"Things are not getting better, they are getting worse at a slower rate"

...seems to be working a lot like stimulating someone's blood clotting (going with your 'bleed out' theme) by giving them cumatin.

"Hey, we're working through the impediments, and getting the platelets to the wound faster".

Or maybe a better analogy is solving the blood loss problem by transfusing blood you know to be infected by HIV?? Moment of cure for a lifetime of ailment and all that.

...understand the conditions were a little different.

We were tied to the Obama automobile bailout. We make 20% of the vehicles of the domestic 3, and to make sure we didn't have all of our jobs move south, we had to step up with a proportional amount of aid. The conservative government held its nose and did it. The province of Ontario gave its share as well as part of the 20%, as the vast majority of auto jobs are here.

There isn't a law in Canada about long term debt, we've just been working away at it for a while - since the mid 90s. Alberta doesn't have an issue because of oil revenues, Ontario will be going into debt for the first time in years.

But the difference is that we didn't have to bail out financial instituions. While the auto bailouts were big, they pail in comparison to what the finanicial sector got. Canada was spared most of that. A few of our banks lost some money on US mortagage derivative investments but not enough to threaten their existence. Some of our banks even made a profit last quarter.

Our Federal government went into debt, and it will take us an estimated 5 years to balance the budget again. Thats not great, but I'd be interested to see an estimate of when the US government could balance the budget with their drunken sailor like money flinging.

James

TheObama claimed that if he were allowed to spend more than every president combined, he could save us all and keep unemployment at 8%. Now in double digits, where are we now and what direction are we going?

That is what happens when they spend a stimulus package that is not designed to stimulate anything.

if a patient's bleeding goes from 10 pints/min to 6 pints/min that is technically "getting better".

it is just not "stable". ;)

I don't see Obama allowing the torture and killing of his own citizens for speaking out against him.

Kim and Ahmadinejad both have done that.

Obama isn't turning a blind eye to Afghanistan's use of their government assets to transport nuclear bomb-making materials for a known rogue supplier (i.e.- A.Q. Khan, who supplied Iran and North Korea with most of their centrifuges) just to suck butt.

And unlike some other presidents, he has denounced the use of torture against foreign prisoners.

Better watch what you wish for.

so, businesses should start losing money intentionally until everyone is out of business?

Where did you ever get the idea that a profit is bad? You do realize without profit, there is no company, right? there are no wages paid to people, no benefits provided, nothing.

There is more here than your obsessive and often insane hate for management.

you HAVE to say it is worse, even if the rate it is getting worse has slowed.

[i]What's more dangerous than being blown up or tortured?[/i]

Having the next several generations of Americans turned into slaves?

[i]Having a president who doesn't do exactly what you want?[/i]

[i]Having to actually pay your taxes rather than use loopholes to squirm out of them?[/i]

Taxing achievement has always been a bad idea.

[i]How about you? Who's really more dangerous, Tony? The guy who'd charge you an extra $5 a week out of your check? Or the guy who'd order his soldiers to rape and kill your wife and daughter(s)?[/i]

Typical modern thinker... think only about the immediate... the future will take care of itself, right? It's BECAUSE of people who think like that that we are in all of the various predicaments we are in. So keep on doing it...it's working out SO well![/sarcasm]

of the Democrats definition of "free elections" with in Washington state and Minnesota. As long as they have illegals and dead people voting, they can be in power for as long as they want.

I find it interesting that all of the liberals who were whining about how Bush "stole" two elections don't make a sound when their candidates rig an election.

I guess it's OK as long as they're Democrats and they're stopping those evil conservatives.

[i]Typical modern thinker... think only about the immediate... the future will take care of itself, right? It's BECAUSE of people who think like that that we are in all of the various predicaments we are in. So keep on doing it...it's working out SO well![/i]

Yeah...you said it. We're in the housing and banking crisis because of people like bankers who were all about profit profit profit rather than sound business practice.

And where was that government oversight to ensure they did that? Nowhere, cause the funding got cut, positions got cut, and all for funding a war against weapons that didn't exist and to fund setting up pet project offices to cater to their campaign donors.

Let's see if you can determine what these all have in common:

Kim Jong Il
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Kim Il Sung
Saddam Hussein
Ayatollah Khomeni
Mao Tse Tung
Ghengis Khan

Besides being tyrants who were known to abuse/torture/murder their citizens for negative speak against them?

None of them were around just for "the immediate" time.

It's not thinking for the now. It's thinking about what's practical.

What's more valuable? $250 a year in your pocket, or the lives of your family?

That's pretty obvious, I'd hope.

