That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Hunt like a Dick?Jaymann wrote:Stiff a waiter.LawBeefaroni wrote:Maybe instead of debates they should have a series of competitive events. Some ideas:
Drive from Hyde Park to Evanston during rush hour.
Book a flight from Omaha to NYC online.
File a 1040 EZ (using fictitious W2s, of course).
Make a phone call.
Type an email.
Use an ATM.
Eat a hot dog.
Park like a dick.
Skeet shooting.
They were upset for a while.Smoove_B wrote:According to the Youtubes, it's official. If I'm not mistaken, the video starts with the "Amen Break" drum solo (or a variant thereof). Expect someone to get upset.
I think having that big cushion means he hasn't bothered to save. Probably not the best example for a Vice President to set and between him and his wife probably pulling in over $200K/year for a while it's not like he couldn't put aside a bit of savings at the very least. But eh. He probably blew a lot on his various campaigns. Maybe he likes to gamble too.GreenGoo wrote:They all get that.LawBeefaroni wrote:He's got health care for the rest of his life and will probably draw a few hundred K/year in pension. That's probably the same lifestyle as someone retiring with several million dollars in the bank, right?
I wasn't suggesting he was going to live in a box on the street come retirement, I was questioning how it is possible to not acquire more wealth in what appears to be a successful political career.
"At a conference in 2013 at Johns Hopkins University, Vice Provost Jonathan Bagger pointed out that only six miles separate the Baltimore neighborhoods of Roland Park and Hollins Market.
But there is a 20-year difference in the average life expectancy." We have learned in the last few years that life expectancy, which is a measure of the quality of life in communities and countries, manifests the same inequality that we see in so many other parts of our society.
Women—white women without high school education—are losing life expectancy. Black men and black women are seeing their life expectancy goes down in so many parts of our country.
This may not grab headlines, although I was glad to see it on the front page of USA Today. But it tells us more than I think we can bear about what we are up against.
We need to start understanding how important it is to care for every single child as though that child were our own.
David and I started our conversation this morning talking about our grandchildren; now his are considerably older than mine. But it was not just two longtime friends catching up with each other. It was so clearly sharing what is most important to us, as it is to families everywhere in our country.
So I don't want the discussion about criminal justice, smart policing, to be siloed and to permit discussions and arguments and debates about it to only talk about that. The conversation needs to be much broader. Because that is a symptom, not a cause, of what ails us today...
...Let's protect the rights of all our people. Let's take on the broader inequities in our society. You can't separate out the unrest we see in the streets from the cycles of poverty and despair that hollow out those neighborhoods.
Problems that 30+ years of Democratic party leadership hasn't made a dent in for them, so what are they going to do different that will matter? Failed policies will continue to fail, I have yet to see them float a solution with a reasonable chance of success. The problem itself isn't new, we have been promised over and over again that (insert candidate here) has the solution.Pyperkub wrote:Clinton's Speech today struck all the right notes:
"At a conference in 2013 at Johns Hopkins University, Vice Provost Jonathan Bagger pointed out that only six miles separate the Baltimore neighborhoods of Roland Park and Hollins Market.
But there is a 20-year difference in the average life expectancy." We have learned in the last few years that life expectancy, which is a measure of the quality of life in communities and countries, manifests the same inequality that we see in so many other parts of our society.
Women—white women without high school education—are losing life expectancy. Black men and black women are seeing their life expectancy goes down in so many parts of our country.
This may not grab headlines, although I was glad to see it on the front page of USA Today. But it tells us more than I think we can bear about what we are up against.
We need to start understanding how important it is to care for every single child as though that child were our own.
David and I started our conversation this morning talking about our grandchildren; now his are considerably older than mine. But it was not just two longtime friends catching up with each other. It was so clearly sharing what is most important to us, as it is to families everywhere in our country.
So I don't want the discussion about criminal justice, smart policing, to be siloed and to permit discussions and arguments and debates about it to only talk about that. The conversation needs to be much broader. Because that is a symptom, not a cause, of what ails us today...
