55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 02:44 pm
@ican711nm,
Let us compare comparable budget deficit/surplus results for both Bush and Obama 8 year terms. I don't have a projection of total debt for Obama. I have only Obama's projection of total debt for his 8 year term. So let's measure success or failure based on the net total number of jobs increased or lost. If that number was/is increased, they succeeded. If that number was/is decreased, they failed.

All Obama had to do was cut spending, cut inadequately secured lending, and cut taxes. The economy would have recovered from Bush’s simplistic solutions normally. It continues to be probable that Obama's approach to saving the economy will do nothing other than make the net total number of jobs decrease much more than they did under Bush. Thereby, making things worse and making recovery far more difficult.

Obama intends to do what Hoover did to rescue the economy from depression when Hoover was President: raising taxes, increasing tariffs, and increasing spending. Hoover's scheme did not work.

Obama intends to do what Roosevelt did to rescue the economy from depression: raising taxes, leaving tariffs high, and increasing spending. Roosevelt's scheme did not work.

Obama intends to do what Carter did to rescue the economy from recession: raising taxes, raising tariffs, and increasing spending. Carter's scheme did not work.

Obama is also increasing the lending of inadequately secured loans.

What Reagan did to rescue the economy from Carter's failures, did work. He cut taxes significantly, although he increased spending.

Even Clinton's scheme worked: reducing spending and tariffs, while increasing taxes a small amount.

Bush's lowering Clinton's taxes started to work despite his also raising spending. When Chris Dodd and Barney Frank refused to fix the 2 FMs, and Bush signed TARP into law, Bush's increased spending and increased lending of inadequately secured loans caused the economy to tank.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 02:45 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
Assume each person occupies 2.5 square feet.


Let's assume ican doesn't have any idea of how close people would have to be to be one person per 2.5 sq foot.

Based on the pictures I saw ican, I doubt there was one person per 10 sq feet on the mall. Probably not even one per 25 sq feet.




I was wondering how all those people fit in a box measuring 2'x1.25' . Some of them look pretty damn fat to be boxed in like that.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 02:55 pm
Why does Glenn Beck's 9.12 march on Washington logo contain communist art? I thought he was against the imagery of communist art.

Why didn't Glenn Beck, the messiah of right wing lunatics, show up at his own event?

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 02:55 pm
@parados,
The DC police allegedly estimate packed crowds on the basis of 2.5 square feet per person.

The square root of 2.5 sq. feet = 1.58 feet. So, 1.58 feet x 12 inches = 18.97 inches. Better lose some weight if you think that too crowded!
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 02:59 pm
@ican711nm,
that's what I like about you, Ican.

you wrestle with the really tough questions at hand...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 03:00 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

The DC police allegedly estimate packed crowds on the basis of 2.5 square feet per person.


Really? At the inauguration, they were allowing one person for 5 square feet.

If there had been 1.1 million - that would have been 2.5 square feet per person.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 03:05 pm
@JTT,
My estimate would be between 5,000 and 7,500. Where are the "millions?"
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 03:06 pm
@JTT,
MAC = Magnify All Counts - when it helps the cause.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 03:21 pm
@ican711nm,
18.97 inches...

Try walking through a 20" door ican. Few people can without turning sideways.

It's obvious from the video that people are NOT shoulder to shoulder. And many of those on the video would NOT fit in a 2.5 square foot area let alone leave room around them.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 03:47 pm
According to ican's measurements, his penis is 57 inches long . . . .
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 04:00 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
The DC police allegedly estimate packed crowds on the basis of 2.5 square feet per person.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 04:02 pm
@Debra Law,
You are talking about his brain, aren't you? Long and slim with nothing in between.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 04:45 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
The cost of private medical insurance is reducible, if the cost of medical care provided by medical practicianers were reduced.

The cost of medical care provided by medical practicianers is reducible, if the cost of medical tort insurance for medical practicianers were reduced.

