$318 Billion Deal Is Set in Congress for Cutting Taxes

A Sarah Lawrence Democrat. That's DIFFERENT!

Yeah, but a place to point a finger, that is the point!

Just joking, Bill!

I just appreciated the opportunity to point

What you mean to write is that you, BillW, care not for facts. The facts speak for themselves. I simply cited them, and you have failed to refute them (or even to try). But feel free to stick your fingers in your ears and chant "la-la-la-la-la... I'm not listening..." if it helps. You can't change reality, but you are free to ignore it if you like.

And again... just to be sure everyone understands the situation here. YOU first stated: "The welfare system was drastically changed during the Clinton administration. When you are out of work, you can be on the system for months - not years. Therefore, the unemployment roles go down when someone falls off the roles." and in a subsequent response wrote this: "Finally, Unemployment and the way it is paid and effects welfare was considered throughtout the Welfare Reform act of 1996."

You are not only wrong, but doubly so. First, federal unemployment numbers are not a measure of claims for unemployment payments ("unemployment roles"), as I have proven with citations earlier in this discussion.

Second, I challenged your specious claim that welfare was altered under the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, and all you need do to prove your point and shut me up is cite the text of the act, which is available online at http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/h3734_en.htm.

Read through it at your leisure and then get back to me and show me where in its text the term during which one can draw unemployment was changed in any way. Thanks.

I look forward to reading your retraction and apology.

I don't deal with jerks!

That was insensative, let me try better:

Sorry, I don't deal with jerks!

Ah, Bill, not insensitive - squirrels are always so intimately connected to nuts it's their main concentration, and they can't seem to get beyond their nuts.

Bill - I learned quite a while back that you don't take too kindly to having your ignorance pointed out. A better man would just admit he was wrong and move on, but I'm sure that pretending the problem is someone else (it always is, isn't it?) probably makes some of the frustration go away. Don't worry about saving face here; amongst those with whom you agree, being factually correct means nothing compared with being on the correct side of the debate, and on that measure you win every time. So you just keep spouting off about your ill-informed opinions, I'll keep setting the record straight, and you can keep calling that my failing.

Scrat's language is deliberately provocative folks -- it replaces discussion and thought. Once again, good buddies, I say SCROLL!

Why is it in A2K that some people are fun to disagree with, mutually educating, while others keep spouting "facts" (always their facts have the legitimacy of Brazil nut shells without the meat), and try to Coulter their way to some invented goal post...

Tart - My language is combative with BillW because he set that tone with me. But aside from that, I have challenged the factual accuracy of statements he has made. How is that a sin? When someone proves me wrong, I admit I'm wrong and move on, having learned something. I don't whine like a child and complain about the person who knew something I did not.

Scroll if you like. It does not change reality. If you dislike facts, you probably don't want to read what I write.

squirrel - ever hear of letting go? There are so many people here who are well-informed, who have actually worked in the fields you claim to have knowledge of, and are so courteous.



scrat wrote:

"Second, I challenged your specious claim that welfare was altered under the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, and all you need do to prove your point and shut me up is cite the text of the act, which is available online at http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/h3734_en.htm.

Read through it at your leisure and then get back to me and show me where in its text the term during which one can draw unemployment was changed in any way. Thanks.

I look forward to reading your retraction and apology. "




This is rude, discourteous, and inaccurate insofar as it reflects only your interpretation of something, which many times, as we have learned, is inaccurate.

If anything, an apology and retraction from you would be more acceptable.

Yep, too true.

Scrat -- Get it out of your head (and your rhetoric) that people don't respond to you because they are cowed by your vast intelligence and store of "facts". Try to imagine instead a group of mature adults sitting at their computers just having a negative social reaction to your attitudes.

Just imagining the mature adult here...

As Tartarin said - some of us are underwhelmed.

Tart - Perhaps you do have a problem with what you call my attitude. Fine. But BillW was happy to respond until he realized he could no longer keep up the charade of pretending to know what he was talking about. His problem is that I showed him he was wrong. Pure and simple. And his conduct was and remains far more combative and negative than mine.

NYT Archive (PPV)

PDid, Where have you been? Many states are already in that abyss. California's credit rating is so low, the taxpayers must pay more for any bonds issued by the state. The state's politicans are playing their regular party politics at the expense of human services in the state without money. It's a crime. c.i.

I think Bush's campaign treasure chest could and should be a major target during the campaign. It's so out of scale, so far away from reality, so "legacy" in character, that if it isn't used against him I'll never understand American politics...