( OT ) The case of the 12 zeros
 

The Bush administration and the Republican Party seem to have lost all
capacity for financial self-control, turning their backs on the GOP's
historical record of responsible fiscal management. The Republicans have
squandered the huge budget surplus they inherited by spending not just
on guns and butter but on guns, butter, and tax cuts. Because of
government obfuscation, most Americans don't realize the deep fiscal
hole we're in--and the fact that we're still busy digging. As David
Walker, the head of the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office,
pointed out, "The federal government's obligations, current liabilities,
and unfunded fiscal commitments are over $43 trillion and rising. . . .
Yes, that's trillions with 12 zeros rather than billions with nine zeros."

The estimated net worth of American families is slightly over $47
trillion, and nearly all of it--90 per-cent--would be needed to cover
government's current obligations. And don't think we can grow our way
out of this hole. According to the GAO, it would take real double-digit
growth over the next 75 years to pay off our current debt--an impossible
task, considering that the growth rate during the 1990s boom years
averaged just 3.2 percent.

A trillion here, a trillion there. The hole is even deeper because these
debt projections exclude the cost of Bush's second-term agenda, which
would add over $5 trillion to the deficit over the next decade by making
his tax cuts permanent ($1 trillion) and privatizing Social Security
($1.5 trillion in the first decade; $3.5 trillion in the second)--not to
mention the tens of billions of dollars likely to be spent on military
operations. And all this spending would come at a time when the first
baby boomers are on the verge of retiring, causing Medicare and Social
Security costs to soar. The president says his budget would cut the
deficit in half by 2009. But this is a mirage. Why? Because it excludes
the cost of the Iraq war and the cost of his privatization program for
Social Security--to name just two whoppers.

What's worse, by cutting on the other side of the ledger, the Bush
budget would slash or eliminate programs that affect the quality of life
of millions of Americans. Among the proposed cuts: a 12 percent
reduction in elementary and secondary education programs; a 14 percent
drop in spending on Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor and
disabled; a 20 percent cut for clean water and clean air. Spending on
Head Start would be slashed by $3.3 billion, meaning 118,000 fewer kids
would be covered by 2010, while the program that subsidizes nutritional
assistance to low-income pregnant women and nursing mothers, critical to
preventing low-weight babies, would have to reduce the number of women
covered by 740,000. At the same time, however, the Bush budget would
increase highway spending--the budget's single biggest pork-barrel
program--by $284 billion over six years from the current $218 billion.
The egregious farm-subsidy program, meanwhile, which benefits huge
agribusinesses far more than it helps small family farms, would hardly
be touched.

But wait, it gets worse. The real cost of the president's program soars
after he leaves office, especially the new prescription-drug program,
which has already jumped from $400 billion to an estimated $724 billion
in the first decade, as costs increase from $37 billion a year to $110
billion a year. This is just one of many programs whose escalating costs
will leave Bush's successors in a vicious budget crunch. Making matters
still worse is the fact that reforms of major entitlement programs like
Medicare and Social Security are essentially not being addressed. If
that remains the case, fiscal catastrophe will be virtually unavoidable.

What's to be done?

We must insist on truth and transparency, and our leaders must tell us
clearly the current-value dollar cost of all major spending and tax
bills before they are voted upon. We must also bring back basic
budgetary controls, such as pay-go rules, that require new spending
increases or tax cuts to be paid for by corresponding tax increases or
spending cuts. We will need to revise our tax code and then improve our
efforts to enforce it so as to collect hundreds of billions of dollars
of revenue lost to special tax preferences, in uncollected back taxes,
and through tax evasion and abusive tax shelters. Finally, we must bring
our health costs under control before they break the nation's fiscal
bank. The sooner we act the better. Otherwise, compound interest on the
growing debt will eat us up.

The American public gets it. In a recent poll, *90* percent called the
deficit a very serious or somewhat serious problem. Which raises a
rather interesting question: Where are all those budget hawks when we
really need them?

By Mortimer B. Zuckerman US News & World Report.

