2009 Stimulus package, now with more pork. *updated! obama signs. (sad face)*

[quote name='elprincipe']Completely disagree.



Why do you think more money for education is going to make our education system better? Education spending has skyrocketed in the United States over the last 40 years, but our results in comparison to the rest of the world seem only to get worse.

b2179_chart4.gif


Our education system will not produce better results by getting more money. That much has been proven over decades. The rational approach is to change the structure of the system, not to put more money into a poorly designed system.[/quote]

Yes, the system has to be redesigned completely but also I bet there are variables that weren't taken into consideration in that chart. Like how class sizes keep growing for one. That alone would make it so the added money is enough to just keep everyone on level with the constantly growing student body.

edit: wow, wait....That chart starts in 1970. With all the new technologies made available since thenand the growth of class size spending has only gone up $5,200 over a 25 year period. That is far from "skyrocketing"
 
[quote name='HowStern']edit: wow, wait....That chart starts in 1970. With all the new technologies made available since thenand the growth of class size spending has only gone up $5,200 over a 25 year period. That is far from "skyrocketing"[/quote]

That is an increase of 128% over 25 years. That's nearly 3-4% growth if the graph is adjusted for inflation. If it isn't, ...
 
[quote name='HowStern']Yes, the system has to be redesigned completely but also I bet there are variables that weren't taken into consideration in that chart. Like how class sizes keep growing for one. That alone would make it so the added money is enough to just keep everyone on level with the constantly growing student body.

edit: wow, wait....That chart starts in 1970. With all the new technologies made available since thenand the growth of class size spending has only gone up $5,200 over a 25 year period. That is far from "skyrocketing"[/QUOTE]
Good post. That chart is friggin absurd. Four data points makes for a cognizant position? Really? Are we that OCD?
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']That is an increase of 128% over 25 years. That's nearly 3-4% growth if the graph is adjusted for inflation. If it isn't, ...[/QUOTE]
Given the data represented, I can't imagine the author took something as "difficult" as inflation into account. Judging from the footnotes, it seems to be pretty raw data. Looks like someone has an axe to grind. The "link"... what a joke.
 
Wait a minute. Did I just hear that this bill includes his health care reform plan? The one that digitizes and federalizes all medical records for a bureaucracy to oversee?
 
Kids of the same age happen to read around the same level when you average them altogether. Shocking. With that said, averages are largely irrelevant. We want the people who are actually bright to be able to get ahead. The curriculum needs to be tough, with the very purpose being that people will and should be left behind. Focus needs to be skewed towards the end of the distribution curve while the averages are left alone.

Money spent does matter, but it has to be spent correctly.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Wait a minute. Did I just hear that this bill includes his health care reform plan? The one that digitizes and federalizes all medical records for a bureaucracy to oversee?[/quote]


A bureaucracy already sees over medical records and care. Don't you think that insurance companies run by MBAs telling what meds should be paid for, what surgeries people need, and how long someone needs to stay in the hospital, all the while trying to turn a profit and market their product isn't littered with bureaucracy?

My girlfriend has insurance and I use state and federal government for my medical care, and I have to jump through far less hoops (if any) and have far less red tape than she does. I would say the only downside to government programs that I use, as opposed to her private health care is that I have to wait an average of a half a day to a day longer for doctors appointments. I get my prescriptions faster, and often, believe it or not, have far more doctors to choose from.
 
We're talking about privacy for patients and the Federal Government controlling your medical decisions. Here's the link if you want to look at the article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

I don't the Federal Government can keep anything secret when it comes to ordinary citizens. Also, no one's talking about this. The fact that it was thrown in there with the rest of the crap and it doesn't even raise an eyebrow is frightening.
 
Medical records are great, but the government should have not access or involvement beyond providing assistance, tax breaks etc. to offices to adopt them.

My doctor went all electronic years ago and it's great as he has all my records on his laptop he carries around so we can look through my history etc. right then without digging up files, worrying about things getting lost etc. He can send prescriptions to my pharmacy from that laptop, do referrals etc.

It would be great if all medical offices were like that. But I'd agree that I don't see how it has anything to do with stimulating the economy. I guess the argument is it makes things more efficient and can lower medical costs some which equals more money in people's pockets. But I don't necessarily buy that. It's a good thing, but I don't think it will help the economy--just the quality of medical care.
 
