Quag

hmm you could just repost that in the jokes section Miki. and as i cannot one up that i wont even try

You are missing me in the scores id go off and sulk feeling unappreciated but ive already thought of a word

DOLL

CRASH

gvg ref Bernie Sorry that is why i despise the toad. He is soo completly 1 sided. If you notice he wants to stop corporations from dontating $ but of course he get pretty much nothing from them. He has NOOOOOO problem with Unions giving cash and guess where nut job Bernie gets his largest donations from? If he was really concerened with campaign financing he would try and stop unions from donating as well but of course he is not actully concerened with fair and equittable campaign financing only with denying his opponents from getting $ while trying to get as much for himself. let me help you out http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=n00000528 he is just another self serving politician who is using left wing rhetoric to get elected as opposed to right wing rhetoric. he doesnt give a crap about fair elections only about stopping his opposition from having any advantage. He has been a politican for 40 years now. can you say career politican or what? I live in Montreal, Vermont is next door to us so ive unfortunately heard far far too often and far far to long crap from Bernie to give the guy 1 ounce of slack on any subject

Dawh I still disaagree you are heading more left. Again Obama care could never ever have been passed before now, the real estate bubble was caused largely due to govt interference in the mortgage buisness to try and get more peopel into homes. food stamps (EBT cards) are getting used more and more, amnesty for illegals, though it didnt pass is still kicking around. there is more talk of more open borders. again the sex/violence on tv stuff. Remember the seinfield show with the bet? remember they never actually said what it was about. that was because they couldnt. but now NP they can do that. I would like to know why you think it is moving right? tax rates are higher than they were with Regan. you have (crappy) health care (sorta), govt is exponentially larger than it was, gay marriage is allowed in many states(yes i know california referendum, but 20 years ago it wouldnt have even have been brought up as an issue.) Health care: Democrats didnt need 1 single republican to pass it so dont blame them for the disaster the dems have foisted on you! Ok here is why it is a disaster and stupid. 1 mandatory health care. so if ya got no $ the govt can fine you for not buying health care?? what insane world is that? (already happend in Mass.) 2, it WILL increase costs. By forcing insurance companies to provide coverage regardless of preexisting conditions they will have no choice but to increase premiums to make up the shortfall. An insurance company makes money because it charges a large population base a small (relaively speaking) amount of $$ to insure them against health care costs (or anythign else) they calculate that it will gross X$ based on number of peopel/premiums. costs to them is Y or payouts for health care. Z is leftover profits. Some people will cost the insurance company more $ than they give in, but even more peopel will pay more$ than they take out. By adding peopel with preexisting conditions you have increased the % of people who take out more$. (often much more$) thus forcing an increase in premiums to make up the difference and increasing health care costs to all. Now I agree telling someone well tough luck you have aids and are therefore screwed is wrong your system with actual health care insurance is set up that it has to work that way. if you had an actual universal health care system paid from taxes not insurance premiums then the poor would be helped by the rich. Obama care however leaves the poor to be screwed as health care costs WILL increase using a greater % of disposabel cash of the poor than the rich. STUPID STUPID STUPID Then of course you have Nancy Pelosi saying ya gotta pass the bill to find out what is in it. Come on you guys how can you elect such obviously incompetant politicians! The recovery started in 1933. well before the war. Though you guys had to wait for the war to get GDP back to where it was. basically i agree with freidrich Hayek on the depression as opposed ot Keynes, basically too much credit (ie money) floating around led to a buble and the collapse of that bubble and contraction in available money resulted in the depression. hauntingly similar to what was happening with the real estate bubble and way way too easy credit in the mortgage industry. Yes i agree with your diagrams on the economy however keynsian economics makes the troughs last longer than they should and tops them off too low. resulting in a much worse diagram overall. Super high peaks and valleys no good but low peaks woth loooooong low valleys are bad too. gvg 1. Seems like way too much cash and its still a good bet that the Euro coudl fall resulting in a complete waste 2. recovery in Europe began earlier than that see above but yes i think without WW2 america would have taken even longer ot get out but Europe was already well on its way without war. As to the unemplyment numbers look here http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/business&id=8452309 http://news.yahoo.com/unemployment-rate-drops-lowest-since-2009-190428198.html for better ideas of the unemplyment rate look at these (the differences again are based on how you calculate it http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-the-real-unemployment-rate-is-11-percent/2011/12/12/gIQAuctPpO_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-the-real-unemployment-rate-is-11-percent/2011/12/12/gIQAuctPpO_blog.html basically the govt is manipulating the numbers to make it look like unemplyment situation is better than it is, whats new there? 3. yes it is class warfare what else can you call it when you want to increase taxes but only on the higherst income earners? they already pay too much! yeah cut loopholes i agree with that but the uber rich who pay 0 taxes will pay 0 taxes under a 25-30-40-90% rate why punish the wealthy who dont manage to hide their income with tax loopholes because you are mad at those who do? saying we wont pass diddly squat without increasing the top rate which is what the Dems are saying is worse than the reps because the reps are looking at alternative the dems refuse to. ending tax cuts will not help the deficit because the govt like every goct in history will just spend the extra $$ they always have and always will why do you think they wont? and why shoudl the wealthy who already pay more than the rest pay an even greater % why why WHY! answer me that sprry but it is class warfare iot is a way of the dems to try and get peopel mad at the reps and to think yeah the dems are on my side. BS dems liek the reps are on their own side that is they want to get elected as it is the primary goal of any politician. 4. I used the monro doctran as an exampe of an exception not as an example of movement ot the left see above. 5. See above on why Obama care is a disater it has already started to cause a rise in premiums that will only continue. What you dont want private health system regulated? Govt should regulate more and operate less is my motto. Now of course govt can over regulate as well as under regulate and the regulations MUST be intelligent (i know intellegence and govt dont usually go together) but there has to be some kind of oversight or youll end up with non sanitary hospitals resuing single use medical equipment etc. 6. Please dont quote Bill Maher, as i said before he is jsut a political comedian adn a very very partizaan one at that he will ignore anything not in line with his (Democrat) party and over inflate the importance of anything he sees as being positive to his (again Democratic) party. Heck Even Rush Limbaugh attacks the republican party when hes not happy with them (no im not advocating rush as a reliable source of info either)