And besides that, no one will be a slave to anything.

An example? I may well move out of the United States and go to Europe. Can the USA track me down and say "You owe this much tax to us cause we burdened you for the next 10 years!". The answer: No. If I don't earn the money here, they can't tax me so long as i make residence in another country. Taxation without representation isn't allowed. I just have to come back every so often to keep my citizenship. That's about it.

So, Ireland sounds real good about right now. Work 20 years there, get a pension there too, draw it and my SSA check every month, and enjoy life.

So you stay here, be a slave, and fret over a few bucks a week.

I'll go somewhere that the value of a cup of Starbucks is worth considering implementing social and governmental anarchy and stressing out over.

But really...only thinking for the immediate? Gimme a break. I was one of the ones here saying let the car companies fail and let whoever come in and pay pennies on the dollar and run them right.

That wasn't thinking just for now. That is thinking about doing what's right for the long term in this country: i.e.- getting the crap out of control of the car companies and having another owner put in their people to hopefully do better.

Anyways...don't underestimate my vision. Just because I don't take your drastic approach to "just getting rid of taxes" doesn't mean I don't have sense.

It means I don't wanna see my roads, support systems, and society crumble and fall apart and have to shoot looters and stuff.

Oh alright...I do wanna shoot looters ;)

Evidently, you didn't hear about California, Florida or Texas.

The majority of electeds there are Republican and (supposedly) conservative.

Examples?

GW Bush (former TX gov)
Jeb Bush (former FL gov)
Crist (current FL gov)
Mel Martinez (former rep, senator, US Sen., dir of HUD from FL)
Schwarzenegger
etc etc

So, don't think that because in the past that Democrats were the champions of citizenship that now the Republicans haven't sucked up to them too to get their votes.

And by the way...my official stance on illegal immigrants:

Get them out. If they came to this country illegally, they broke our laws.

We don't have enough people to do the jobs? Bull. we have 9.x% unemployment nationwide. Hire an American who wants to work to feed their kids right now.

California has $1Bs in shortfalls and a lot of it is 2 things: road maintenance and social service funding. If they got rid of their illegal population that feeds off welfare, public funded medical, etc., they'd save billions.

So...get rid of illegals...send them home. It's cheaper than paying to house, feed, and treat their families for years to come.

And yes, all my ancestors that immigrated here came through Ellis Island or Philadelphia or Plymouth Rock to this country. They did it right and by the law.

No one should be able to abridge our laws...NO ONE.

in your psych class they called them "Strokes".

ahhhh...where is Billy Squier when ya need him? lol :^0

Yeah, right. Democrats don't care if they have citzenship, they only want to make sure that they can control the election process so illegals can vote.

That's why they insist on trying to prevent any type of identificaton validation at the polls.

Then all you have to do is promise them a bunch of Government freebies and voila, you have a Democrat elected.

As for the dead people, you don't need to promise them anything. You just need to hire someone to vote for them since they can't seem to get to the polls. Which is another reason they want to control the checks at the polling places.

are always Democrats. Why is it Democrats don't want to make sure there isn't voter fraud?

Because that is one of the biggest tools to getting Democrats elected.

Well, that and finding a way to not count military absentee ballots.

The two go hand in hand.

Yeah, Democrats gave blacks their freedom... oh wait, they didn't....

Democrats gave women the right to vote.... oh wait, they didn't....

Buying votes with other peoples money, now THAT they did/do/will continue to do.

[i]Yeah...you said it. We're in the housing and banking crisis because of people like bankers who were all about profit profit profit rather than sound business practice.

And where was that government oversight to ensure they did that?[/i]

Well,it started going bad when the federal reserve was created... but the deregulation occurred starting with Carter, who decided that poor people should own houses. Then Clinton ordered banks to loan money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Then Bush and company, who thought that bad business practices should be rewarded with bailouts, and Obama's "Let's just print more money!" .

[i]I may well move out of the United States and go to Europe. Can the USA track me down and say "You owe this much tax to us cause we burdened you for the next 10 years!". The answer: No. If I don't earn the money here, they can't tax me so long as i make residence in another country.[/i]

Ah, you're one of those... "When the going gets tough, ole jck gets going". So, you think the debt's going to disappear just because you skip town? Nope. Someone's going to pay, and apparently you don't care who, or how.

[i]"just getting rid of taxes" [/i]

I never said that, I said [b]achievement[/b] shouldn't be taxed. People should be taxed... and taxed exactly equally (equal protection under the law, don't ya know...).

