Scientists name saddest movie scene ever

[Syn7]

Can't feed em, dont breed em.

what about those people who had good jobs then lost everything when some r1ch d1ckhead cashed out his own stocks but forgot to mention the inside info to you before the markets crashed???

maybe we can cram those kids back in...

alot of people lived responsibly and simply got screwed by the top 0.01 percent of the country and the boot licking politicians who allowed themselves to be bought for long enough to play out this scam... and thats what it was, a giant scam... these people are responsible for ruining millions of lives, yet not one is in prison??? where are your hardcore crime and punishment gun toters on that one blue???

not everyone who lost their shirt in 2008 were irresponsible homeowners living far beyong their means... a major MAJOR chunk of the losses came from estates, life savings and pensions... and these people did NOTHING wrong exept for believing in the american economical system... and for their loyalty they were kicked in the ass and when the money was all gone they couldnt even get a phone call returned... especially not from any of those cats who cashed out, by complete luck and the grace of GOD of course, ten minutes before the crash...

[Taixuquan99]

The value of currency is meaningless to whether you are actually paying for the kids you have. Considering that, aside from a brief time under Clinton, our economy was based, in part, on deficit spending, no one has paid for the actual costs of their lifestyle for some decades.

[Syn7]

brought democracy to Iraq, removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.

lol... and hows that all going???


did they ever find the three trillion of taxpayers money that went missing over there???

how come nobody is talking about that??? they lost it, like physically lost the cash... the pallettes just upped and walked away... didn't see that one all over fox...

[Syn7]

I just think it funny that a guy who teaches others to defend themselves is against our nation defending itself when thousands of innocent Americans are murdered.

well some dude across the street was mad dogging me earlier... i should prolly go knife him then, ay???

[Syn7]

i'd like to nominate the saddest scene on tv ever...

Battlestar galactica when they took that little girl away from starbuck who she thought was her daughter

casey!!!!!!!

[Taixuquan99]

There is no legitimate democracy in the Middle East. It is waaay to soon to judge whether Iraq will become a legitimate democracy.

[Syn7]

Would the current bombing of Libya count as self defense?

so do a hundred other countries, should we raid them all??? if you really believed that then you would have to believe that china must be attacked and put in its place... it is a major sponsor of local, continental and global terrorism in so many ways.... and canada is used to funnel funds to terrorists, same with the states... we should attack ourselves, for sure!!!! we should totally bomb ourselves, that'll learn us to fukc around with ourselves!!!

[rett]

so do a hundred other countries, should we raid them all???

When it comes to attacking countries, it's not so much about should. We attack the countries we can. It's hard work to piece together the shorter or longer term legitimacy for an attack, and that has to be combined with sufficient backing from influential private and public actors with a strong interest in the project.

Attacking countries is a big risk. Like releasing a record album. There are a lot of flops, but occasionally you get a big hit, like WWII. It's all part of the game. If it wasn't for all the stupid wars, you wouldn't be able to get the occasional awesome war like WWII that people remember fondly. (WWII is like the Abbey Road of wars)

[wenshu]

Tax cuts do generate higher revenues, so that's not a bad idea.

In the world you live in does water flow uphill too?

OH yeah. Since we've paid off the trillions we spent on those two meaningless conflagrations.

[BJJ-Blue]

BLUE, i question whether you really understand just how tough it can be for some people to climb out of a gutter that they have been put in by circumstance or chance of birth. its not as easy to get out of as you seem to think. some people are held down no matter how hard they are willing to work. and thats not even adressing the countless people who want to work but there is no work in their town and they cant even afford to leave and find work elsewhere... forced to take whatever they can find just to stay afloat and break even, if that...

I have family that we're dealt a really bad hand early in life. They both ended up fine. But they had to put in alot of blood, sweat, and tears and sacrifice alot of their wants to get their. It can be done, you guys act like it's impossible to succeed if you're born poor without the Gov't.

Quick question: Before welfare (the 1960s), how did people in this country who were born poor make it? I mean, that should have been dying in the streets without Gov't checks, right? This country went from being a colony to being the richest nation in the world, and we did it without welfare programs.

And there are plenty of jobs available now for ANY able-bodied person. The military is hiring. And you get a free education (GI Bill) if you serve honorably. I don't even think you need a HS diploma to join, but I may be incorrect. But you darn sure don't need any college credits to join.

what about those people who had good jobs then lost everything when some r1ch d1ckhead cashed out his own stocks but forgot to mention the inside info to you before the markets crashed???

maybe we can cram those kids back in...

That's what unemployment is for. Working people who lost their jobs. But this is what peeves me about this: If I work my butt off and get laid off, I get unemployment for a maximum of ~2 years, right? But if I never get a job in the first place I can collect welfare for my whole life. How fair is that?

