The better question is: Who was the moron who taught you social studies and government? Or maybe: Who brain washed you into thinking that that was "socialist."
postbigbang -- "Spending money to help those in need isn't socialism. Retirement money isn't socialism. Medicare isn't socialism. Medicaid isn't socialism."
Which brings us to the conclusion that:
kent_eh -- "Those who scream "left wing" and "socialist" at the Democrats don't seem to know what those words mean."
Obviously way off topic, but The Shawshank Redemption is an incredibly good movie I highly recommend seeing. I'm not much of a Tim Robbins fan normally, but watch the movie sometime, it's well worth the time spent.
With this new found knowledge, i can now claim that i consistently write THE MOST IMPORTANT things in the known universe, not that anyone, including me, will be able to read what it is....
She'll quite halfway through the term, and spend what time she is in office trying to come with an answer to Katie's question on what newspaper she reads....
Interesting isn't it that it only takes a few minutes to look up the fact that 1.7856 trillion was added to the national debt between Oct 1, 2008 and Sept 30, 2009 (Bush's last budget period)... but between Oct 1, 2009 and Sept 30, 2010 only 1.6411 trillion was added (Obama's first budget period).
The first projections for deficit for Obama's first budget was 1.8 trillion.. which happens to be more than it actually was. Your suggestion that Obama's numbers are "conservative" are basically bullshit.
Are the numbers good? Hell no. They'd be much better if that fucking idiot Bush hadn't cut taxes, and they'd be better in the future if the fucking conservatives didn't think that the top 2% of earners needed to keep their ridiculous tax cuts.
But lets lay blame where it goes... fucking idiots who fell for the bullshit trickle down economics crap, and the fucking idiots that don't understand that if you spend a dollar, you should be taking in a dollar.
.... toasters have now been confirmed to intentionally burn toast. They claim the One True God (tm) told them too, and that this is only the beginning of.. something.. that's already happened...
Your argument is self serving and short sighted at best. There was once a time when people didn't expect a payoff to happen in the next 10 minutes. There was once a time when people understood the need to invest in the future, not only their own, but for the general good of everyone.
Is there an immediate payoff? Not in money, but in information and knowledge. Information and knowledge are central to make progress, even more than money.
I assume the comment on China was in reference to the fact that of the larger nations, China seems to be the one investing in the future.... and it's paying off for them. Over just the past few years, they've become a leader in mass public transportation, as well as solar energy (THE future of energy), while the US has been listening to winy little me-first bitches who don't want to live up to the basic responsibility of investing in the country for future generations.
Your assertions of the resources on Mars are ludicrous at best. It's a planet, an entire fraking planet. Everything the human species has done so far has used the resources of the planet Earth... Mars is an entirely separate planet. The entire planet is one big lump of fraking resources.
Is it commercially exploitable today? No. But the country (or countries) that invests in it, will be the one reaping the benefit, and if we have to tolerate much more of the winy little me-first bitches here in the US, the US is going to be on the ass end of everything in the future.
Let me break it down for you by presidential term:
D - Roosevelt/Truman 45-49 = decreased 24.4%
D - Truman 49-53 = decreased 21.7%
R - Eisenhower 53-57 = decreased 11%
R - Eisenhower 57-61 = decreased 5.2%
D - Kennedy/Johnson 61-65 = decreased 8.3%
D - Johnson 65-69 = decreased 8.3%
R - Nixon 69-73 = decreased 3%
R - Nixon/Ford 73-77 = increased.2%
D - Carter 77-81 = decreased 3.3%
R - Reagan 81-85 = increased 11.3%
R - Reagan 85-89 = increased 9.3%
R - Bush Sr. 89-93 = increased 15%
D - Clinton 93-97 = decreased.7%
D - Clinton 97-01 = decreased 9%
R - Bush Jr. 01-05 = increased 7.1%
R - Bush Jr. 05-09 = increased 20%
Summary is pretty simple:
Last republican president to not increase spending in relationship to GDP was Nixon in his first term.
Last democrat to increase spending in relationship to GDP was.. someone before the end of WW II (obvoiously i'm going with Roosevelt).
Since the end of WW II, Republicans have caused an increase in spending vs GDP of 43.7%
Since the end of WW II, Democrats have caused an decrease in spending vs GDP of 75.7%
Citation: basic math. If that's too hard for you to do, well, that's another problem altogether, isn't it.
