OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
#226
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:44:29 -0500, Peaceful Bill
<snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>>
>> Seems like you're one of the "it doesn't cost me anything, my employer
>> pays for it all" crowd. I bet you smile with delight when you pay $15
>> for an office visit that costs $60 and then don't even worry about
>> where the other $45 comes from. I imagine you've never had a loved one
>> denied care because some profit minded insurance executive didn't want
>> to pay for it and reduce their multi-billion $ profits.
>>
>> Try being the employer/owner some time and paying the costs out of
>> your own pocket. You'll realize how broken the system is very quickly.
>
>Get a clue. You might have to actually do some research. Or maybe get
>your third grade teacher to help you read.
Another factless, one line, insult. Very convincing.
<snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>>
>> Seems like you're one of the "it doesn't cost me anything, my employer
>> pays for it all" crowd. I bet you smile with delight when you pay $15
>> for an office visit that costs $60 and then don't even worry about
>> where the other $45 comes from. I imagine you've never had a loved one
>> denied care because some profit minded insurance executive didn't want
>> to pay for it and reduce their multi-billion $ profits.
>>
>> Try being the employer/owner some time and paying the costs out of
>> your own pocket. You'll realize how broken the system is very quickly.
>
>Get a clue. You might have to actually do some research. Or maybe get
>your third grade teacher to help you read.
Another factless, one line, insult. Very convincing.
#227
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:45:16 -0500, Peaceful Bill
<snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>still just me wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:13:36 -0500, Gordon McGrew
>> <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:12:31 -0700 (PDT), Foobar
>>> <bamberbert@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok. Show me one person in the 15% tax bracket that pays 15%. Just
>>>> one.
>>> By definition, everyone in the 15% bracket pays a marginal rate of
>>> 15%.
>>
>>
>> Not really. Marginal rate vs. effective rate.
>
>What a complete imbecile.
And another one-line post from a guy who has no facts, so he posts
insults.
<snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>still just me wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:13:36 -0500, Gordon McGrew
>> <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:12:31 -0700 (PDT), Foobar
>>> <bamberbert@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok. Show me one person in the 15% tax bracket that pays 15%. Just
>>>> one.
>>> By definition, everyone in the 15% bracket pays a marginal rate of
>>> 15%.
>>
>>
>> Not really. Marginal rate vs. effective rate.
>
>What a complete imbecile.
And another one-line post from a guy who has no facts, so he posts
insults.
#228
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:48:33 -0400, "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com>
wrote:
>
>"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:4qin54lfmkvqti4e8qkf9hgcc1mfrfuodu@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:28:25 -0700 (PDT), Foobar
>> <bamberbert@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The real burden fell on George "read my lips, no new taxes" Bush who
>>>> had to raise taxes appreciably to combat the wild overspending and
>>>> trillion $ deficits accumulated by Reagan. Note that the piper is
>>>> coming due now on GWB's wild overspending and trillion $ deficits.
>>>
>>>Depends on what the meaning of is "is".
>>
>> A valid point. GWB won't have to pay the piper. Just like with Reagan,
>> the successor gets the joy of recognizing reality.
>>
>> Like Perot says "the first thing to do when you're in a hole is to
>> stop digging". Bush II doesn't even understand that part, let alone
>> the follow on.
<Top post corrected>
The President shares much of the blame. He sets the direction. He
carves out the major policies. He controls the agencies that submit
the budgets. When his party is in full control of the Congress (as the
Rep's have been for most of Bush's term) he shares an even larger part
of the blame.
wrote:
>
>"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:4qin54lfmkvqti4e8qkf9hgcc1mfrfuodu@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:28:25 -0700 (PDT), Foobar
>> <bamberbert@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The real burden fell on George "read my lips, no new taxes" Bush who
>>>> had to raise taxes appreciably to combat the wild overspending and
>>>> trillion $ deficits accumulated by Reagan. Note that the piper is
>>>> coming due now on GWB's wild overspending and trillion $ deficits.