And your example doesn't cover those already on welfare who have more kids and thus get bigger checks. You tell me how rewarding bad decisions is good for a society.

alot of people lived responsibly and simply got screwed by the top 0.01 percent of the country and the boot licking politicians who allowed themselves to be bought for long enough to play out this scam... and thats what it was, a giant scam... these people are responsible for ruining millions of lives, yet not one is in prison??? where are your hardcore crime and punishment gun toters on that one blue???

You're hatred of "the rich" is blinding you to facts and reality. Alot of jobs were offshored due to Gov't regulation, not some rich guys trying to screw people. I don't see you worked up about that. And we bailed out the UAW for God's sake! So stop with this, 'the working man always get hosed' bit.

Here is a great example of Gov't killing jobs. The Gov't has outlawed incadescent light bulbs, they are forcing us to buy these LED bulbs. Well guess what, due to certain chemicals used in the new bulbs and EPA regulations, the new bulbs can't even be made in this country! So the Gov't has forced us to stop buying bulbs made in the USA and forced us to buy bulbs made in China. How is that the "top 0.01 percent' screwing us? It's not. It's the **** Gov't. And the sooner you realize 'the rich' are the job producers and the Gov't is the job killer, the sooner you will see what has to be done to get jobs back to the USA.

Just out of curiosity, what do you do for a living? I'm curious because your outlook is so different than mine. I'm in high tech, and we wrote the book on offshoring jobs. What industry are you in?

[BJJ-Blue]

In the world you live in does water flow uphill too?

No, but in my world facts are facts.

"These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase. The graph below illustrates changes in the tax burden during this period."

Graph mentioned:
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...txct/fig-1.gif
Source: (entire article)
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reagtxct.htm


"Tax receipts 1981: $517 billion
Tax receipts 1990: $1.032 trillion

The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% of GDP in 1987. The federal deficit in Reagan's final budget fell to 2.9% of GDP.

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency."

Source: (full article)
http://reference.findtarget.com/search/Reaganomics/


So now you've learned that even though Reagan cut tax rates, the total amount of tax revenue increased. And you've also learned that although he cut the top wage earners rates the most, their percentage of the tax burden actually increased. So knowing this, why are you opposing a proven conservative answer to our problems?

[wenshu]

No, but in my world facts are facts.

"These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase. The graph below illustrates changes in the tax burden during this period."

Graph mentioned:
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...txct/fig-1.gif
Source: (entire article)
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reagtxct.htm


"Tax receipts 1981: $517 billion
Tax receipts 1990: $1.032 trillion

The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% of GDP in 1987. The federal deficit in Reagan's final budget fell to 2.9% of GDP.

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency."

Source: (full article)
http://reference.findtarget.com/search/Reaganomics/


So now you've learned that even though Reagan cut tax rates, the total amount of tax revenue increased. And you've also learned that although he cut the top wage earners rates the most, their percentage of the tax burden actually increased. So knowing this, why are you opposing a proven conservative answer to our problems?

In your world sources are biased and misleading.

http://www.factcheck.org/republican_...n_but_our.html

[BJJ-Blue]

In your world sources are biased and misleading.

http://www.factcheck.org/republican_...n_but_our.html

Ok, let's say your source is correct. I'll even be a good guy and concede that to you.

So that means this part of my claim was incorrect:

"Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years."

Now refute the remainder of my post/figures. Especially the part where my source is Gov't figures.

[wenshu]

Do you even know how to read?

It is hilarious that you of all people who constantly professes such mistrust for the Government now acts as if figures from a Congressional Committee are statistically unbiased. Oh I forget, your mistrust of the Government only extends as far as which party is in control of it.

[BJJ-Blue]

Do you even know how to read?

It is hilarious that you of all people who constantly professes such mistrust for the Government now acts as if figures from a Congressional Committee are statistically unbiased. Oh I forget, your mistrust of the Government only extends as far as which party is in control of it.

LMFAO!!!

So you can't refute the FACT that during the Reagan years he cut taxes and yet the Treasury took in more taxes. And you also cannot refute the FACT that during that same time "The Rich" paid a larger share of taxes than before Reaganonomics despite getting the largest tax rate cut.

So the Reagan years achieved what you guys are clamoring for! "The Rich" paid a larger share of taxes, and Gov't revenue grew. Isn't this what you guys want? I hear you whining all the time about "The rich" not paying their fair share. Under Reagan they paid a larger share, yet you blast the man's policies. It's illogical.

Why are you arguing to argue? Can't you just accept when something works, it works? People like you are the problem. They get to Congress and look at it as a game they have to win. They have to 'beat' the other side. They can't just look at a policy and judge it on it's merits. Face it, facts have shown that tax cuts increase revenue and increase GDP. While Obama has shown that massive Gov't spending has only increased unemployment and slowed GDP. These are facts. Hell, you're seeing an Obama/Keynes economy fail right in front of your face, yet you can't even acknowledge it. Are you blind, or just holding your hands over your eyes and screaming, "I cant see you, na na na na"?