While you want to claim the Dems have had control since 2007, only a true blind idiot would have missed the intentional obstructionism that has been the republicans only goal since then. When les than 60% of the senate wants to govern, it's pretty hard to get anything done.
CBO projects the revenue, and the spending, one minus the other gives us a projected surplus, or deficit. Yes, those numbers change.... which is why you see a new projection every month or two. You can't figure actual surplus/deficit until after the end of the year, when you have a specific number for both revenue and spending. It's not an accounting "trick," it's called a cost projection, and every business that is anything does it. Not real hard stuff.
It does get harder when they do budget projections, because yes, they leave out off-budget items. That said, one reason why the official budget projections of Bush were massively lower than the end deficits was because he intentionally left off all sorts of spending.. like.. ALL of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. In the end however, it does come out (although fucking idiots still can't understand that).
It took Bush Sr. and Clinton twelve years to undo enough of the damage that Reagan did. Anyone who thinks Obama should be able to fix all that Bush Jr. fucked up so quickly is either an pure fucking idiot, or an extreme partisan hack.
It's interesting that every special election since Obama became president was a "referendum on Obama's policies" right up till voters in all of them except Scott Brown's case told conservatives to go fuck themselves. You can be a loud obnoxious partisan fuckwad all you want, but just because you act like a screaming little baby doesn't mean it's anything more than you have shit in your diapers.
Some companies simply don't care anyway. I worked at hosting company in VA that would fire the techs who were being payed the most in order to hire college kids. The owners theory was.. the customer would eventually figure out what the problem was if they had a problem, and if not, then they were too much work (to costly) of a customer.
It ended up with basically no one in the place knowing jack shit about anything, other than how to install an OS (done through an installer program one of the real techs developed before he left), and get it onto the net (plug and play, plug and play). There was even one "tech" who's answer to any problem was a re-install... regardless of the problem (it was THE only thing he knew how to do). We're talking the level of knowledge where servers would be marked as needing repair or RMA'd when the only thing wrong with them is.. they weren't turned on... I shit you not.
This stupidity again? Obama may have been in office that long, but he's only been working on his budget for the last year... prior to that, it was Bush's budget. Federal budgets start on October 1st, and the "old" presidents budget lasts 9 full months into the "new" presidents term.
Here's another one for you... Bush more than doubled the national debt. At the end of Clinton's last budget, the national debt was 5.806 trillion, with projected surpluses of 3 trillion over the next 10 years. Bush's first budget produced a deficit of $409 billion, which was the lowest of his presidency. Bush added 6.246 trillion to the national debt.
Or how about this... since the end of WW II, republican presidents have increased spending vs GDP by 43.7%, while democratic presidents have reduced spending vs GDP by 75.7%.
Which of course brings us to this: the last republican president to decrease spending vs GDP was Nixon in his first term. The last democratic president to increase spending vs GDP was.... Roosevelt, during WW II.
Or how about this one...Bush's last budget had a greater deficit (1.796 trillion) than Obama's first budget (1.690 trillion). In his first year, Obama is already starting to correct Bush's spending like a drunk sailors routine.
The only way you get Obama to double some deep hole is to blame him for Bush's spending, which is exactly what you did, roughly 1.3 trillion worth. He is turning it around.. but it's a slow process because of how very severely fucked up Bush caused things to be. It took Bush Sr. and Clinton twelve years to turn things around from Reagan's fuck-ups, and his was small compared to Bush Jr's.
Another part of that "we would have found it by now" argument is that we're not looking for one creature, we're looking for a significantly large population of the creatures that would be able to sustain it's population (genetically that's 5-10 thousand?) for a very, very long time.... and inhabit a multitude of of far reaching areas (so a significant number of areas, throughout the world, with populations of 5-10 thousand each). And it's not like Bigfoot is claimed to be dog-sized; it's claimed to be larger than a human.
Slashdot Mirror
... of gifts bearing Greeks.
“Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.” -- Calvin
Dwarf test pilots? How do you test pilot a dwarf?
Excellently put.
Going down in history for having sex = the pinnacle of human achievement.
The better question is: Who was the moron who taught you social studies and government? Or maybe: Who brain washed you into thinking that that was "socialist."
lgw -- "How is that not socialist?"
postbigbang -- "Spending money to help those in need isn't socialism. Retirement money isn't socialism. Medicare isn't socialism. Medicaid isn't socialism."