So you're saying we should stop dumbing down curricula for people that actively avoid learning and spend our efforts on intelligent people?

It's too good of an idea to work. Morons are the majority and they don't like the thought of their little mongoloids not being given the chance to ignore lessons tailored to their 75 point IQs.

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Kids of the same age happen to read around the same level when you average them altogether. Shocking. With that said, averages are largely irrelevant. We want the people who are actually bright to be able to get ahead. The curriculum needs to be tough, with the very purpose being that people will and should be left behind. Focus needs to be skewed towards the end of the distribution curve while the averages are left alone.

Money spent does matter, but it has to be spent correctly.[/quote]
 
When is money saved by a business ever passed on to the consumer?
[quote name='dmaul1114']Medical records are great, but the government should have not access or involvement beyond providing assistance, tax breaks etc. to offices to adopt them.

My doctor went all electronic years ago and it's great as he has all my records on his laptop he carries around so we can look through my history etc. right then without digging up files, worrying about things getting lost etc. He can send prescriptions to my pharmacy from that laptop, do referrals etc.

It would be great if all medical offices were like that. But I'd agree that I don't see how it has anything to do with stimulating the economy. I guess the argument is it makes things more efficient and can lower medical costs some which equals more money in people's pockets. But I don't necessarily buy that. It's a good thing, but I don't think it will help the economy--just the quality of medical care.[/quote]
 
[quote name='gareman']Hey check this out.

http://news.illinois.edu/NEWS/06/0123lubienski.html

It also says in my Psych textbook that private school graduates have a higher risk for criminal, binge drinking, and drug use during college than their Public school counterparts. Grade-wise the stats are about even.[/QUOTE]

Interesting article. I would like to know more about the controlling they did for demographic differences. Thanks for the info.
 
[quote name='HowStern']Yes, the system has to be redesigned completely but also I bet there are variables that weren't taken into consideration in that chart. Like how class sizes keep growing for one. That alone would make it so the added money is enough to just keep everyone on level with the constantly growing student body.

edit: wow, wait....That chart starts in 1970. With all the new technologies made available since thenand the growth of class size spending has only gone up $5,200 over a 25 year period. That is far from "skyrocketing"[/QUOTE]

Of course it's skyrocketed. Funding well more than doubled per pupil, and remember that's after counting inflation (the numbers are in constant dollars).
 
[quote name='speedracer']Good post. That chart is friggin absurd. Four data points makes for a cognizant position? Really? Are we that OCD?

Given the data represented, I can't imagine the author took something as "difficult" as inflation into account. Judging from the footnotes, it seems to be pretty raw data. Looks like someone has an axe to grind. The "link"... what a joke.[/QUOTE]

You all are so quick to want to dismiss perfectly good data that you missed the large words "CONSTANT 2006-07 DOLLARS." Sheesh. There's plenty more data in the study (and other studies) that you can read, but I didn't want to post 50 graphs in this threat and instead picked one that showed my point well.
 
The education system is pretty broken, there is no doubt. The 2 charts that would better show it are worldwide per capita spending (which show us leading most), and a worldwide ranking for some educational metric or another (which show us not leading)

However, for those individual countries, I have no doubt that they are spending more per capita than THEY used to to, and secondarily: Those places that are beating us are largely into their social programs, from some form of national health care to robust public transportation to free or greatly reduced education clear through the university level.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']We're talking about privacy for patients and the Federal Government controlling your medical decisions. Here's the link if you want to look at the article:

.[/QUOTE]

People like you and the article's author really have no clue how the current health care system really works.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
I think a radical overhaul (the replacement of our public school system with a private school system) is the answer.[/QUOTE]

that is as retarded as your "chart" which proves nothing.
 
in case you missed this...

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

New Penalties

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

More Scrutiny Needed

On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.
Click to expand...

its an opinion piece, but the provision is still in the stimulus.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

a step towards social medicine? sounds more like fascist medicine.
 
Someone needs to explain how tax breaks are a stimulus at all. Thats the only real pork in this bill. The package as a whole is going to fail solely because of that. There is nearly no such thing as wasteful spending in this scenario. That guy being paid to repair the DC grounds after the inauguration? He is going to spend 98-100% of his paycheck, guaranteed. Someone has to administer each and everyone of these programs.

