Conquer Club

Falkomagno wrote:

that fixes everything...

Falk, in your opinion, when did the economy start tanking?

it starts at 2007, mainly due to lack of appropiate regulations in financial mechanism, as hedge funds, and the abuse trade of debt with no real (tangible)support. It can be state that the economical crisis ends this year.

Falkomagno wrote:it starts at 2007, mainly due to lack of appropiate regulations in financial mechanism, as hedge funds, and the abuse trade of debt with no real (tangible)support. It can be state that the economical crisis ends this year.

but, 2007 is the same year the democrats gained power on all the committees and took control of all spending...

Phatscotty wrote:

Falkomagno wrote:it starts at 2007, mainly due to lack of appropiate regulations in financial mechanism, as hedge funds, and the abuse trade of debt with no real (tangible)support. It can be state that the economical crisis ends this year.

but, 2007 is the same year the democrats gained power on all the committees and took control of all spending...

as you maybe now...obama was in charge from 2008. Are you implying that the economical crisis 2007-2010 is obama or democrats fault? you sure?

give Falko a break ... most Europeans don't understand how non-parliamentary systems of governance work; he's making an honest error in the assumption that the president is head of the majority party

besides, he's obviously posting via a Babelfish translator and there are always possibilities of misunderstandings when using that as a go-between

So, the president is not responsible for any budget in the goverment, unless he is obama...yeah right...

Falkomagno wrote:So, the president is not responsible for any budget in the goverment, unless he is obama...yeah right...

If anyone can recommend a good book on American government written in the Catalan tongue I'm certain Falko would appreciate it.

Catalá is a beautiful language. But that's not relevant here

I once fucked a girl from barcelona

Barcelona is an amazing city.

Falkomagno wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Falkomagno wrote:it starts at 2007, mainly due to lack of appropiate regulations in financial mechanism, as hedge funds, and the abuse trade of debt with no real (tangible)support. It can be state that the economical crisis ends this year.

but, 2007 is the same year the democrats gained power on all the committees and took control of all spending...

as you maybe now...obama was in charge from 2008. Are you implying that the economical crisis 2007-2010 is obama or democrats fault? you sure?

um, like the democratic....CONGRESS. Just pointing out facts. The democrats won the election of 2006 and took over in 2007.. Congress writes the laws and controls the spending.....

With such strong opinions on the issues, am I surprised you did not know this

saxitoxin wrote:give Falko a break ... most Europeans don't understand how non-parliamentary systems of governance work; he's making an honest error in the assumption that the president is head of the majority party

I always have, until falky starting calling me names and insulting me

Phatscotty wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:give Falko a break ... most Europeans don't understand how non-parliamentary systems of governance work; he's making an honest error in the assumption that the president is head of the majority party

I always have, until falky starting calling me names and insulting me

I'm not unsulting you, but your ideas.

Falkomagno wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:give Falko a break ... most Europeans don't understand how non-parliamentary systems of governance work; he's making an honest error in the assumption that the president is head of the majority party

I always have, until falky starting calling me names and insulting me

I'm not unsulting you, but your ideas.

yes well you should be able to argue your own ideas without sinking to that level, and you should be able to pick apart my ideas if you know what you are talking about. As of this moment, we are arguing the premise, because I will not even agree that you know what is really going on here or understand the issue you are so passionate about. I am a conservative independent with a voting track record of Jesse Ventura and Ralph Nader. So I guarantee you I know both sides, and I will even say all three, as I am probably the biggest third party supporter here. Third party politics worked extremely well in Minnesota, IMO. When the democrats had a better idea, or more republican support, Jesse sided with the democrats. When the republicans had a better idea, Jesse sided with republicans. I voted for Nader #1 first and foremost to get us the hell out of Iraq, asap, among other, more affordable reasons. So don't you for one second label me or target me or insult me like a far-right nut with right wing ideas. My economics have 9 times more to do with it than politics.

I had sex in Barcelona.

nietzsche wrote:I once fucked a girl from barcelona

Vicky or Cristina?

You guys better stop the insulting and start unsulting.

BigBallinStalin wrote:You guys better stop the insulting and start unsulting.

Oops, I guess another lie of Obamacare has been exposed. It's pretty bad when everything they claimed about the legislation is proving to be false. It looks like the Democrats did have a messaging problem that caused them to lose the election: all their messages have proven to be false.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010 ... osts-rise/

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc116 ... ricing.pdf

Night Strike wrote:Oops, I guess another lie of Obamacare has been exposed. It's pretty bad when everything they claimed about the legislation is proving to be false. It looks like the Democrats did have a messaging problem that caused them to lose the election: all their messages have proven to be false.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010 ... osts-rise/

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc116 ... ricing.pdf

So...“the costs faced by some beneficiaries slightly higher than they would be in the absence of those provisions.”

That's the Conclusion, Now Jump to It!