The cost of medical tort insurance for medical practicianers is reducible, if the cost of medical tort rewards were reduced.

The cost of medical tort rewards are reducible, if maximum tort rewards were reduced to a maximum multiple of actual damages.

The maximum multiple of actual damages is reducible, if Congress passes and the President signs a bill specifying what that maximum multiple shall be.




How do those UNCONSTITUTIONAL caps on jury awards work in real life, ican?

Quote:

Doctors Flock to Texas After Tort Reform

A clampdown on damages in malpractice suits has made Texas a very attractive place to practice medicine . . . . The most significant change is a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages per defendant, such as pain and suffering and loss of companionship.


Wow. Texas did exactly what ican proposed. Texas passed a law and capped damages. Thus, according to ican's premise, the cost of healthcare should have been reduced. But, the opposite occurred. Costs continued to go UP and UP and UP . . . .

Quote:
Health insurance premiums rose 91.6 percent in Texas

A national report that was released today says family health insurance premiums in Texas increased 91.6 percent since 2000 " 4.6 times faster than earnings. . . .



Tort reform benefits tortfeasors -- but unconstitutionally deprives individuals of their right to petition the courts for redress of grievances and to have a jury of their peers determine whether they have been harmed, and if so, what their damages are.

Ican, who falsely presents himself as an advocate of the Constitution, proposes that the federal government violate the 7th Amendment: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved....
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 05:18 pm
Notice to all posters, I just placed Debra Law on ignore, thats number 3. For basically posting sewer garbage. Also, she doesn't matter any more, as she has refused to answer point blank if she sympatizes with or agrees with Marxism. I think it is safe to say that if you don't make an effort to disavow an idealogy that has been responsible for tens of millions of deaths, then something is definitely very very haywire there with that individual.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 05:19 pm
@okie,
You're still a stupid ****! Nobody has to disavow anything for you!~
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 06:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You're still a stupid ****! Nobody has to disavow anything for you!~



Ican falsely portrays himself as a constitutional scholar and an advocate for individual freedom, yet he engages in McCarthyism. In ican's delusional world view, if you're not worshipping at the feet of laissez faire capitalism and if you're not demonizing social programs, gays, blacks, Mexicans, arabs, aliens, democrats, liberals, the disabled, the unemployed, single mothers, and the working poor----then you're an UNAmerican traitor.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 06:35 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Notice to all posters, I just placed Debra Law on ignore, thats number 3. For basically posting sewer garbage. Also, she doesn't matter any more, as she has refused to answer point blank if she sympatizes with or agrees with Marxism. I think it is safe to say that if you don't make an effort to disavow an idealogy that has been responsible for tens of millions of deaths, then something is definitely very very haywire there with that individual.


So, if someone won't specifically answer your 'stop beating your wife yet?' questions, you ignore them? Great way to go through life, that.

Cycloptichorn
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 08:04 pm
@Debra Law,
DEBRA, EITHER YOU DO NOT READ OR DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN REFERENCE MATERIAL!
Quote:

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/health/entries/2009/09/15/insurance_premiums_rose_916_pe.html
Health insurance premiums rose 91.6 percent in Texas
By Mary Ann Roser | Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 12:48 PM

A national report that was released today says family health insurance premiums in Texas increased 91.6 percent since 2000 " 4.6 times faster than earnings.

The report by the nonprofit consumer organization Families USA says the rise in health care premiums for workers went from $6,638 for the average Texas family to $12,721 a year, but folks often got less for their money rather than more, according to the report. At the same time, median earnings of Texas workers rose from $23,032 to $27,573, a 19.7 percent increase.

“Our conclusion is that rising health care costs threaten the financial well-being of families across the country,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA.

The report argues throughout for health care reform, and as Pollack said, if it doesn’t happen soon, more families will be priced out of the market.

In a report last year, Families USA said health insurance premiums grew 5.8 times faster than earnings in Texas. This year, however, the growth rate in Texas is below the national rate in which premiums grew 4.9 times faster than income between 2000 and 2009.