The problem now is on the demand side. People are being laid off because businesses arent selling very much of X. Those people therefore have less money to spend which makes the situation worse. If you're a business person, you get a tax break, therefore you are going to hire people/production capability for X that people arent buying? Really?

Tax breaks are the worst possible value in regards to government produced stimulus: limited benefit in the short term, straight up harmful in the long term.

taxcutssz3.gif
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Someone needs to explain how tax breaks are a stimulus at all. Thats the only real pork in this bill. The package as a whole is going to fail solely because of that. There is nearly no such thing as wasteful spending in this scenario. That guy being paid to repair the DC grounds after the inauguration? He is going to spend 98-100% of his paycheck, guaranteed. Someone has to administer each and everyone of these programs.

[/QUOTE]

is the guy that repairs the grounds at the national mall going to spend his pay check, sure. is it going to create new jobs? doubtful, and if it did, theyd be temporary ones for what, a few days to re-sod the grass.

600 million for eco-friendly cars, sure thats great for detroit and all, but does that mean GM is going to suddenly hire back thousands of workers, again, doubtful.


moodyseconomy.com? lets see what their chief economist has to say...

Fiscal stimulus does carry substantial costs. The federal budget deficit, which topped $450 billion in fiscal year 2008, could reach $2 trillion in fiscal 2009 and remain as high in 2010. Borrowing by the Treasury will top $2 trillion this year. There will also be substantial long-term costs to extricate the government from the financial system. Unintended consequences of all the actions taken in such a short period will be considerable. These are problems for another day, however.
Click to expand...

these are problems for another day... wow that sounds promising.

The House stimulus plan will not reverse the current recession, but it will provide a vital boost to the flagging economy. With the stimulus, there will be 4 million more jobs and the jobless rate will be more than 2 percentage points lower by the end of 2010 than without any fiscal stimulus. Without stimulus, unemployment will rise well into the double digits by this time next year, and the economy will not return to full employment until 2014.
Click to expand...

so, with this trillion dollars we are printing we get lower unemployment for the next few years, ie 9% instead of 11%. he doesnt state when the economy will return to "full employment" with the stimulus, 2013 maybe?


the bill should be a fine combination of tax cuts and precision spending, certainly not what it is now.
 
Nearly everyone can agree that the current stimulus package is garbage, but for different reasons.

Having to balloon the deficit or printing money to cover the costs dooms the entire thing. Every solution out of this mess begins with taxing the rich. Not because we can, but because we must. The disparate accumulation of wealth is the root cause of the collapse. There is no longer any demand in the system because the people that buy things are tapped, their home equity is tapped, their savings are gone - All redistributed to the top ever so slowly since Reagan. This is the natural result of anything that even approaches free market capitalism.

I'm starting to think that this country is done. Obama came too late, and is catering too much to the people who helped cause the problem.

The spending part of the bill isnt nearly big enough to have a meaningful impact, the bailout (which is a separate bill, I know) is the worst possible option.

I dont know if there is enough willingness in the world to buy enough of our treasury bonds/financing our debt for what we need to do. Since we're not raising taxes, we're going to print. A lot of foriegn owned USD is going to be used to buy assets in the US, from real estate to commercial capacities. Theres a point where theres no reason to loan us money when they can just buy us straight up. When the bottom falls out this time, it wont be our country anymore.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='usickenme']People like you and the article's author really have no clue how the current health care system really works.[/quote]

And you have no idea how badly Government interference ruins everything. Well, you're staring it in the face, and you think it's paradise. Well, WAKE THE fuck UP! Someone's about to bite you square on the ass. Maybe then, when it's too late, you'll repent.
 
You're saying it wouldn't be an improvement?

[quote name='Strell']And let all those Super Mutants move in? Are you crazy?[/quote]
 
[quote name='Kayden']You're saying it wouldn't be an improvement?[/quote]

It is a well known fact that Super Mutants do not age.

With the current situation, new representatives are all but guaranteed every 40 years.

With immortal Super Mutants, we would have to enact term limits.

Also, would a Super Mutant with multiple heads and consciousnesses or a Super Mutant with multiple bodies yet a shared consciousness be allow to hold multiple seats?
 
Does it matter? The most pressing agenda they'd have to debate is who to eat. Stay the fuck outta DC and we wont have a problem.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']It is a well known fact that Super Mutants do not age.