...Let's protect the rights of all our people. Let's take on the broader inequities in our society. You can't separate out the unrest we see in the streets from the cycles of poverty and despair that hollow out those neighborhoods.
I'm glad that you seem to think that this is a Baltimore only problem, all evidence to the contrary.Rip wrote:Problems that 30+ years of Democratic party leadership hasn't made a dent in for them, so what are they going to do different that will matter? Failed policies will continue to fail, I have yet to see them float a solution with a reasonable chance of success. The problem itself isn't new, we have been promised over and over again that (insert candidate here) has the solution.Pyperkub wrote:Clinton's Speech today struck all the right notes:
"At a conference in 2013 at Johns Hopkins University, Vice Provost Jonathan Bagger pointed out that only six miles separate the Baltimore neighborhoods of Roland Park and Hollins Market.
But there is a 20-year difference in the average life expectancy." We have learned in the last few years that life expectancy, which is a measure of the quality of life in communities and countries, manifests the same inequality that we see in so many other parts of our society.
Women—white women without high school education—are losing life expectancy. Black men and black women are seeing their life expectancy goes down in so many parts of our country.
This may not grab headlines, although I was glad to see it on the front page of USA Today. But it tells us more than I think we can bear about what we are up against.
We need to start understanding how important it is to care for every single child as though that child were our own.
David and I started our conversation this morning talking about our grandchildren; now his are considerably older than mine. But it was not just two longtime friends catching up with each other. It was so clearly sharing what is most important to us, as it is to families everywhere in our country.
So I don't want the discussion about criminal justice, smart policing, to be siloed and to permit discussions and arguments and debates about it to only talk about that. The conversation needs to be much broader. Because that is a symptom, not a cause, of what ails us today...
...Let's protect the rights of all our people. Let's take on the broader inequities in our society. You can't separate out the unrest we see in the streets from the cycles of poverty and despair that hollow out those neighborhoods.
OK then, eight years of Obama has made it worse, why is Hillary going to be better? Is she more sensitive and aware how to fix it than he has been? Is she able to do something he hasn't been able to?Pyperkub wrote:I'm glad that you seem to think that this is a Baltimore only problem, all evidence to the contrary.Rip wrote:Problems that 30+ years of Democratic party leadership hasn't made a dent in for them, so what are they going to do different that will matter? Failed policies will continue to fail, I have yet to see them float a solution with a reasonable chance of success. The problem itself isn't new, we have been promised over and over again that (insert candidate here) has the solution.Pyperkub wrote:Clinton's Speech today struck all the right notes:
"At a conference in 2013 at Johns Hopkins University, Vice Provost Jonathan Bagger pointed out that only six miles separate the Baltimore neighborhoods of Roland Park and Hollins Market.
But there is a 20-year difference in the average life expectancy." We have learned in the last few years that life expectancy, which is a measure of the quality of life in communities and countries, manifests the same inequality that we see in so many other parts of our society.
Women—white women without high school education—are losing life expectancy. Black men and black women are seeing their life expectancy goes down in so many parts of our country.
This may not grab headlines, although I was glad to see it on the front page of USA Today. But it tells us more than I think we can bear about what we are up against.
We need to start understanding how important it is to care for every single child as though that child were our own.
David and I started our conversation this morning talking about our grandchildren; now his are considerably older than mine. But it was not just two longtime friends catching up with each other. It was so clearly sharing what is most important to us, as it is to families everywhere in our country.
So I don't want the discussion about criminal justice, smart policing, to be siloed and to permit discussions and arguments and debates about it to only talk about that. The conversation needs to be much broader. Because that is a symptom, not a cause, of what ails us today...
...Let's protect the rights of all our people. Let's take on the broader inequities in our society. You can't separate out the unrest we see in the streets from the cycles of poverty and despair that hollow out those neighborhoods.