Which brings us to the conclusion that:
kent_eh -- "Those who scream "left wing" and "socialist" at the Democrats don't seem to know what those words mean."
Oh look, a full circle.
Obviously way off topic, but The Shawshank Redemption is an incredibly good movie I highly recommend seeing. I'm not much of a Tim Robbins fan normally, but watch the movie sometime, it's well worth the time spent.
And no ones ever died from radiation poisoning either. It's not like nuclear waste doesn't break down in seconds.... oh, wait...
All crime is committed by the living.
Even a broke pre-Stonehenge rock arrangement is right twice every 21,000 years.
With this new found knowledge, i can now claim that i consistently write THE MOST IMPORTANT things in the known universe, not that anyone, including me, will be able to read what it is....
She'll quite halfway through the term, and spend what time she is in office trying to come with an answer to Katie's question on what newspaper she reads....
Interesting isn't it that it only takes a few minutes to look up the fact that 1.7856 trillion was added to the national debt between Oct 1, 2008 and Sept 30, 2009 (Bush's last budget period)... but between Oct 1, 2009 and Sept 30, 2010 only 1.6411 trillion was added (Obama's first budget period).
The first projections for deficit for Obama's first budget was 1.8 trillion.. which happens to be more than it actually was. Your suggestion that Obama's numbers are "conservative" are basically bullshit.
Are the numbers good? Hell no. They'd be much better if that fucking idiot Bush hadn't cut taxes, and they'd be better in the future if the fucking conservatives didn't think that the top 2% of earners needed to keep their ridiculous tax cuts.
But lets lay blame where it goes... fucking idiots who fell for the bullshit trickle down economics crap, and the fucking idiots that don't understand that if you spend a dollar, you should be taking in a dollar.
.... toasters have now been confirmed to intentionally burn toast. They claim the One True God (tm) told them too, and that this is only the beginning of.. something.. that's already happened...
Fraking toasters.
Poison? No good. How do we know it'll effect their biochemistry? I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
At least his IQ is greater than his shoe size, which is a clear difference between him and the bitch of the north.
Your argument is self serving and short sighted at best. There was once a time when people didn't expect a payoff to happen in the next 10 minutes. There was once a time when people understood the need to invest in the future, not only their own, but for the general good of everyone.
Is there an immediate payoff? Not in money, but in information and knowledge. Information and knowledge are central to make progress, even more than money.
I assume the comment on China was in reference to the fact that of the larger nations, China seems to be the one investing in the future.... and it's paying off for them. Over just the past few years, they've become a leader in mass public transportation, as well as solar energy (THE future of energy), while the US has been listening to winy little me-first bitches who don't want to live up to the basic responsibility of investing in the country for future generations.
Your assertions of the resources on Mars are ludicrous at best. It's a planet, an entire fraking planet. Everything the human species has done so far has used the resources of the planet Earth... Mars is an entirely separate planet. The entire planet is one big lump of fraking resources.
Is it commercially exploitable today? No. But the country (or countries) that invests in it, will be the one reaping the benefit, and if we have to tolerate much more of the winy little me-first bitches here in the US, the US is going to be on the ass end of everything in the future.
No aggressive natives? Did you learn nothing from Bugs Bunny? Does "Uranium 238 Explosive Space Modulator" mean nothing to you?!!!!
Let me break it down for you by presidential term:
.2% .7%
D - Roosevelt/Truman 45-49 = decreased 24.4%
D - Truman 49-53 = decreased 21.7%
R - Eisenhower 53-57 = decreased 11%
R - Eisenhower 57-61 = decreased 5.2%
D - Kennedy/Johnson 61-65 = decreased 8.3%
D - Johnson 65-69 = decreased 8.3%
R - Nixon 69-73 = decreased 3%
R - Nixon/Ford 73-77 = increased
D - Carter 77-81 = decreased 3.3%
R - Reagan 81-85 = increased 11.3%
R - Reagan 85-89 = increased 9.3%
R - Bush Sr. 89-93 = increased 15%
D - Clinton 93-97 = decreased
D - Clinton 97-01 = decreased 9%
R - Bush Jr. 01-05 = increased 7.1%
R - Bush Jr. 05-09 = increased 20%
Summary is pretty simple:
Last republican president to not increase spending in relationship to GDP was Nixon in his first term.
Last democrat to increase spending in relationship to GDP was.. someone before the end of WW II (obvoiously i'm going with Roosevelt).