With the current situation, new representatives are all but guaranteed every 40 years.

With immortal Super Mutants, we would have to enact term limits.

Also, would a Super Mutant with multiple heads and consciousnesses or a Super Mutant with multiple bodies yet a shared consciousness be allow to hold multiple seats?[/quote]
 
[quote name='KingBroly']And you have no idea how badly Government interference ruins everything. Well, you're staring it in the face, and you think it's paradise. Well, WAKE THE fuck UP! Someone's about to bite you square on the ass. Maybe then, when it's too late, you'll repent.[/QUOTE]

No offense, but no one should take you seriously.

I for one have had enough of the shitty advice from those who spout nothing but Rush style conservative dogma.

Looking at you as well RAM.

Your opposition is based on faith and not reality or facts, you even go so far as to co-opt the language of religious fundamentalists.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']

The spending part of the bill isnt nearly big enough to have a meaningful impact,.[/QUOTE]

id say its more than enough if it was allocated properly.

[quote name='Msut77']

I for one have had enough of the shitty advice from those who spout nothing but Rush style conservative dogma.

Looking at you as well RAM.

Your opposition is based on faith and not reality or facts, you even go so far as to co-opt the language of religious fundamentalists.[/QUOTE]

i for one have had enough of the shitty advice from those who spout nothing but olberman style liberal dogma.

looking at you msut.

all you ever do in the forum is criticize people for discussion and ideas. but you never bring anything to the table yourself. kind of like the democratic congress the last 6 years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So... it's religion that says it's a bad idea for the government to dictate medical treatment based on criteria --not even vaguely outlined-- to be defined at a later date by the government?

I thought common sense should tell you that's a bad idea.

I wish I could get a job like that. Sure I'll work for you! As long as you hire me for a sum of yet undetermined amount to do duties I have yet to decide on.



[quote name='Msut77']No offense, but no one should take you seriously.

I for one have had enough of the shitty advice from those who spout nothing but Rush style conservative dogma.

Looking at you as well RAM.

Your opposition is based on faith and not reality or facts, you even go so far as to co-opt the language of religious fundamentalists.[/quote]
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']id say its more than enough if it was allocated properly.[/QUOTE]

There are award winning Economists who say otherwise. It probably isn't enough and since a respectable percentage is going to tax cuts, which won't do much there might be other bills in the future.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']id say its more than enough if it was allocated properly.[/QUOTE]

Based on what criteria? It's big. It's "huge." It's gi-nor-mous.

But what's more wasteful? A bill half the size that has no effect on the market trends, or a bill twice the size that gets the job done?

(of course, that's rhetorical, given that the bank bailout from the Bush administration didn't seem to have much of an effect, but we don't know that for certain.)

You must enjoy the degree of political theater going on: $700B in freebies to banks and lenders because they fucked up everything: that gets an OK and a quick, painless pass from the GOP. $820/838B in spending from a Democrat President? NO WAI.
 
[quote name='Kayden']So... it's religion that says it's a bad idea for the government to dictate medical treatment based on criteria --not even vaguely outlined-- to be defined at a later date by the government[/QUOTE]

He wasn't talking about just medical care as it really is conservative dogma that "government interference ruins everything".

We already have a screwed up healthcare system, it cannot get worse than it is now with several layers of corporate bureaucracy deciding treatment and accompanying criteria.

BTW there are any number of quotes about how useless personal definitions of common sense are, find one.

If you follow many peoples "Things I believe which I don't feel I have to back up", then keep it to yourself.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Based on what criteria? It's big. It's "huge." It's gi-nor-mous.

You must enjoy the degree of political theater going on: $700B in freebies to banks and lenders because they fucked up everything: that gets an OK and a quick, painless pass from the GOP. $820/838B in spending from a Democrat President? NO WAI.[/QUOTE]

thats the criteria im talking about baby.

i wish i could say i enjoy the political theater, but its actually very depressing.

edit: oh and i was firmly against both bills, so its not like i was ok with the first and dont like this one simply because of the democrats. ;)
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']all you ever do in the forum is criticize people for discussion and ideas. but you never bring anything to the table yourself.[/QUOTE]

I criticize the clueless and the dishonest.

I have no problem having an actual discussion but right now you are just blatantly lying.
 