30 years of cutting taxes and promoting policies which offshore bluecollar jobs. Revisiting the war on drugs which has become a war on the poor.Rip wrote:OK then, eight years of Obama has made it worse, why is Hillary going to be better? Is she more sensitive and aware how to fix it than he has been? Is she able to do something he hasn't been able to?Pyperkub wrote:I'm glad that you seem to think that this is a Baltimore only problem, all evidence to the contrary.Rip wrote:Problems that 30+ years of Democratic party leadership hasn't made a dent in for them, so what are they going to do different that will matter? Failed policies will continue to fail, I have yet to see them float a solution with a reasonable chance of success. The problem itself isn't new, we have been promised over and over again that (insert candidate here) has the solution.Pyperkub wrote:Clinton's Speech today struck all the right notes:
"At a conference in 2013 at Johns Hopkins University, Vice Provost Jonathan Bagger pointed out that only six miles separate the Baltimore neighborhoods of Roland Park and Hollins Market.
But there is a 20-year difference in the average life expectancy." We have learned in the last few years that life expectancy, which is a measure of the quality of life in communities and countries, manifests the same inequality that we see in so many other parts of our society.
Women—white women without high school education—are losing life expectancy. Black men and black women are seeing their life expectancy goes down in so many parts of our country.
This may not grab headlines, although I was glad to see it on the front page of USA Today. But it tells us more than I think we can bear about what we are up against.
We need to start understanding how important it is to care for every single child as though that child were our own.
David and I started our conversation this morning talking about our grandchildren; now his are considerably older than mine. But it was not just two longtime friends catching up with each other. It was so clearly sharing what is most important to us, as it is to families everywhere in our country.
So I don't want the discussion about criminal justice, smart policing, to be siloed and to permit discussions and arguments and debates about it to only talk about that. The conversation needs to be much broader. Because that is a symptom, not a cause, of what ails us today...
...Let's protect the rights of all our people. Let's take on the broader inequities in our society. You can't separate out the unrest we see in the streets from the cycles of poverty and despair that hollow out those neighborhoods.
Compared to the previous guy's watch, or do you just mean in the way that it always get's worse?Rip wrote:Again, what makes anyone think she can fix something Obama has had no success with?
They not only haven't fixed it, it has gotten much worse on their watch.
Upon what are you basing your statement that it has "gotten worse on their watch", by the way?Rip wrote:Again, what makes anyone think she can fix something Obama has had no success with?
They not only haven't fixed it, it has gotten much worse on their watch.
I'll just let Allen West lay it out.Pyperkub wrote:Upon what are you basing your statement that it has "gotten worse on their watch", by the way?Rip wrote:Again, what makes anyone think she can fix something Obama has had no success with?
They not only haven't fixed it, it has gotten much worse on their watch.
Has it gotten more publicity? Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has 'gotten worse', only more visible, perhaps.
I'm not saying you're wrong or that you're right, I just want to make sure we aren't leaping to a conclusion here.
He's presenting opinion as fact. Show me some numbers.Rip wrote:I'll just let Allen West lay it out.Pyperkub wrote:Upon what are you basing your statement that it has "gotten worse on their watch", by the way?Rip wrote:Again, what makes anyone think she can fix something Obama has had no success with?
They not only haven't fixed it, it has gotten much worse on their watch.
Has it gotten more publicity? Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has 'gotten worse', only more visible, perhaps.
I'm not saying you're wrong or that you're right, I just want to make sure we aren't leaping to a conclusion here.
http://allenbwest.com/2015/04/the-dirty ... baltimore/
He is spot on. It is somewhat about poverty but not entirely.
I agree.Pyperkub wrote:
Frankly, I don't think she can or will do it, but the speech is a lot more relevant to the core issues than anything any of the GOP Candidates have said.
I'm really happy for you and Imma gonna let you finish, but lemee just say - these three Republican governors have some of the biggest deficits of all time. Of all time:Rip wrote:I'll just let Allen West lay it out.Pyperkub wrote:Upon what are you basing your statement that it has "gotten worse on their watch", by the way?Rip wrote:Again, what makes anyone think she can fix something Obama has had no success with?