>>>
>>>Depends on what the meaning of is "is".
>>
>> A valid point. GWB won't have to pay the piper. Just like with Reagan,
>> the successor gets the joy of recognizing reality.
>>
>> Like Perot says "the first thing to do when you're in a hole is to
>> stop digging". Bush II doesn't even understand that part, let alone
>> the follow on.
<Top post corrected>
The President shares much of the blame. He sets the direction. He
carves out the major policies. He controls the agencies that submit
the budgets. When his party is in full control of the Congress (as the
Rep's have been for most of Bush's term) he shares an even larger part
of the blame.
#229
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:13:08 -0400, David Starr
<davestarr@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I pay $12.00 for a $75.00 office call. Part of the balance isn't paid, the
>Doctor discounts it. part of the reason an office call is so expensive. The
>rest of the balance is paid by the insurance company I pay premiums to.
You are missing the point. You (or your employer) pay the insurance
company huge premiums ($8K-$10K per year) just so you can pay $12 for
an office visit. Someone has to pay for the fact that people have come
to expect that they should get to go to the doctor for $12-$15.
>I have never had a family member denied care for any reason, even when my
>uninsured adult daughter broke her leg.
You're lucky.
> What would be worse, a "profit minded
>insurance executive" denying care, or a TSA style government bureaucrat denying
>care because the system is bankrupt?
A properly designed system wouldn't be bankrupt. And neither official
thrills me, but I'd prefer someone using a checklist hashed out with
public input as opposed to someone using an income statement.
<davestarr@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I pay $12.00 for a $75.00 office call. Part of the balance isn't paid, the
>Doctor discounts it. part of the reason an office call is so expensive. The
>rest of the balance is paid by the insurance company I pay premiums to.
You are missing the point. You (or your employer) pay the insurance
company huge premiums ($8K-$10K per year) just so you can pay $12 for
an office visit. Someone has to pay for the fact that people have come
to expect that they should get to go to the doctor for $12-$15.
>I have never had a family member denied care for any reason, even when my
>uninsured adult daughter broke her leg.
You're lucky.
> What would be worse, a "profit minded
>insurance executive" denying care, or a TSA style government bureaucrat denying
>care because the system is bankrupt?
A properly designed system wouldn't be bankrupt. And neither official
thrills me, but I'd prefer someone using a checklist hashed out with
public input as opposed to someone using an income statement.
#230
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Mike hunt wrote:
> You ire should be directed where it belongs, to the Congress, not the
> President
Sorry, only someone who is a complete idiot will hold the President
blameless when he has to sign each budget bill and submits a budget
proposal every winter for the following fiscal year.
> You ire should be directed where it belongs, to the Congress, not the
> President
Sorry, only someone who is a complete idiot will hold the President
blameless when he has to sign each budget bill and submits a budget
proposal every winter for the following fiscal year.
#231
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
David Starr wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:30:58 GMT, still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Seems like you're one of the "it doesn't cost me anything, my employer
>> pays for it all" crowd. I bet you smile with delight when you pay $15
>> for an office visit that costs $60 and then don't even worry about
>> where the other $45 comes from. I imagine you've never had a loved one
>> denied care because some profit minded insurance executive didn't want
>> to pay for it and reduce their multi-billion $ profits.
>>
>> Try being the employer/owner some time and paying the costs out of
>> your own pocket. You'll realize how broken the system is very quickly.
>
> I pay $12.00 for a $75.00 office call. Part of the balance isn't paid, the
> Doctor discounts it. part of the reason an office call is so expensive. The
> rest of the balance is paid by the insurance company I pay premiums to.
>
> I have never had a family member denied care for any reason, even when my
> uninsured adult daughter broke her leg. What would be worse, a "profit minded
> insurance executive" denying care, or a TSA style government bureaucrat denying
> care because the system is bankrupt?
The system in place is really stupid. In one case, a pediatrician was
denied payment for a twin (they covered the other twin); payment for the
other twin was made. Of course, both twins were supposed to be covered.
The pediatrician fought the denial with the insurance company.