Dreams are like eggs prepared by your 8 year old. Ya never know whats in them before ya start and if its gonna be a nightmare or something sweet. Either way ya just have to grin and bear it

Hi David. welcome to Brain den and enjoy few things you must know. First off MissKitten MiKi is very nice and will never taser you for talking about her nefarious plots. Also please try the games they are as much fun as the puzzles and riddles. Also remeber to use lots of smileys

sorry for the multi-posting On an aside I went to my folks the other day and my dad was reading Manias Crashes and Panics a history of financial crises by Charles Kinbdleberger. its a book i read in college and i thought was very incitefull I am gonna read it again when my dad is finished. It should be interesting in light of the recent events. If ya get a chance its a heavy read but very interesting. If you do read it let me know as i have a very interesting story about the book.

YAY I got it posted!

and again, fortunately i had only typed about 3 lines. So Take 4 1. I misread the fed reserve site, it is the presidents that are appointed by the board. Didnt see how bernanke was appointed but if it is by the pres like i thought then Bush and Obama both have to take some responsability. 2. Great depression lasted longer in the US than anywhere else. basically 1929-1938-39' Keynsian economics and pump priming was the great experiment tried out by you guys. So if you guys tried the stimulous way of ending economic problems and took longer than the rest of the world to get out of it what conclusion could you draw from that? Yes economists are split on it but Historians are pretty much damning of it. And well i have more faith in historians than economists as well i rate economists on slightly higher than psychiatrists. AS to it working: 1. Over 300K people have left the workforce (ie give up in despair of finding a job), and 120k found work. so almost 3X number of people have lost all hope to those who found jobs. Which had the larger impact on the jobless rate going down, Those Who found jobs or thos who gave up? 2. You imply that ther could be no recovery without govt stimulous, a ridiculous statment as there have been far far more recessions that have come and gone without govt stimulous than there have been with stimulous. (pre keynesian economics govts ALWAYS cut spending during recessions) 3. If in your opinion the stimulous worked why do you need another one? the recession is officially over (has been for a bit) so why? or should govt just do stimulous all the time and go into greek like debt levels? Yes 120k gain is better than a loss despite the 300k giving up but i believe this is despite the govt interferecne not because of it. 3. I find dems just as bad but with better press. They refuse anything that doesnt include their precious class warfare tax increase on the rich despite that fact the rich already pay more. taxing them will not solve your problems. they are refusing any real cuts (except military, which i think we all agree on has to happen) The only thing ive seen the reps refuse to budge on is the increasing of ANY personal income tax. Somethign I gotta agree with. so perhaps Im more republican than Dem thjough if i was a yank id be an independant and look at the actual individuals more than the party. I am sure(hope) that ther are decent politicians down there. One advantage of your system is that politicans are far far more independant of the party than thay are here. 4. yes yes yes you have been moving to the left the passing of obama care is one of many proofs. It sucks and is stupid but it passed when other attemps have all failed. Look historically, not just last 8 years. Bush (wrong) premeptive strike against Saddam for (imaginary) weapons of mass destruction. is pretty mush inline with the Monroe doctrine. You have dialogue and economic ties with China adn Russia as opposed to armed (though non direct) confrontation. welfare expansion, medicare, pensions getting more and more generous (has to stop) Unions exist and have legal protection. Sex/violence/language on TV and radio. All these things are far more liberal than in the past and the