Even so, Pollack said he doubted “anyone in the state will be delighted” by the results this year.

The report cited four key reasons why premiums have risen so quickly:

Increased spending on health care. The report says that nearly half of Americans have chronic conditions, with diabetes alone costing more than $174 billion annually.

Lack of regulation of the insurance industry. Insurance companies can charge more, plus refuse coverage to people based on a variety of factors, including dropping or denying people because of illness, the report says.

A lack of competition in the insurance market. The report says in some areas, too many companies have merged, leaving consumers with too little choice. The report claims health care reform will provide more options.

The “hidden health tax,” in which people with insurance help cover the uninsured. Last year, the portion that insurance companies charged families in insurance premiums to cover people who did not have insurance was $1,017.

Pollack said he believes insured people would pay less to cover uninsured people under health care reform.

Quote:

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/05/19/doctors-flock-to-texas-after-tort-reform/
By Scott Hensley
In the last three years, 7,000 doctors have moved to Texas. So many doctors want to practice there that the state has had trouble keeping up with the requests for licenses.

Texas Capitol
How come the flood? A clampdown on damages in malpractice suits has made Texas a very attractive place to practice medicine, says an opinion piece in the WSJ.

The most significant change is a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages per defendant, such as pain and suffering and loss of companionship. “Before the caps, the average award was $1.21 million; it’s been $880,000 since,” the Dallas Morning News reported last year.

Malpractice suits have plummeted. In 2003, before the caps took effect, there were 1,108 medical liability suits filed in Dallas County, the Morning News reported. Only 142 cases were filed in 2004. Last year there were 184.

Proponents of malpractice reform point to Texas as a model. The surge of doctors has helped relieved shortages in some rural parts of the state.

But it’s not all sweetness and light down on the border. An 11-hour hearing in the Texas Legislature last fall featured “angry, frustrated doctors from Houston to Laredo” venting about ” overzealous oversight” by the Texas Medical Board, the regulatory body that got beefed up to safeguard Texans from bad docs when the malpractice curbs were enacted, the Houston Chronicle reported. Complaints to the board have increased dramatically, and disciplinary actions against docs has nearly tripled since 2001.

Debra Law wrote:
Tort reform benefits tortfeasors -- but unconstitutionally deprives individuals of their right to petition the courts for redress of grievances and to have a jury of their peers determine whether they have been harmed, and if so, what their damages are.

Ican, who falsely presents himself as an advocate of the Constitution, proposes that the federal government violate the 7th Amendment: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved....

Quote:
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Debra, the right of trial by jury in Texas continues to be preserved.

Debra, no facts tried by a jury, are otherwise reexamined in any court of Texas or of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The rule of law now is that tort awards in Texas courts shall be limited to $250,000 cap on non-economic damages per defendant.

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 08:08 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law" wrote:
Ican falsely portrays himself as a constitutional scholar and an advocate for individual freedom, yet he engages in McCarthyism. In ican's delusional world view, if you're not worshipping at the feet of laissez faire capitalism and if you're not demonizing social programs, gays, blacks, Mexicans, arabs, aliens, democrats, liberals, the disabled, the unemployed, single mothers, and the working poor----then you're an UNAmerican traitor.

Debra, that statement of yours following the word "yet" is libel.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 08:30 pm
Obama's economic solutions are not working.

Federal total outlays--spending-- went from $1.7892 trillion in the year 2000 to $2.9019 trillion in 2008, while total employment rose from 136,891,000 in 2000 to 145,362,000 in 2008.

Federal total outlays went from $2.901.9 billion for the year 2008 to about $3.9 trillion for the period January to August 2009, while employment decreased from 143,338,000 in December 2008 to 139,649,000 in August 2009.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
EMPLOYMENT
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
OUTLAYS



 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 02/22/2025 at 09:31:58