Eventually, the insurance company admitted that both kids were covered
and told the pediatrican to resubmit the bill. The insurance company
then told the pediatrician that the office visit won't be covered
because the bill was submitted too late.
Soon, the amount of money that internists and others who take care of
Medicare patients will go down about 10%. Between this and similar
insurance company bull, medical school loans, low rates of reimbursement
for vaccines and other preventive care, and phone calls from patients
who ask about constipation from patients in the middle of the night, it
is a wonder that that more doctors don't leave medicine.
Dr. Jeff
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
> Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
> Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
> Web Site: www.destarr.com
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:30:58 GMT, still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Seems like you're one of the "it doesn't cost me anything, my employer
>> pays for it all" crowd. I bet you smile with delight when you pay $15
>> for an office visit that costs $60 and then don't even worry about
>> where the other $45 comes from. I imagine you've never had a loved one
>> denied care because some profit minded insurance executive didn't want
>> to pay for it and reduce their multi-billion $ profits.
>>
>> Try being the employer/owner some time and paying the costs out of
>> your own pocket. You'll realize how broken the system is very quickly.
>
> I pay $12.00 for a $75.00 office call. Part of the balance isn't paid, the
> Doctor discounts it. part of the reason an office call is so expensive. The
> rest of the balance is paid by the insurance company I pay premiums to.
>
> I have never had a family member denied care for any reason, even when my
> uninsured adult daughter broke her leg. What would be worse, a "profit minded
> insurance executive" denying care, or a TSA style government bureaucrat denying
> care because the system is bankrupt?
The system in place is really stupid. In one case, a pediatrician was
denied payment for a twin (they covered the other twin); payment for the
other twin was made. Of course, both twins were supposed to be covered.
The pediatrician fought the denial with the insurance company.
Eventually, the insurance company admitted that both kids were covered
and told the pediatrican to resubmit the bill. The insurance company
then told the pediatrician that the office visit won't be covered
because the bill was submitted too late.
Soon, the amount of money that internists and others who take care of
Medicare patients will go down about 10%. Between this and similar
insurance company bull, medical school loans, low rates of reimbursement
for vaccines and other preventive care, and phone calls from patients
who ask about constipation from patients in the middle of the night, it
is a wonder that that more doctors don't leave medicine.
Dr. Jeff
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
> Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
> Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
> Web Site: www.destarr.com
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
#232
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
If one tales the time to do a proper search they will discover that actually
the economy is not currently, and has never been in "recession" by
definition since 2000.
Even with the much greater slow down of the economy after 9/11 the economy
did not go into "recession," no matter how often the media and the Dims have
tried to give the impression we were in a "recession."
The 2001 slow down was reversed, in less than a year, by the tax RATE cuts
passed by the Congress as requested by the President.
Look at the current GNP and unemployment rates, they are both as good as, or
better than, ANY time during the nineties.
"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6c2af5b1-5367-4ec5-a60e-5e776f496e56@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Peaceful Bill wrote:
>
>> still just me wrote:
>
>> > Like Perot says "the first thing to do when you're in a hole is to
>> > stop digging". Bush II doesn't even understand that part, let alone
>> > the follow on.
>>
>> He inherited the given to him by Clinton. Remember the destructive
>> nd contentious change of power from "the impeached" to Bush? The
>> economic collapse of Clinton's last year?
>
> Fox News and the Republican party tried to pin the recession on
> Clinton, but the Conference Board, considered the referee of US
> economic activity, said the recession started during the GW Bush
> presidency.
>
the economy is not currently, and has never been in "recession" by
definition since 2000.
Even with the much greater slow down of the economy after 9/11 the economy
did not go into "recession," no matter how often the media and the Dims have
tried to give the impression we were in a "recession."
The 2001 slow down was reversed, in less than a year, by the tax RATE cuts
passed by the Congress as requested by the President.
Look at the current GNP and unemployment rates, they are both as good as, or
better than, ANY time during the nineties.