They not only haven't fixed it, it has gotten much worse on their watch.
Has it gotten more publicity? Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has 'gotten worse', only more visible, perhaps.
I'm not saying you're wrong or that you're right, I just want to make sure we aren't leaping to a conclusion here.
http://allenbwest.com/2015/04/the-dirty ... baltimore/
He is spot on. It is somewhat about poverty but not entirely.
At what point did I say I wanted one of them?raydude wrote:I'm really happy for you and Imma gonna let you finish, but lemee just say - these three Republican governors have some of the biggest deficits of all time. Of all time:Rip wrote:I'll just let Allen West lay it out.Pyperkub wrote:Upon what are you basing your statement that it has "gotten worse on their watch", by the way?Rip wrote:Again, what makes anyone think she can fix something Obama has had no success with?
They not only haven't fixed it, it has gotten much worse on their watch.
Has it gotten more publicity? Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has 'gotten worse', only more visible, perhaps.
I'm not saying you're wrong or that you're right, I just want to make sure we aren't leaping to a conclusion here.
http://allenbwest.com/2015/04/the-dirty ... baltimore/
He is spot on. It is somewhat about poverty but not entirely.
Scott Walker
Chris Christie
Bobby Jindal
And you want these idiots to try their hand at presenting a national budget?
But the very thought that any of them could increase the deficit more than the current clown is laughable.We Are Wisconsin stated that, with his proposal to cut income and property taxes, Walker is "increasing the state deficit at a time when borrowing is already at record levels."
The statement contains an element of truth in that state borrowing is at an all-time high -- but, flush with a nearly $1 billion surplus, it’s clear the state does not have a budget deficit.
Moreover, an increase in the "structural deficit" -- a projection of a possible imbalance of expenditures and revenues in the future -- has no direct relation to how much the state borrows.
We rate the statement Mostly False.
Facts are Rip's natural enemy.Rip wrote:
But the very thought that any of them could increase the deficit more than the current clown is laughable.
hepcat wrote:Facts are Rip's natural enemy.Rip wrote:
But the very thought that any of them could increase the deficit more than the current clown is laughable.
Mountains also have peaks.Fireball wrote:Back down to where it was when he started? The President inherited a $1.4 trillion budget deficit from George W. Bush.
But wasn't Bush's last year and Obama's first year inflated due to TARP (and that other temporary program(s) related to fixing the economy)?Fireball wrote:Back down to where it was when he started? The President inherited a $1.4 trillion budget deficit from George W. Bush.
I know, my point was the debt ballooned throughout and continues to.Defiant wrote:Err, that graph's the debt, not the deficit
To you maybe, to the average person on the street that isn't true.GreenGoo wrote:I hear a lot crap up here. When you guys are in serious financial trouble, we hear about it. It's big news to us.
While things aren't perfect down there, we are constantly tracking your economy, and let me just say that it has been a LONG time since there was talk of implosion.
The idea that you guys are somehow worse off than when Obama took the reins is...gibberish.
I know it might feel shitty, since your recovery hasn't been super awesome, but things are definitely better across the country in general than they were in 2008 by a long, long ways.
Rip wrote:I know, my point was the debt ballooned throughout and continues to.Defiant wrote:Err, that graph's the debt, not the deficit
Rip wrote: But the very thought that any of them could increase the deficit more than the current clown is laughable.
Rip wrote:
2009 is that changover year, and while people like to say it goes on the departing POTUS it really isn't that simple. How about we look at deficit for each across eight years? Who spent more over their eight years? Picking out a single year of each ones term and use that as being indicative of their overall deficit spending is disingenuous.
and as I said his deficit spending over the term was way higher than Bush.El Guapo wrote:Rip wrote:I know, my point was the debt ballooned throughout and continues to.Defiant wrote:Err, that graph's the debt, not the deficitRip wrote: But the very thought that any of them could increase the deficit more than the current clown is laughable.Rip wrote:
2009 is that changover year, and while people like to say it goes on the departing POTUS it really isn't that simple. How about we look at deficit for each across eight years? Who spent more over their eight years? Picking out a single year of each ones term and use that as being indicative of their overall deficit spending is disingenuous.