Where's your proof? ;)

[quote name='Msut77']I criticize the clueless and the dishonest.

I have no problem having an actual discussion but right now you are just blatantly lying.[/quote]
 
[quote name='Msut77']I criticize the clueless and the dishonest.

I have no problem having an actual discussion but right now you are just blatantly lying.[/QUOTE]


lets take a look at this thread for example...




[quote name='Msut77']More pork than what? Some fictitious non pork alternative?

You really think people are going to get outraged over money for healthcare and research etc., you think a pro STD position is gonna sell?

Give the fuck up.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']Do you even read what you post?

It is bad enough that you use Newsmax as a source but at the very least you can peruse your own links.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']You would think that those who take your moronic stance like Vitter would be less pro-STD considering all of the money they spend on hookers.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']Just because you are incapable of making an argument does not mean there is no need to argue.

Does anyone actually believe that STD prevention and education should be left to private groups?

Have any of those you to refer to as "Anyone" failed to have noticed that even when it is left to private groups we get bullshit such as abstinence only education?

If you want to argue with someone who is undeniably wrong, there is prince and the op still pushing the same tired and discredited nonsense about ACORN get a bajillion dollars.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']Some of it is, especially the part the Republicans fought for in bad faith.

No.

Apples to Crack Rock.

Keep building that reputation for dishonesty.

Republican Governors, and many more than Democratic Senators mind you have broken with the Party because they actually have to deal with this mess instead of grandstanding.

The thing you should understand but probably cannot is that no one buys your BS.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']Well your honesty is refreshing but hoo boy.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']I am fairly certain that buying up countless homes at the the peak of their inflated value would cost more than is being spent now. The point being is that the government is trying to get other parts of the economy going rather than our eggs in one basket.[/QUOTE]


[quote name='Msut77']Unless Obama plans on teaching sex ed through his youtube addresses and keeping all the cash it is stimulus.

All this bitching is about what 1 or 2 percent of the bill? The faux outrage has gotten a bit sickening.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']Its a bunch of money to you or me, government wise its a week or two in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']I am fairly certain it has been pointed out to you that would only be true if you failed to adjust for inflation or include defense expenditures.

Now you are just being dishonest.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']You contradict yourself in your first statement.

The whole entire point is where the money is going.[/QUOTE]


[quote name='Msut77']No offense, but no one should take you seriously.

I for one have had enough of the shitty advice from those who spout nothing but Rush style conservative dogma.

Looking at you as well RAM.

Your opposition is based on faith and not reality or facts, you even go so far as to co-opt the language of religious fundamentalists.[/QUOTE]


so its what, 2 and a half posts that actually contribute to the discussion and a dozen of criticism of other members. thats a pretty good ratio. why cant you be more like myke or dmaul and disagree, without being a complete ass, and then offer some counter points.
 
In case it hasn't been brought up yet, there's a provision in the bill that would take out the $7,500 first time home buyer's tax credit (paid back over 15 years as $500 each year intrest free) and replace it with a $15,000 tax credit if you buy a home and use it as your primary residence. I just bought a house on 1/30/09 so this would work out quite well for me.

This "economic crisis" isn't so much of one if you're positioned well. The drop in housing prices means that those who have good credit can now buy a home at a ridiculously low price (mine was nearly 25% less than original asking price and was purchased at $45k below market value), I was also able to buy a new washer/dryer for around %50 off since there isn't a huge market for new appliances at the moment. Contractors are lowering their rates because they're in a cutthroat business, so I'll be able to get my backyard excavated and make a walkout with a hot tub under the upstairs 4 season porch.

All in all, right about now is when you can start creating vast amounts of wealth for yourself, as long as you have some to start with at least, by increasing your investments and taking care of your finances. If you own stock on a dividend reinvestment program, your dollar cost average in ownership of that stock will skyrocket and when things start to turn around again your gains will be huge. When the treasury has to promote bond auctions since no one wants to invest, they're going to have to do so with some pretty big returns. At that point grab yourself a couple of Series EE bonds and sit on them until they double in value (typically around the 25 year mark with a good enough intrest rate).
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']lets take a look at this thread for example...

so its what, 2 and a half posts that actually contribute to the discussion and a dozen of criticism of other members. thats a pretty good ratio. why cant you be more like myke or dmaul and disagree, without being a complete ass, and then offer some counter points.[/QUOTE]

That's par for the course for msutt. He's a troll. Maybe, on a good day, 1/10 posts is actually contributional. The rest are just flames for other forum members, far left slogans, and dailykos mantras.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']lets take a look at this thread for example...[/QUOTE]

Ok.

