 or maybe even 78.

This ponzi scheme doesn't work anymore. It never really worked properly to begin with...

IB, when you get up on that soapbox and extol the virtues of scrapping SS and instead everybody taking responsibility for their own elderly kin...like the good ole days...what kind of feedback do you get with that notion?

Does anybody not think you're fos?

bluetick wrote:IB, when you get up on that soapbox and extol the virtues of scrapping SS and instead everybody taking responsibility for their own elderly kin...like the good ole days...what kind of feedback do you get with that notion?

Doesn't matter. I have arithmetic on my side. Math doesn't need any friends. Math doesn't need to win an election. Math doesn't care if you listen to it. Math is immortal, and doesn't care what God people pray to (if they even believe in God.) Math (much like science) is amoral.

On your side, you have denial of reality. You have well meaning gestures and screaming politicians looking to put the fear of God into elderly. You have people putting off something that math says must be fixed, because the only thing those people care about is their re-election and NOT the enormous future tax burdens of those (ever declining numbers) who are currently too young to vote.

Your willful desire for everyone to have a free lunch with people living longer and having fewer children just proves that you (and anyone who thinks like you) should not (under any circumstances) be allowed anywhere near a position of governmental authority.

bluetick wrote:Does anybody not think you're fos?

You think I am lying to you?

Owlman wrote:No, puter was wrong. Bush first passed his tax cuts early in 2001. The primary reason I turned agaisnt Bush after voting for him in 2000. So much for non-deficit spending. (and unlike Reagan, who while he exploded the deficit with military spending and a tax cut early, signed tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. Not sure about 87, but no increase in 1988).

You can repeat something as many times as you want. That doesn't make it true, no matter how badly you need to believe it. Puter was right. Your graph showed it. Revenue increased after the tax cuts took effect. It's simple economics. Let people keep more of their money to put back into the marketplace and the economy grows. Economic growth = more tax revenue collected. Naturally, there is a limit to how much you can cut taxes. But spending and revenue are two different issues. If you were pissed at Bush for spending like a drunken Kennedy, join the club. I don't see how voting for and supporting dems, who have been even worse, brings you any solace.

Tick is an idiot IB...always has been...always will be.

All the people who insist on getting their SS, because they've paid into it all these years, should have listened to the many people who warned them all along that it was a scam. They were warned. But they chose to ignore it, because they wanted to believe in a fairytale. It's a lot like the people who send money to the Nigerian doctor who scams them, then complain they should get their money back.