farther back you go the more you see how far youve come. Yes the Tea party may bring the reps a bit more right than they have been last 8 years but if you look at policy they arent that far from JFK. 5. Obama didnt need 1 single republican to pass Obama care. the problems was that there was a few Dems who saw it for the disasater it is going to be. And passing this monstrosity will just make it near impossible to change it into a good system. BTW Canada has that private/public system as well. We call it a 2 tier system and officially it doesnt exist but well it does. And i agree that is the best way to go. Though ours like the UK's could use some fien tuning and a chainsaw taken to the bureaucracy. 6. I have never heard of this 4.6 trillion deficit cut but as the deficit is about 1 trillion how will he cut it by 4 trillion? seems to me you got some fudging of numbers or what you meant to say was cut 4.6 trillion in spending over 10 years and when you look at the actual numbers you will find that most of it is by not allowing automatic increase to happen not actual cutting. (Both sides do this when talking about the budget. Here is alink that I hope will fighten you into understandign that the problem is mostly spending not income http://www.usdebtclock.org/ please look at this linkas well to understand why i say the problem is mor espending that income http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html the 2 spikes are the world wars. makes sense, and during the 90s it was actually trending down but there is a real spike under obama. Even Bushs wars didnt spike it that much. Obama is a major beneficiary of GE contributions, though they give to republicans as well they gave more to Obama that any other politician Umm go back in time cap and trade would never have been considered(and it shoudlnt be) as to obama care it passed how can that not be going left? see above point 4.

I did it again

p yqe489tyhô

yup its a word i checked in the dictionary

Welcome to the den, I suggest you try some of the games they can be quite fun. just watch out for MissKItten AKA MiKi, shes nice and fun and amusing but she is always planning nefarious plots! Oh yeah and use lots of smileys BTW êtes vous français? Si oui bienvenu, si non bienvenu quand même I only ask 'cause of the nick

SOUP

FEIND

ARGHHH!!!!! typed a big long response then lost it all! crap too bummed to start again will try maybe 2morrow

HOME

I disagree i have always found your politics to be more right wing than here in canada but the dems have now gone far left and are on par with our left wing party the NDP (new democratic party) As to the reps becoming more right wing i dont agree tooo much there, the right wing pundits have gone more to the right but the actual politicians have moved more to the centre. please look at where both parties were in the past, they have all moved more to the left, reps still strongly right wing but dems have left the center and racing full speed to the left, at least the vocal and prmonent ones. It doesnt matter whos idea it was first it is a terribel idea.How politicians can look around the world and instead of taking the good ideas and trying to make them better they try to come up with something even worse is beyond me. Cap and trade? when were the reps behind that? i thought they were all global warming deniers? again irrelevant because both cap and trade and carbon taxes are stupid ideas based on wishful thinking instead of actual effort ot do something about the problem. retype same sentence with democrate in place of republican and it is just as true all parties in all countries swap ideas on what they believe, happened here 3-4 times on free trade over our history and we arent nearly as old as you guys are! hmm I only ever heard of any actual plans coming from the reps no plan at all from the dems and of course the dems rejected the reps plans EVEN those with tax increases because they wanted only to continue their class warfare crap and raise the top marginal rate. dang it rates are high enough attack the exemptions! (personally i think the politicians keep the exemtions because they and their friends are the major beneficiaries)