The Article wrote:The 50 percent rebate in the Medicare "doughnut hole," meanwhile, should be so substantial that seniors who reach that would pay less overall for their drugs, even after factoring in the higher prices they'll pay for the portion of drugs consumed before reaching the doughnut hole.

So the Fox business article simply cuts out facts and ignores the principles of free market and competition that it and its audience holds dearly in order to trash the bill.

From the actual letter:

The Actual Letter wrote:Manufacturers’ ability to raise prices on drugs that are already on the market is constrained, however, by the additional rebate required for drugs whose prices grow faster than inflation. Moreover, competition from drugs already on the market will probably limit the extent to which manufacturers charge higher prices for certain new drugs, particularly those that are different formulations or strengths of products already on the market. In addition, states’ continuing efforts
to negotiate supplemental rebates in return for preferred treatment will tend to limit manufacturers’ ability to reduce such rebates.

The claim that the legislation does nothing to reign in increases is obviously false.

And those "small, grocery store profit margins" actually add up to $11 billion a year. Oh, those poor oppressed insurance companies. They should be happy they have a right to exist, considering this is the only industrialized nation without kind of socialized medicine. Even Japan, a more fiscally conservative nation than us, does.

You expected sensible debate from Phattscotty on this?

His analysis is "Fox told me" oops.. make that "I told Fox" that "this is socialism, so it must be bad"... ignore anything that does not support this thesis.

Notice how he quickly ignores any real data brought forward that disproves his points? Such as, never mind that every study ever done shows that other countries, with various types of subsidized national healthcare, ALL pay far less than us, he still insists he is correct to claim that I am just wrong and divested from reality to make such a claim.

PLAYER57832 wrote:You expected sensible debate from Phattscotty on this?

His analysis is "Fox told me" oops.. make that "I told Fox" that "this is socialism, so it must be bad"... ignore anything that does not support this thesis.

Notice how he quickly ignores any real data brought forward that disproves his points? Such as, never mind that every study ever done shows that other countries, with various types of subsidized national healthcare, ALL pay far less than us, he still insists he is correct to claim that I am just wrong and divested from reality to make such a claim.

They all pay less because no one ever factors in taxes or government debt. And they make drastic cuts to things like elective operations that people in the US choose to pay for. Let's put the real numbers on the table and not these doctored ones put up my pro-socialistic healthcare.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:You expected sensible debate from Phattscotty on this?

His analysis is "Fox told me" oops.. make that "I told Fox" that "this is socialism, so it must be bad"... ignore anything that does not support this thesis.

Notice how he quickly ignores any real data brought forward that disproves his points? Such as, never mind that every study ever done shows that other countries, with various types of subsidized national healthcare, ALL pay far less than us, he still insists he is correct to claim that I am just wrong and divested from reality to make such a claim.

They all pay less because no one ever factors in taxes or government debt.

This is not true.

Night Strike wrote:And they make drastic cuts to things like elective operations that people in the US choose to pay for.

LOL.. this AGAIN?
Care to check limitations on your average insurance policy lately? Sounds like you have not even read your own policy, because ALMOST NO INSURANCE CURRENTLY OFFERS FULL COVERAGE any longer.

FURTHER, people in many of those countrys do have the option to pay for elective care. In fact, in some cases, they can go to other countries to get care if they wish.

Night Strike wrote:Let's put the real numbers on the table and not these doctored ones put up my pro-socialistic healthcare.

FAIL. You never bothered to see who created that data, did you?
It would be nice if you ONCE actually read something before lopping off your standard criticism, because you have not.

Night Strike wrote:They all pay less because no one ever factors in taxes or government debt. And they make drastic cuts to things like elective operations that people in the US choose to pay for. Let's put the real numbers on the table and not these doctored ones put up my pro-socialistic healthcare.

You are the one who doctored up facts by blindly accepting the Fox article's claim that this bill makes no attempt to limit the companies' ability to raise prices. If you read my last post and didn't conveniently change the subject, you'd see that.

But, once again, you're wrong here.

Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development


Yes, the US government spends more money as a percentage of GDP than any other nation in the world. Yes, the US is the only one without socialized medicine. The increase in taxes would be less than what you would pay to an insurance company because the government isn't in it for the $11 billion in profits. Less overhead = less costs passed on to the consumer. Simply put, a government run system means lower costs. This effect is even more pronounced when you consider that other nations don't have a huge chunk of their economy being put toward two wars.

And your conclusion that more spending automatically means more debt is totally false. I'll use the dreaded Canadian system as an example, since they are around the same on the Index of Economic Freedom (Canada is 7th, US is 9th) and have nearly equal per capita incomes.

Not Doctored Up

In Canada total tax and non-tax revenue for every level of government equals about 38.4% of GDP, compared to the U.S. rate of 28.2%. While the US is running deficits of about 4% of GDP, Canada has consistently posted a budget surplus of around 1% of GDP.

So Canada spends around half the percent of GDP, covers all its citizens, and manages to run a surplus consistently.

When presented with reality, you're arguments for the original subject and the one you conveniently changed to are wrong.