Seeing what you quoted you sound even more dishonest and whiny than usual, if anything I showed patience with Broly.

It is exactly as I stated I criticize the clueless and the liars, I am sorry if your feelings get hurt in the process.

I notice you don't even argue that I am wrong when I call you and others dishonest or even that I made a factual error, you just think its mean.
 
[quote name='nasum']

This "economic crisis" isn't so much of one if you're positioned well.

[/QUOTE]
Obviously.

That is true of every economic crisis. There are always those that are well positioned going into the free fall that eventually profit tremendously from the eventual upturn. Those people aren't the ones suffering and frankly they aren't the backbone of the economy.

The problem with this recession is that it is much more widespread in terms of who it directly affects than any recession or downturn since the Great Depression. This recession is killing the backbone of our economy and it is getting worse everyday.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Ok.

Seeing what you quoted you sound even more dishonest and whiny than usual, if anything I showed patience with Broly.

It is exactly as I stated I criticize the clueless and the liars, I am sorry if your feelings get hurt in the process.

I notice you don't even argue that I am wrong when I call you and others dishonest or even that I made a factual error, you just think its mean.[/QUOTE]

you called me a liar when i state that you cricize more than you discuss. i retorted with numerous quotes of you criticizing rather than discussing and your response is that i think youre mean? i didnt say its mean, i called you an ass, theres a difference. you showed patience with broly? how generous of you... you still only brought a fraction of discussion to the table.


[quote name='mykevermin']that's some pretty loosely applied and arbitrary criteria, though.[/QUOTE]

indeed. all im saying is, theres what, nearly 500 billion in spending in this bill, the rest in tax cuts. if the spending portion was entirely used for the creation of jobs i think it would do far more for th economy than what its current form. theres so many provisions in there that arent going to create new jobs and are just mini-bailouts for varios agencys and lobbiest. the bill is over 600 pages long, that should tell you how ridiculous the allocation of spending is getting.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']you called me a liar when i state that you cricize more than you discuss[/QUOTE]


Actually you said I "never" discuss, even giving you a bit of leeway to account for hyperbole you were still being blatantly dishonest.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Actually you said I "never" discuss, even giving you a bit of leeway to account for hyperbole you were still being blatantly dishonest.[/QUOTE]

yup, sometimes people overstate things to make a point. kind of like when you said this bill is the equivilant to 1 to 2 weeks in iraq. obviously its not, but you said it to make a point. just like when i said you never bring anything to the table, it was to make a point. fine, ill admit i was wrong, you bring something to the table around 15% of the time.
 
The cover of this weeks Newsweek reads: "We Are All Socialists Now."

Welcome to the club cons! :D

Haven't had a chance to read it yet since I literally just grabbed it out of the mailbox. But from a quick skim it looks to discuss how we're moving toward center-right socialism like much of western Europe.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The cover of this weeks Newsweek reads: "We Are All Socialists Now."

Welcome to the club cons! :D

Haven't had a chance to read it yet since I literally just grabbed it out of the mailbox. But from a quick skim it looks to discuss how we're moving toward center-right socialism like much of western Europe.[/QUOTE]

Yay.

Something like 9 states now have declared some type of sovereignty. Presumably so they are set up to essentially "walk away" from the 20 trillion in debt the Fed has gotten itself into, in a worse case scenario.

If Newsweek is being accurate, it just raises the probability of split offs from the Union from the realm of "crack-pot theories" to possibilities.
 
I guess Arizona would be an okay place to go. Why isn't Texas on this list? And why is Michigan on it? They've needed money for years.

As far as this Health Care "Reform" goes, I find it sad that people (reading comments at various places) are somehow justifying letting old people die when they could get care. It's quite disgusting. It's also shady that this is even in the Senate version of the bill.

And making everything digitized isn't going to speed up anything. You're still going to have to double check everything like you do now. And then comes up the questions of identification, privacy of your records, etc. But you have to deal with the Feds, too. Basically adds a Post Office type of situation there. Nothing going on behind the scenes, and nothing you can do to make it go any faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top