jjamie12

You just spent 4-5 posts explaining that this particular incident didn't have anything to do with your wanting to tone down the rhetoric. Yet, when explaining why you want the rhetoric toned down, you very specifically cite this guy's actions as the reason. By doing so, you're inferring (or implying, I'm sure DC Tom will tell us which one it is) that the rhetoric influenced the guy, and that is why you're running into so much disagreement in here. I'm not sure why you don't understand that? You're implying a link between rhetoric and this guy's actions that doesn't appear to be backed by facts.

You're joking with this, right? I mean, right? You CANNOT possibly be serious, right?

But that's not what you're saying. You're saying: "See! Look at the actions of this guy, we need to tone the rhetoric down!", even though there seems to be nothing at all to suggest that this guy took his cues from said rhetoric. To take it a step even further OTHER people are saying "See! Look at the actions of this guy, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Bachman and Joyce Whoever have blood on their hands!", even though there is EVEN LESS TO suggest that the rhetoric of those specific people had anything to do with this obviously ill person's actions. No one disagrees that rhetoric should be toned down, mostly because the 'hyped-up rhetoric' distorts the debate and doesn't allow for actual fact-finding, just heated, political nonsense. You're losing people on this one because you continue to very specifically link the actions of a lunatic to rhetoric (from both sides of the aisle, to your credit) that, by all accounts, had nothing to do with it.

Of COURSE it would, Conner. This is why you're mocked here ALL THE DAMN TIME. Half the time, you don't have the first clue about what you're railing about; the other half, you only have such a rudimentary understanding of what soundbite you just listened to that you post links that refute your own argument. What do you think happens in a bankruptcy, Conner? Do you think that the buildings, machinery, equipment and office supplies just disappear? Do you think GM would just have 'stopped'? Do you have the first clue about what bankruptcy courts do and what the process is? Do you even know what your side of the argument was?

To be fair: Krugman said the same thing at the time of the stimulus bill being passed.

Owned? Really? That constitutes owned?

You really struggle with separating the way the message is delivered from the actual message. You should probably try and re-read everything that OC has posted here in this thread after a drink or two so you can not have the reaction you do to it simply because of OC's 'style'. You *might* even change your mind if you'd take off your "I don't like OC so I won't try to absorb anything he says" blinders.

Will we still treat the elderly and the poor, or will we let them die outside of the hospital as we lock the doors on the emergency room? Honestly, just want to know. (I don't think we necessarily have a moral obligation to treat people if they can't pay) What are the economic consequences of leaving the Korean peninsula and Europe? About how much money do you think it will save, and about how much money do you think we'll 'lose' because of the necessarily de-stabilizing effect this would have? Edit: This is an unfair question, and I didn't mean it to be. How about: What are the strategic implications to these decisions, and will those strategic implications actually cost more in the long run than what we'd save by staying? No thought to means-testing SS? Raising the cap on salary subject to SS taxes? Anything specific on cutting the Department of Education? The 50% cuts to every department in the federal government?

Specifically, what does this mean? Have you thought about this? I would like you to articulate, specifically, what the 'pain' would be. I'm not being a wise-ass, I want to talk about this.

Then what happens to the people who were covered by Medicaid, but are now uncovered?

What, do you suppose, are the expected oucomes of doing everything you've just cited above? What is the downstream effect on jobs, growth, etc? Well... forget downstream effects... What do you suppose are the immediate consequences of the following: Cutting the DoD by 25% Cut Medicaid Spending in half Every department of the federal government takes a 50% cut Eliminating the Dept. of Education (and Student Loans)

Yeah. Hyper-inflation is, like, SO totally awesome for banks.

Got it... You're just saying what their strategy is, not that you support it. Thanks for the clarification. Yeah... but isn't that the whole point of, you know, campaigns and elections? One side offers ideas and / or solutions; the other side says: Hey, those solutions suck because of 'x', 'y', or 'z' our solutions are better. Then the voter decides which message he likes better.

Then there are only two things that could possibly follow (I presume... feel free to tell me where I'm wrong) Either: 1- Democrats will convince 'the people' that the specific solutions offered by Republicans aren't what they want and would therefore vote for Democrats. (Which is, theoretically, the point of elections) 2- People don't actually want the specific solutions that Republicans would offer and would therefore vote for Democrats. (Which is, theoretically, the pont of elections) Either way, it seems like a pretty odd position to take, Magox... especially for someone who is always looking into the details of things (you know, like you). It seems like you're saying: Don't worry, folks... just trust the Republicans here. I know they don't really want to tell us the specific solutions to these problems, but trust them... they're good solutions. Am I wrong?

Is Medicare, essentially, going bankrupt? Is there a 'Yes' or 'No' to that question?

Can you clarify this, please? Are you suggesting that if people knew what the Republicans would try to do if they won, then they wouldn't vote for them?

So... 1) we've got a thread called "Republicans to unveil agenda Thursday". 2) This thread has only one mention of the agenda, with no substantive look at what the actual agenda is, or claims to be. 3) This thread has devolved into the typical actors talking about the existence of God, or lack thereof, or how stupid people are, or how bigoted people are. 4) No one wants to actually talk about the ideas / proposals / anything. A nice little microcosm of the political situation in America. Great job, everyone!

There is very, very, little chance that I will EVER, under any circumstances, vote for any incumbent ever again.

I don't know, Gene. Maybe becuase you can't even take the blinders off for one second to take a walk down the block and check out the myriad things that religiously affiliated charities/schools/hospitals/soup kitchens/whatever that have provided countless $$ worth of help to countless people over the course of time? You think maybe that's why? Or do we just throw that out because 'There are charities without religious affiliation!'?

I find it incomprehensible the number of people who think 'Health Care' = 'Health Insurance'. Some quotes are just simply amazing.

You are so divorced from reality it is breathtaking. It's amazing to me that anyone can say something like this with a straight face, it really is... and you question other people's sanity in the same thread as this nonsense?

So now the POTUS needs to comment on a spat between an analyst and CEO over $50 billion on a Balance Sheet that is almost $2 Trillion? Really?

I don't know... that's the real question, I suppose. Would you pay (for example) $50/year to be able to use a debit card? I suppose the reality is that if enough people say 'no', the option won't even exist. Governments and people forget that they're being provided a service here. Now, it's been profitable enough in the past for customers to get used to the 'no-fee' (insert type of account here), but we're quickly coming to the point where, because of political expediency (it's easy to paint banks as 'evil' right now) where certain things we've taken for granted won't be a) available or b)free anymore. And maybe that's good... although I can't think of a single reason why.

Abso-100%-freakin-lutely. There is no question about this. There are any number of examples around the world where government has come in, regulated these fees (obviously always lower) and there is no proof of merchants lowering their prices at all. Which, if that was all there was, you might say: "Screw those banks anyway, they deserve it." Of course, we all know that won't happen. Checks will stop being free. Checking accounts will gradually have fees associated with them. Debit cards will have annual fees, etc... In reality, consumers will be paying fees so that Wal-Mart and Target show a much bigger bottom line. Everyone should remember to thank Senator Dick Durbin for this.

Well... again, it's complicated: Is it *bad* to do that? Not necessarily, but you might find it pretty difficult to pay for a car or a house with cash, right? You'll find it exceedingly difficult to make those purchases without some type of activity in your credit file. Would you lend to someone who has never paid a debt before in their life?