"Jim," wrote in message
...
The Bush administration and the Republican Party seem to
snip


Yet another cut and paste *without comment*? ;-)

Jim, wrote:
.... Because of
government obfuscation

Translation- a multi-hundred-million campaign of lies & dedicated
cover-up that Nixon would be proud of

... most Americans don't realize the deep fiscal
hole we're in--and the fact that we're still busy digging. As David
Walker, the head of the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office

As soon as he criticises the Bush Administration, he's suddenly become
partisan, no matter how truthful his assertions.

pointed out, "The federal government's obligations, current liabilities,
and unfunded fiscal commitments are over $43 trillion and rising. . . .
Yes, that's trillions with 12 zeros rather than billions with nine zeros."

But hey, as long as we can keep suckering the Chinese and other Asian
core banks into buying up our debt, why stop? We're a credit card nation!

And if those "non-partisan" gov't bean-counters don't keep their noses
out of it, President Bush will fire their sorry butts, just like he
threatened to do to the head of OMB chief for revealing his
disengenuousness on the Medicare bill...

DSK

JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

The Bush administration and the Republican Party seem to

snip


Yet another cut and paste *without comment*? ;-)


And your comment is?

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"Jim," wrote in message
...
The Bush administration and the Republican Party seem to
snip


Yet another cut and paste *without comment*? ;-)

Just another liebral playing the michael moore numbers games........
YAWN

"Jim," wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

The Bush administration and the Republican Party seem to

snip


Yet another cut and paste *without comment*? ;-)
And your comment is?

Yet another cut and paste *without comment*?

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:23:59 GMT, "Jim," cut'n'pasted an
article he probably hadn't read.

Glad to see you still have the 'touch', Jimcomma!


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"Jim," wrote in message
...


And your comment is?


Careful, JimH has appointed himself the newsgroup cop, judge, jury &
executioner. If he's not happy with the quality of your posts....out you
go with no right to appeal.

There you go again krause,,

entering someone into the bozo bin,,, turns out this means you will read,
print, re-read, then get the little woman to read (the law student, 20 years
your junior). Then you will call the ISP of your bozo member, call them
with a bunch of lies,, have them do an investigation going back 2 years to
find your lies,,, then the ISP provider finds out that is clear it is krause
who is the liar,,

See krause, you just cost people money,,, waste,,, but you don't care, you
hold two union cards.....

You should ask the little darling there krause,,,






"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
alias wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...

"Jim," wrote in message
...

The Bush administration and the Republican Party seem to

snip


Yet another cut and paste *without comment*? ;-)


Just another liebral playing the michael moore numbers games........
YAWN






A "Fritz" by any name smells like bozobin material. In you go, alias.

"Jim," wrote in message
...
The Bush administration and the Republican Party seem to have lost all
capacity for financial self-control, turning their backs on the GOP's
historical record of responsible fiscal management.

pointed out, "The federal government's obligations, current liabilities,
and unfunded fiscal commitments are over $43 trillion and rising. . . .
Yes, that's trillions with 12 zeros rather than billions with nine zeros."

So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion with his
special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43 trillion
in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally fiscally
responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:57:54 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:


So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion with
his
special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43
trillion in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally fiscally
responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat.

Where the federal debt is concerned, Republicans are #1.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Jeff Rigby wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

The Bush administration and the Republican Party seem to have lost all
capacity for financial self-control, turning their backs on the GOP's
historical record of responsible fiscal management.


pointed out, "The federal government's obligations, current liabilities,

and unfunded fiscal commitments are over $43 trillion and rising. . . .
Yes, that's trillions with 12 zeros rather than billions with nine zeros."


So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion with his
special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43 trillion
in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally fiscally
responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat.



Well i seem to recall that Clinton (a democrat) ran a surplus for a
couple of years.

HarryKrause wrote:

Jeff Rigby wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

The Bush administration and the Republican Party seem to have lost all
capacity for financial self-control, turning their backs on the GOP's
historical record of responsible fiscal management.



pointed out, "The federal government's obligations, current liabilities,

and unfunded fiscal commitments are over $43 trillion and rising. . . .
Yes, that's trillions with 12 zeros rather than billions with nine
zeros."