gvg this is in reply to your previous post 1. I knew it was private, i thought that the president chose the chairman, seems i was wrong 2. surprise surprise i disagree with you here, The positive effects are minor compared to the long term negative effects. I do not believe that the workd would have imploded if there had been no first stimulous. There is no way to prove this but historically recessions have come and gone with or without govt interference. The great depression was the first massive attempt at stimulous and ended up being one of the longest and deepest recessions ever. In fact hte US came out of it pretty much after the rest of the world did despite the govt spending. Clear cut case of stimulous failure! 3. early 90s was am economic downturn and that is when we started the cutting, so nope gotta disagree with you here again. Instead of wasting $$$ on stimulous that has negigible short term and negative long term effects you should be cutting govt, this causes negligible short term andf positive long term effects on the economy. Of course ya gotta do it smart and well that is the challenge! lets do simple math to show you how stimulous fails. Govt creates a job at say 100k/year. This returns roughly 21600$, see my previous post. Now that leaves a shortfall of 78400$ or roughly 3.5 more people need ot make 100k each to have the govt break even. Everywhere i looked online suggest that every 10-20 jobs created create 1 more spinoff job but lets use the 10 or be generous and say 5. (note these are usually lower paying jobs but for maths sake lets say they all earn 100k) so govt spends 500k and creats 5 jobs (truth we know is its more like 1.5kk to create 5 100k jobs cause govt wastes $ like a drunken sailor in las vegas) so they get back 108k$ but only 1 job is created giving the govt another 21.6k or a total of 129.6k and it cost them 500k (again really 1.5kk) thus govt is farther in the hole than before there is less money circulating due to fears of govt overspending making it harder to start/improve/maintain buisnesses. This is why i say the short term is negligible and long term is negative. worse thing is after 2-3 years those govt jobs are gone along with any SLIGHT boost they may have given but the nation as a whole is more in debt and spening an even larger % of their $ on servicing that debt leading to a downward spiral, think greece here. The only way the govt can help the economy is for there to be 3.5 jobs created for every govt job. It is actually worse as the stimulous jobs arent usually 100k but much less giving even less in terms of % return in taxes. sorry it that is kinda convoluted but read it a few times im sure you will get the gist. 4. those dems being idiots, which ones arent? same can be said for reps i agree but since you and Dawh seem to have taken the democrat side i feel obliged tyo point out that they are just as bad as the reps and often worse depending on the subject.

THREE just in case your one was actually in triplicate

I agree with you some things should be in govt hands some, not for profit private companies, but there are some things that can just be privatized straight out. You give prisons as examples, I personally dont even think a private not for profit would be a good idea here. On the other side of the coin we have public and private daycare here. it is almost all subsidized by the govt. (7$/day) but there are 100% private ones that charge more, very few left. The WORST daycares are the CPE`s "Centre de petitis enfants", they are the 100% govt ones and the govt subsidized home daycares (*note the home ones can be very good too, they are all different). Basically this is something the govt should get out of. It is a disaster all around. Many people have a near impossible time finding a daycare because the cheap govt subsidized ones forced most private ones to close, but they get same $$ whether regardless of where they are situated. So if you are in a rural area or small town real estate/rent is cheap if you are in the city/well off suburb it is $$. Now the more the over head the closer they need to be near 100% capacity to break even. Leaving many areas short on daycare. Other areas are running at 60% NP. typical govt square peg/round hole problem. You are right the markets will not/cannot solve everything. Problem is the Dems are the polar opposite they want govt to do everything "The govt will solve everything" is their mantra NO IT WONT! dang you guys are screwed down there!

SAME

JEEP