"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6c2af5b1-5367-4ec5-a60e-5e776f496e56@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Peaceful Bill wrote:
>
>> still just me wrote:
>
>> > Like Perot says "the first thing to do when you're in a hole is to
>> > stop digging". Bush II doesn't even understand that part, let alone
>> > the follow on.
>>
>> He inherited the given to him by Clinton. Remember the destructive
>> nd contentious change of power from "the impeached" to Bush? The
>> economic collapse of Clinton's last year?
>
> Fox News and the Republican party tried to pin the recession on
> Clinton, but the Conference Board, considered the referee of US
> economic activity, said the recession started during the GW Bush
> presidency.
>
#233
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Mike hunt wrote:
> If one tales the time to do a proper search they will discover that actually
> the economy is not currently, and has never been in "recession" by
> definition since 2000.
Except for the recession of March-November 2001.
> Even with the much greater slow down of the economy after 9/11 the economy
> did not go into "recession," no matter how often the media and the Dims have
> tried to give the impression we were in a "recession."
Correct. The economy was already in a recession.
> The 2001 slow down was reversed, in less than a year, by the tax RATE cuts
> passed by the Congress as requested by the President.
Hold on. By your criteria, the President is not responsible for taxes
and the budget. Now you're giving him credit. Pick one. He either is or
is not responsible.
> Look at the current GNP and unemployment rates, they are both as good as, or
> better than, ANY time during the nineties.
Really? In 1999, the unemployment rate was about 4%. Now it is about
5.5%. How is that better?
Jeff
> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:6c2af5b1-5367-4ec5-a60e-5e776f496e56@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Peaceful Bill wrote:
>>
>>> still just me wrote:
>>>> Like Perot says "the first thing to do when you're in a hole is to
>>>> stop digging". Bush II doesn't even understand that part, let alone
>>>> the follow on.
>>> He inherited the given to him by Clinton. Remember the destructive
>>> nd contentious change of power from "the impeached" to Bush? The
>>> economic collapse of Clinton's last year?
>> Fox News and the Republican party tried to pin the recession on
>> Clinton, but the Conference Board, considered the referee of US
>> economic activity, said the recession started during the GW Bush
>> presidency.
>>
>
>
> If one tales the time to do a proper search they will discover that actually
> the economy is not currently, and has never been in "recession" by
> definition since 2000.
Except for the recession of March-November 2001.
> Even with the much greater slow down of the economy after 9/11 the economy
> did not go into "recession," no matter how often the media and the Dims have
> tried to give the impression we were in a "recession."
Correct. The economy was already in a recession.
> The 2001 slow down was reversed, in less than a year, by the tax RATE cuts
> passed by the Congress as requested by the President.
Hold on. By your criteria, the President is not responsible for taxes
and the budget. Now you're giving him credit. Pick one. He either is or
is not responsible.
> Look at the current GNP and unemployment rates, they are both as good as, or
> better than, ANY time during the nineties.
Really? In 1999, the unemployment rate was about 4%. Now it is about
5.5%. How is that better?
Jeff
> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:6c2af5b1-5367-4ec5-a60e-5e776f496e56@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Peaceful Bill wrote:
>>
>>> still just me wrote:
>>>> Like Perot says "the first thing to do when you're in a hole is to
>>>> stop digging". Bush II doesn't even understand that part, let alone
>>>> the follow on.
>>> He inherited the given to him by Clinton. Remember the destructive
>>> nd contentious change of power from "the impeached" to Bush? The
>>> economic collapse of Clinton's last year?
>> Fox News and the Republican party tried to pin the recession on
>> Clinton, but the Conference Board, considered the referee of US
>> economic activity, said the recession started during the GW Bush
>> presidency.
>>
>
>
#234
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
What part of "If one tales the time to do a proper search they will discover
that actually the economy is not currently, and has never been in
"RECESSION" by DEFINATION since 2000," and "The 2001 slow down was
reversed, in less than a year, by the tax RATE cuts passed by the CONGRESS
as requested by the President," Do you not understand? LOL
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ujb7k.105$%l.73@trndny03...