Since the end of WW II, Republicans have caused an increase in spending vs GDP of 43.7%
Since the end of WW II, Democrats have caused an decrease in spending vs GDP of 75.7%
Citation: basic math. If that's too hard for you to do, well, that's another problem altogether, isn't it.
While you want to claim the Dems have had control since 2007, only a true blind idiot would have missed the intentional obstructionism that has been the republicans only goal since then. When les than 60% of the senate wants to govern, it's pretty hard to get anything done.
CBO projects the revenue, and the spending, one minus the other gives us a projected surplus, or deficit. Yes, those numbers change.... which is why you see a new projection every month or two. You can't figure actual surplus/deficit until after the end of the year, when you have a specific number for both revenue and spending. It's not an accounting "trick," it's called a cost projection, and every business that is anything does it. Not real hard stuff.
It does get harder when they do budget projections, because yes, they leave out off-budget items. That said, one reason why the official budget projections of Bush were massively lower than the end deficits was because he intentionally left off all sorts of spending.. like.. ALL of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. In the end however, it does come out (although fucking idiots still can't understand that).
It took Bush Sr. and Clinton twelve years to undo enough of the damage that Reagan did. Anyone who thinks Obama should be able to fix all that Bush Jr. fucked up so quickly is either an pure fucking idiot, or an extreme partisan hack.
It's interesting that every special election since Obama became president was a "referendum on Obama's policies" right up till voters in all of them except Scott Brown's case told conservatives to go fuck themselves. You can be a loud obnoxious partisan fuckwad all you want, but just because you act like a screaming little baby doesn't mean it's anything more than you have shit in your diapers.
Some companies simply don't care anyway. I worked at hosting company in VA that would fire the techs who were being payed the most in order to hire college kids. The owners theory was.. the customer would eventually figure out what the problem was if they had a problem, and if not, then they were too much work (to costly) of a customer.
It ended up with basically no one in the place knowing jack shit about anything, other than how to install an OS (done through an installer program one of the real techs developed before he left), and get it onto the net (plug and play, plug and play). There was even one "tech" who's answer to any problem was a re-install... regardless of the problem (it was THE only thing he knew how to do). We're talking the level of knowledge where servers would be marked as needing repair or RMA'd when the only thing wrong with them is.. they weren't turned on... I shit you not.
This stupidity again? Obama may have been in office that long, but he's only been working on his budget for the last year... prior to that, it was Bush's budget. Federal budgets start on October 1st, and the "old" presidents budget lasts 9 full months into the "new" presidents term.
Here's another one for you... Bush more than doubled the national debt. At the end of Clinton's last budget, the national debt was 5.806 trillion, with projected surpluses of 3 trillion over the next 10 years. Bush's first budget produced a deficit of $409 billion, which was the lowest of his presidency. Bush added 6.246 trillion to the national debt.
Or how about this... since the end of WW II, republican presidents have increased spending vs GDP by 43.7%, while democratic presidents have reduced spending vs GDP by 75.7%.
Which of course brings us to this: the last republican president to decrease spending vs GDP was Nixon in his first term. The last democratic president to increase spending vs GDP was.... Roosevelt, during WW II.
Or how about this one...Bush's last budget had a greater deficit (1.796 trillion) than Obama's first budget (1.690 trillion). In his first year, Obama is already starting to correct Bush's spending like a drunk sailors routine.
The only way you get Obama to double some deep hole is to blame him for Bush's spending, which is exactly what you did, roughly 1.3 trillion worth. He is turning it around.. but it's a slow process because of how very severely fucked up Bush caused things to be. It took Bush Sr. and Clinton twelve years to turn things around from Reagan's fuck-ups, and his was small compared to Bush Jr's.
What ever happened to just taking off and nuking them from orbit? It's the only way to be sure after all.
As someone famous once said, it's not the Little Green Men we have to worry about, it's the Large Green Motherfuckers.
Another part of that "we would have found it by now" argument is that we're not looking for one creature, we're looking for a significantly large population of the creatures that would be able to sustain it's population (genetically that's 5-10 thousand?) for a very, very long time.... and inhabit a multitude of of far reaching areas (so a significant number of areas, throughout the world, with populations of 5-10 thousand each). And it's not like Bigfoot is claimed to be dog-sized; it's claimed to be larger than a human.
And yet, we have found no evidence.