So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion
with his
special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43
trillion
in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally fiscally
responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat.



Ahh, well, so what if Bush is spending like a drunken sailor...I mean,
it doesn't matter, right?

Apparently so long as a republican is in office, he can do no wrong.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:59:16 +0000, Jim, wrote:


Well i seem to recall that Clinton (a democrat) ran a surplus for a couple
of years.

Since WWII, Reagan and the two Bushes are the only Presidents to add to
the Gross Federal Debt.

http://zfacts.com/p/480.html

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:51:41 -0500, " Tuuk" wrote:

There you go again krause,,

entering someone into the bozo bin,,, turns out this means you will read,
print, re-read, then get the little woman to read (the law student, 20 years
your junior).

Ain't it the truth!

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:51:41 -0500, " Tuuk"
wrote:

There you go again krause,,

entering someone into the bozo bin,,, turns out this means you will read,
print, re-read, then get the little woman to read (the law student, 20
years
your junior).

Ain't it the truth!

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Indeed. I see his responses to posts I make when someone comments on them.
He seems infatuated with those who he says he killfiles. Makes sense, eh?

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:51:41 -0500, " Tuuk"
wrote:

There you go again krause,,

entering someone into the bozo bin,,, turns out this means you will read,
print, re-read, then get the little woman to read (the law student, 20
years
your junior).

Ain't it the truth!

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Indeed. I see his responses to posts I make when someone comments on
them. He seems infatuated with those who he says he killfiles. Makes
sense, eh?

And he whines about others supposedly changing ID's yet he does it
constantly because he has been killfiled by so many people.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:23:12 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:57:54 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:


So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion with
his
special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43
trillion in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally fiscally
responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat.

Where the federal debt is concerned, Republicans are #1.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

This chart hides whatever the GDP was doing at the same time. If the GDP was
decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart would show an increase in
the percent of GDP. It is a typical liberal manner of showing data.

Find a chart with *both* numbers tracked. Then one can see what actually
occurred.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:31:11 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:51:41 -0500, " Tuuk"
wrote:

There you go again krause,,

entering someone into the bozo bin,,, turns out this means you will read,
print, re-read, then get the little woman to read (the law student, 20
years
your junior).

Ain't it the truth!

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Indeed. I see his responses to posts I make when someone comments on them.
He seems infatuated with those who he says he killfiles. Makes sense, eh?


I wonder how much he charges for a ticket to his killfile (if he has one). I'd
like to sign up.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:23:12 -0500, thunder wrote:


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:57:54 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:



So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion with
his
special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43
trillion in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally fiscally
responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat.

Where the federal debt is concerned, Republicans are #1.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


This chart hides whatever the GDP was doing at the same time. If the GDP was
decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart would show an increase in
the percent of GDP. It is a typical liberal manner of showing data.

Find a chart with *both* numbers tracked. Then one can see what actually
occurred.

John -- rather than just challenging the data provided, why don't *YOU*
provide data to refute the argument. You're not in a classroom here!

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:17:24 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:23:12 -0500, thunder wrote:


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:57:54 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:



So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion with
his
special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43
trillion in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally fiscally
responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat.

Where the federal debt is concerned, Republicans are #1.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


This chart hides whatever the GDP was doing at the same time. If the GDP was
decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart would show an increase in
the percent of GDP. It is a typical liberal manner of showing data.

Find a chart with *both* numbers tracked. Then one can see what actually
occurred.

John -- rather than just challenging the data provided, why don't *YOU*
provide data to refute the argument. You're not in a classroom here!

I didn't challenge the accuracy of what was portrayed. I challenged the
implication that was made given the data presented.

If I were to present your brain weight as a percent of your body weight, I'll
bet the slope of the curve would be quite negative. That's not a slur on you,
it's just a fact.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:17:24 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:23:12 -0500, thunder wrote:



On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:57:54 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:




So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion with
his
special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43
trillion in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally fiscally
responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat.