> Mike hunt wrote:
>> If one tales the time to do a proper search they will discover that
>> actually the economy is not currently, and has never been in "recession"
>> by definition since 2000.
>
> Except for the recession of March-November 2001.
>
>> Even with the much greater slow down of the economy after 9/11 the
>> economy did not go into "recession," no matter how often the media and
>> the Dims have tried to give the impression we were in a "recession."
>
> Correct. The economy was already in a recession.
>
>> The 2001 slow down was reversed, in less than a year, by the tax RATE
>> cuts passed by the Congress as requested by the President.
>
> Hold on. By your criteria, the President is not responsible for taxes and
> the budget. Now you're giving him credit. Pick one. He either is or is not
> responsible.
>
>> Look at the current GNP and unemployment rates, they are both as good as,
>> or better than, ANY time during the nineties.
>
> Really? In 1999, the unemployment rate was about 4%. Now it is about 5.5%.
> How is that better?
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
>
>> news:6c2af5b1-5367-4ec5-a60e-5e776f496e56@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Peaceful Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> still just me wrote:
>>>>> Like Perot says "the first thing to do when you're in a hole is to
>>>>> stop digging". Bush II doesn't even understand that part, let alone
>>>>> the follow on.
>>>> He inherited the given to him by Clinton. Remember the
>>>> destructive
>>>> nd contentious change of power from "the impeached" to Bush? The
>>>> economic collapse of Clinton's last year?
>>> Fox News and the Republican party tried to pin the recession on
>>> Clinton, but the Conference Board, considered the referee of US
>>> economic activity, said the recession started during the GW Bush
>>> presidency.
>>>
>>
that actually the economy is not currently, and has never been in
"RECESSION" by DEFINATION since 2000," and "The 2001 slow down was
reversed, in less than a year, by the tax RATE cuts passed by the CONGRESS
as requested by the President," Do you not understand? LOL
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ujb7k.105$%l.73@trndny03...
> Mike hunt wrote:
>> If one tales the time to do a proper search they will discover that
>> actually the economy is not currently, and has never been in "recession"
>> by definition since 2000.
>
> Except for the recession of March-November 2001.
>
>> Even with the much greater slow down of the economy after 9/11 the
>> economy did not go into "recession," no matter how often the media and
>> the Dims have tried to give the impression we were in a "recession."
>
> Correct. The economy was already in a recession.
>
>> The 2001 slow down was reversed, in less than a year, by the tax RATE
>> cuts passed by the Congress as requested by the President.
>
> Hold on. By your criteria, the President is not responsible for taxes and
> the budget. Now you're giving him credit. Pick one. He either is or is not
> responsible.
>
>> Look at the current GNP and unemployment rates, they are both as good as,
>> or better than, ANY time during the nineties.
>
> Really? In 1999, the unemployment rate was about 4%. Now it is about 5.5%.
> How is that better?
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
>
>> news:6c2af5b1-5367-4ec5-a60e-5e776f496e56@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Peaceful Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> still just me wrote:
>>>>> Like Perot says "the first thing to do when you're in a hole is to
>>>>> stop digging". Bush II doesn't even understand that part, let alone
>>>>> the follow on.
>>>> He inherited the given to him by Clinton. Remember the
>>>> destructive
>>>> nd contentious change of power from "the impeached" to Bush? The
>>>> economic collapse of Clinton's last year?
>>> Fox News and the Republican party tried to pin the recession on
>>> Clinton, but the Conference Board, considered the referee of US
>>> economic activity, said the recession started during the GW Bush
>>> presidency.
>>>
>>
#235
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Mike hunt wrote:
> What part of "If one tales the time to do a proper search they will discover
> that actually the economy is not currently, and has never been in
> "RECESSION" by DEFINATION since 2000," and "The 2001 slow down was
> reversed, in less than a year, by the tax RATE cuts passed by the CONGRESS
> as requested by the President," Do you not understand? LOL
Most definitions of recession include 2 quarters of economic downturn.