[i]Oh alright...I do wanna shoot looters[/i]

Me too, but not to kill. I can remove the shot and replace it with rock salt :)

look at the border states. for at least a decade, the majority of elected officials are Republican.

Why? Cause they are a) sticking up for the minorities (mainly hispanic) and b) about 1/3 of them are actually of hispanic descent.

But, the illegals here are criminals. Period. We should spend about $250 a head, fly them back wherever they came from in Mexico, Central America or the Carribean, and tell them if they come back we turn them into Blue Agave fertilizer for Sammy Hagar's Cabo Wabo farm. :^0

[i] Well,it started going bad when the federal reserve was created... but the deregulation occurred starting with Carter, who decided that poor people should own houses. Then Clinton ordered banks to loan money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Then Bush and company, who thought that bad business practices should be rewarded with bailouts, and Obama's "Let's just print more money!" .[/i]

Actually, low income housing started before Jimmy Carter. I used to manage the computer systems at a HUD-regulated housing authority. I know for a fact we had assisted housing records back to 1972.

And, the purchase plans for homes to low-income families actually started back up with Bush Sr. in 1992., not Clinton who took office in 1993.

[i] Ah, you're one of those... "When the going gets tough, ole jck gets going". So, you think the debt's going to disappear just because you skip town? Nope. Someone's going to pay, and apparently you don't care who, or how.[/i]

Nope, I don't care.

I didn't run it up, I didn't suck off the system and let everyone else pay for my kids to go to school, etc.

In fact, I've paid taxes/SSI to the US and state governments since I was 11 years old. I know people 20 years older than me who haven't worked and paid taxes as long as me.

So, I've done my fair share. While you were driving a car and doing other things that used my tax dollars, I was just a kid getting no benefit from it.

[i] I never said that, I said achievement shouldn't be taxed. People should be taxed... and taxed exactly equally (equal protection under the law, don't ya know...).[/i]

If we had equal protection under the law:

a) I'd get a group of local cops to huddle around me like Britney Spears does.
b) The sheriff's department here would see the guy coming up and begging me regularly and run him off.
c) I would be able to write off a new ceiling fan as a "home improvement" like the wealthy can a tennis court.

See...no matter what they say...the law is NOT fair in America. That's a myth. Never has been, and never will be.

Besides that, use taxes like you think are the only way to go make for an unstable and anarchic society.

What happens when the market hits bottom?

What's been happening for the last 3 years.

I suppose you want that more, eh?

[i] Me too, but not to kill. I can remove the shot and replace it with rock salt happy [/i]

To hell with rock salt. I'm killing the bastards. Why should I pay to jail some idiot, or worse yet have to spend my pay to defend myself against some lawsuit that a low-life looter would bring for wounding them?

Kill them all...let God sort them out.

Democrats are the ones against national IDs?

Coulda fooled me. I have seen both sides vote against it.

Wasn't Bush building a wall? Why would you need a wall if ya have a national ID card?

Maybe that was for looks. lmao

unemployment has improved here in most Florida, as well as parts of North Carolina.

Sorry Michigan has such hard luck. Maybe you should consider...Montana :^0

They all spin it. It's not just the current one.

Besides, JD is gonna whine until things only go in his favor.

He was always talking positive about Bush, even though it was the leadership of his administration that lacked the motivation and effort to stave these things off.

Then when Obama stepped into a no-win situation, he turned it all negative.

He only sees the flood getting deeper, and can't recognize when the level of the water has slowed its rise.

Such a negative man he is.

...all of them would spin it; regardless of side of the aisle.

My voting philosophy reflects that:

If the name is next to an (I), my vote I'll deny

:)

we've had elitest attitudes running this country far too long...in government and in the private sector.

we need to change our attitude, especially when it comes to dealing with our own.

sure, we shouldn't even have a "welfare" system as it stands today, i.e.- no one should get something for nothing. that's why i am in favor of the Jamestown, VA model of society.

- If you're an infant, others will look out for you
- If you're old and can't work, others will look out for you
- If you're infirmed and can't work, others will look out for you
- If you're able-boded, can work but won't, and refuse to contribute...THEN YOU STARVE.

Personally, I think that the US Dept. of Health and Human Services needs to utilize the US Dept. of Labor and find all the jobs like flipping burgers at McDonalds, sweeping the floor at Home Depot, working at a recycling center sorting bottles, etc., and tell welfare people "you can do this job. if you refuse, we're cutting you off."

That would help things a bit.

[i]If we simply did what canada did and stop states from going into long term debt...[/i]

Not sure exactly what point you are trying to make, but the constitutions of most states prohibit deficit spending. In many states, this has actually made the problems worse.