President Obama has the largest deficits, totaling $6.8 trillion projected for his eight years in office. Obama's budgets included the economic stimulus package, which added $787 billion by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and funding job-creating public works projects. The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion to the debt over two years. Obama's budget included increased defense spending to around $800 billion a year. Federal income was down, a result of lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis.Both Presidents Bush and Obama had to contend with higher mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare than their predecessors did. That's because health care costs were rising, and the American population was aging. Obama also sponsored the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was designed to reduce the debt by $143 billion over 10 years. However, these savings don't show up until later years. For more, see National Debt Under Obama.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/people/fl ... sident.htmPresident Bush is next, racking up $3.294 trillion over two terms. He responded to the attacks on 9/11 by launching the War on Terror. This drove military spending to a new records, between $600-$800 billion a year. President Bush also responded to the 2001 recession by passing EGTRRA and JGTRRA, otherwise known as the Bush tax cuts.
I think the first thing you need to do is to determine which Rip is writing which posts.El Guapo wrote:Rip wrote:I know, my point was the debt ballooned throughout and continues to.Defiant wrote:Err, that graph's the debt, not the deficitRip wrote: But the very thought that any of them could increase the deficit more than the current clown is laughable.Rip wrote:
2009 is that changover year, and while people like to say it goes on the departing POTUS it really isn't that simple. How about we look at deficit for each across eight years? Who spent more over their eight years? Picking out a single year of each ones term and use that as being indicative of their overall deficit spending is disingenuous.
How was life during the collapse? Pretty awesome I'm thinking. Especially layoffs. The entire country living in dread of the next staff meeting. Yeah, no, things are much worse now than when people were losing their homes, jobs and savings.Rip wrote:To you maybe, to the average person on the street that isn't true.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ve-it.html
Which is totally relevant to the economy's performance. Yeah, no, not a hit piece anything.Barack Obama is close to having played more rounds of golf since 2009 than Tiger Woods.
It probably doesn't show up in serious economic reports, however.Moliere wrote:Criticizing Presidents for taking vacations is pretty common.
The silly thing is that the President is never truly on vacation. Whether he is at the White House, a ranch in Texas, or hanging out in Martha's Vineyard he's getting daily reports, holding meetings, and in constant touch with everything going on. It's not like the rest of us that can leave the cell phone at home and spend the week on the beach off the grid.GreenGoo wrote:It probably doesn't show up in serious economic reports, however.Moliere wrote:Criticizing Presidents for taking vacations is pretty common.
Then why do you keep saying deficit?Rip wrote:I know, my point was the debt ballooned throughout and continues to.Defiant wrote:Err, that graph's the debt, not the deficit
Alefroth wrote:Fact: You don't know what you're talking about. The deficit is shrinking, a lot.Zekester wrote: Higher taxes are the liberals domain. Because of higher taxes I cannot afford to buy some things that I would have before Obama's liberal policies. Fact.And the deficit is the worst its ever been...by a huge margin.
Maybe so, but Obama reversed the rising deficit trend and it's been reduced every year he has been in office. Something that hasn't happened in over 100 years. Maybe he needs four more years.Defiant wrote:The deficit is going down, but it's still higher than all but the end of Bush's term (which was high due to TARP, etc, as were Obama's first few years).
Of course, as with all things Corporate Clinton, I wouldn't consider this set in stone until seeing actual action, but I will take it as a positive.Hillary Clinton is opposed to a critical piece of the Obama administration's Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would give corporations the right to sue sovereign nations over laws or regulations that could potentially curb their profits.
The policy position is contained in her book Hard Choices, and was confirmed to HuffPost by a spokesperson for her presidential campaign.