The economic downturn in 2001 lasted from March 2001 to November 2001,
which included two quarters.
You also said that the unemployment rate now is better than any time in
the 1990s. You have failed to explain how today's unemployment rate of
about 5.5% is better than that in 1999 when it was about 4%.
Jeff
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ujb7k.105$%l.73@trndny03...
>> Mike hunt wrote:
>>> If one tales the time to do a proper search they will discover that
>>> actually the economy is not currently, and has never been in "recession"
>>> by definition since 2000.
>> Except for the recession of March-November 2001.
>>
>>> Even with the much greater slow down of the economy after 9/11 the
>>> economy did not go into "recession," no matter how often the media and
>>> the Dims have tried to give the impression we were in a "recession."
>> Correct. The economy was already in a recession.
>>
>>> The 2001 slow down was reversed, in less than a year, by the tax RATE
>>> cuts passed by the Congress as requested by the President.
>> Hold on. By your criteria, the President is not responsible for taxes and
>> the budget. Now you're giving him credit. Pick one. He either is or is not
>> responsible.
>>
>>> Look at the current GNP and unemployment rates, they are both as good as,
>>> or better than, ANY time during the nineties.
>> Really? In 1999, the unemployment rate was about 4%. Now it is about 5.5%.
>> How is that better?
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> news:6c2af5b1-5367-4ec5-a60e-5e776f496e56@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Peaceful Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> still just me wrote:
>>>>>> Like Perot says "the first thing to do when you're in a hole is to
>>>>>> stop digging". Bush II doesn't even understand that part, let alone
>>>>>> the follow on.
>>>>> He inherited the given to him by Clinton. Remember the
>>>>> destructive
>>>>> nd contentious change of power from "the impeached" to Bush? The
>>>>> economic collapse of Clinton's last year?
>>>> Fox News and the Republican party tried to pin the recession on
>>>> Clinton, but the Conference Board, considered the referee of US
>>>> economic activity, said the recession started during the GW Bush
>>>> presidency.
>>>>
>
> What part of "If one tales the time to do a proper search they will discover
> that actually the economy is not currently, and has never been in
> "RECESSION" by DEFINATION since 2000," and "The 2001 slow down was
> reversed, in less than a year, by the tax RATE cuts passed by the CONGRESS
> as requested by the President," Do you not understand? LOL
Most definitions of recession include 2 quarters of economic downturn.
The economic downturn in 2001 lasted from March 2001 to November 2001,
which included two quarters.
You also said that the unemployment rate now is better than any time in
the 1990s. You have failed to explain how today's unemployment rate of
about 5.5% is better than that in 1999 when it was about 4%.
Jeff
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ujb7k.105$%l.73@trndny03...
>> Mike hunt wrote:
>>> If one tales the time to do a proper search they will discover that
>>> actually the economy is not currently, and has never been in "recession"
>>> by definition since 2000.
>> Except for the recession of March-November 2001.
>>
>>> Even with the much greater slow down of the economy after 9/11 the
>>> economy did not go into "recession," no matter how often the media and
>>> the Dims have tried to give the impression we were in a "recession."
>> Correct. The economy was already in a recession.
>>
>>> The 2001 slow down was reversed, in less than a year, by the tax RATE
>>> cuts passed by the Congress as requested by the President.
>> Hold on. By your criteria, the President is not responsible for taxes and
>> the budget. Now you're giving him credit. Pick one. He either is or is not
>> responsible.
>>
>>> Look at the current GNP and unemployment rates, they are both as good as,
>>> or better than, ANY time during the nineties.
>> Really? In 1999, the unemployment rate was about 4%. Now it is about 5.5%.
>> How is that better?
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> news:6c2af5b1-5367-4ec5-a60e-5e776f496e56@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Peaceful Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> still just me wrote:
>>>>>> Like Perot says "the first thing to do when you're in a hole is to
>>>>>> stop digging". Bush II doesn't even understand that part, let alone
>>>>>> the follow on.
>>>>> He inherited the given to him by Clinton. Remember the
>>>>> destructive
>>>>> nd contentious change of power from "the impeached" to Bush? The
>>>>> economic collapse of Clinton's last year?
>>>> Fox News and the Republican party tried to pin the recession on
>>>> Clinton, but the Conference Board, considered the referee of US
>>>> economic activity, said the recession started during the GW Bush
>>>> presidency.
>>>>
>
#236
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Waiving the right to remain silent, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> said:
> Mike hunt wrote:
>> What part of "If one tales the time to do a proper search they will
>> discover that actually the economy is not currently, and has never been
>> in "RECESSION" by DEFINATION since 2000," and "The 2001 slow down was
>> reversed, in less than a year, by the tax RATE cuts passed by the
>> CONGRESS as requested by the President," Do you not understand? LOL
>
> Most definitions of recession include 2 quarters of economic downturn.
> The economic downturn in 2001 lasted from March 2001 to November 2001,
> which included two quarters.
>
> You also said that the unemployment rate now is better than any time in
> the 1990s. You have failed to explain how today's unemployment rate of
> about 5.5% is better than that in 1999 when it was about 4%.
There's more to unemployment data and meaning than one simple number...
http://tinyurl.com/3lhmkp
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
"A lack of common sense is now considered a disability,
with all the privileges that this entails."
> Mike hunt wrote:
>> What part of "If one tales the time to do a proper search they will
>> discover that actually the economy is not currently, and has never been
>> in "RECESSION" by DEFINATION since 2000," and "The 2001 slow down was
>> reversed, in less than a year, by the tax RATE cuts passed by the
>> CONGRESS as requested by the President," Do you not understand? LOL
>
> Most definitions of recession include 2 quarters of economic downturn.
> The economic downturn in 2001 lasted from March 2001 to November 2001,
> which included two quarters.
>
> You also said that the unemployment rate now is better than any time in
> the 1990s. You have failed to explain how today's unemployment rate of
> about 5.5% is better than that in 1999 when it was about 4%.
There's more to unemployment data and meaning than one simple number...
http://tinyurl.com/3lhmkp
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
"A lack of common sense is now considered a disability,
with all the privileges that this entails."
#237
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:41:44 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com>
wrote:
>
>Not to mention that PT isn't all that expensive. Around here it is
>about $100/hour. My wife just had 6 weeks of PT for her knee, twice a
>week. 1 Hour sessions. $1200 total, though I only paid $30/visit out
>of pocket. The rest came from my PPO provider, who got it discounted
>to $50/hour, and paid the remaining $20.
You live in a lower cost area than me. But that, aside, people without
insurance don't get the discount, they don't get a reimbursement, they
have to pay the entire $1200 (or more, geographic dependent) cost out
of pocket. Most don't have that kind of disposable cash so they sip
the treatment.
wrote:
>
>Not to mention that PT isn't all that expensive. Around here it is
>about $100/hour. My wife just had 6 weeks of PT for her knee, twice a
>week. 1 Hour sessions. $1200 total, though I only paid $30/visit out
>of pocket. The rest came from my PPO provider, who got it discounted
>to $50/hour, and paid the remaining $20.
You live in a lower cost area than me. But that, aside, people without
insurance don't get the discount, they don't get a reimbursement, they
have to pay the entire $1200 (or more, geographic dependent) cost out
of pocket. Most don't have that kind of disposable cash so they sip
the treatment.
#238
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:49:01 -0500, Gordon McGrew
<RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>That leaves $6,000 to buy health insurance and pay for out of pocket
>medical expenses. Do you really think you can get a policy for a
>family of five for that? What if one of the kids has asthma? What if
>one of the parents is diabetic? You could easily be looking at a
>premium of $20,000 a year or more. I don't think there is a lot of
>fat in the above budget, but maybe you can find some. Selling one of
>the kids would help.
And your example is very low on costs - check the COL in (many)
industrialized states.
But trying to reason with the ideologues is a waste of time. They
don't want to consider facts or logic, they just spout what they've
been brainwashed so spout.
<RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>That leaves $6,000 to buy health insurance and pay for out of pocket
>medical expenses. Do you really think you can get a policy for a
>family of five for that? What if one of the kids has asthma? What if
>one of the parents is diabetic? You could easily be looking at a
>premium of $20,000 a year or more. I don't think there is a lot of
>fat in the above budget, but maybe you can find some. Selling one of
>the kids would help.
And your example is very low on costs - check the COL in (many)
industrialized states.
But trying to reason with the ideologues is a waste of time. They
don't want to consider facts or logic, they just spout what they've
been brainwashed so spout.
#239
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:39:13 -0400, "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com>
wrote:
>If one tales the time to do a proper search they will discover that actually
>the economy is not currently, and has never been in "recession" by
>definition since 2000.
That runs counter to facts and what economists consider a recession.
>Even with the much greater slow down of the economy after 9/11 the economy
>did not go into "recession," no matter how often the media and the Dims have
>tried to give the impression we were in a "recession."
Interesting interpretation.
>The 2001 slow down was reversed, in less than a year, by the tax RATE cuts
>passed by the Congress as requested by the President.
You mean the rate cuts that have driven the deficits to record levels
and triggered the current backlash as the bill is coming due?
>Look at the current GNP and unemployment rates, they are both as good as, or
>better than, ANY time during the nineties.
You need to learn more about how to read unemployment rates.
wrote:
>If one tales the time to do a proper search they will discover that actually
>the economy is not currently, and has never been in "recession" by
>definition since 2000.
That runs counter to facts and what economists consider a recession.
>Even with the much greater slow down of the economy after 9/11 the economy
>did not go into "recession," no matter how often the media and the Dims have
>tried to give the impression we were in a "recession."
Interesting interpretation.
>The 2001 slow down was reversed, in less than a year, by the tax RATE cuts
>passed by the Congress as requested by the President.
You mean the rate cuts that have driven the deficits to record levels
and triggered the current backlash as the bill is coming due?
>Look at the current GNP and unemployment rates, they are both as good as, or
>better than, ANY time during the nineties.
You need to learn more about how to read unemployment rates.
#240
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Mike hunt wrote:
> If one tales the time to do a proper search they will discover that actually
> the economy is not currently, and has never been in "recession" by
> definition since 2000.
Dear alcoholic fool with the pretentious third-person manner of
writing: economists said we had a recession starting in early 2001,
and the National Board of Economic Research (not the Conference
Boards, as I had written earlier) is the official referee that
designates recessions and expansions, and they no longer use the
classical definition of a recession being at least two consecutive
quarters of GDP contraction.
> Even with the much greater slow down of the economy after 9/11 the economy
> did not go into "recession," no matter how often the media and the Dims have
> tried to give the impression we were in a "recession."
>
> The 2001 slow down was reversed, in less than a year, by the tax RATE cuts
> passed by the Congress as requested by the President.
> Look at the current GNP and unemployment rates, they are
> both as good as, or better than, ANY time during the nineties.
The St. Louis Federal Reserve's monthly unemployment figures say
you're wrong:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt
Notice that unemployment was as high as about 7.5% in the early 1990s
but dipped to about 4.0% during the latter years of the Clinton
administration, or slightly less than the lowest rate for the GW Bush
administration. OTOH GW Bush will end his presidency with no
improvement in unemployement than when he started. Why will that
be? Give an honest answer, Mike, not your usual partisan political
BS.
GDP growth rates have been about the same since the 1990s but not for
the same reasons. In the 1990s, GDP growth improved because the US
got its economic house in order, thanks to the Real President Bush and
his son, Bill Clinton, and the end of the Cold War. But in this
century, GDP growth has been fueled mostly by foolish demand-side
economics, i.e., government spending and deficits, with cheap Chinese
labor helping a lot to let us get away with it, by keeping inflation
down.
You're the only person still using GNP instead of GDP, and I doubt you
know why economists switched to GDP in the 1970s and 1980s.
Just where do you get all your wrong information? You're outright
sloppy, again and again.