Where the federal debt is concerned, Republicans are #1.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


This chart hides whatever the GDP was doing at the same time. If the GDP was
decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart would show an increase in
the percent of GDP. It is a typical liberal manner of showing data.

Find a chart with *both* numbers tracked. Then one can see what actually
occurred.

John -- rather than just challenging the data provided, why don't *YOU*
provide data to refute the argument. You're not in a classroom here!


I didn't challenge the accuracy of what was portrayed. I challenged the
implication that was made given the data presented.

But you *still* have not presented any data of your own to support your
position

If I were to present your brain weight as a percent of your body weight, I'll
bet the slope of the curve would be quite negative. That's not a slur on you,
it's just a fact.

*AND* you find it necessary to take cheap shots at anyone who challenges you

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:03:53 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:17:24 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:23:12 -0500, thunder wrote:



On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:57:54 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:




So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion with
his
special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43
trillion in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally fiscally
responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat.

Where the federal debt is concerned, Republicans are #1.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


This chart hides whatever the GDP was doing at the same time. If the GDP was
decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart would show an increase in
the percent of GDP. It is a typical liberal manner of showing data.

Find a chart with *both* numbers tracked. Then one can see what actually
occurred.

John -- rather than just challenging the data provided, why don't *YOU*
provide data to refute the argument. You're not in a classroom here!


I didn't challenge the accuracy of what was portrayed. I challenged the
implication that was made given the data presented.

But you *still* have not presented any data of your own to support your
position

If I were to present your brain weight as a percent of your body weight, I'll
bet the slope of the curve would be quite negative. That's not a slur on you,
it's just a fact.

*AND* you find it necessary to take cheap shots at anyone who challenges you

Never mind. If you believe the data supports the implication, then do so
happily. I wouldn't want to disrupt your serenity. There was no cheap shot.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:03:53 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:17:24 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:23:12 -0500, thunder wrote:




On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:57:54 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:





So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion with
his
special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43
trillion in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally fiscally
responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat.

Where the federal debt is concerned, Republicans are #1.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


This chart hides whatever the GDP was doing at the same time. If the GDP was
decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart would show an increase in
the percent of GDP. It is a typical liberal manner of showing data.

Find a chart with *both* numbers tracked. Then one can see what actually
occurred.

John -- rather than just challenging the data provided, why don't *YOU*
provide data to refute the argument. You're not in a classroom here!


I didn't challenge the accuracy of what was portrayed. I challenged the
implication that was made given the data presented.

But you *still* have not presented any data of your own to support your
position

If I were to present your brain weight as a percent of your body weight, I'll
bet the slope of the curve would be quite negative. That's not a slur on you,
it's just a fact.

*AND* you find it necessary to take cheap shots at anyone who challenges you


Never mind. If you believe the data supports the implication, then do so
happily. I wouldn't want to disrupt your serenity. There was no cheap shot.

Is this an admission of the fact that you can't find data to support
your claims, or you are too lazy to look?

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:14:52 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:03:53 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:17:24 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:23:12 -0500, thunder wrote:




On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:57:54 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:





So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion with
his
special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43
trillion in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally fiscally
responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat.

Where the federal debt is concerned, Republicans are #1.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


This chart hides whatever the GDP was doing at the same time. If the GDP was
decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart would show an increase in
the percent of GDP. It is a typical liberal manner of showing data.

Find a chart with *both* numbers tracked. Then one can see what actually
occurred.

John -- rather than just challenging the data provided, why don't *YOU*
provide data to refute the argument. You're not in a classroom here!


I didn't challenge the accuracy of what was portrayed. I challenged the
implication that was made given the data presented.

But you *still* have not presented any data of your own to support your
position

If I were to present your brain weight as a percent of your body weight, I'll
bet the slope of the curve would be quite negative. That's not a slur on you,
it's just a fact.

*AND* you find it necessary to take cheap shots at anyone who challenges you


Never mind. If you believe the data supports the implication, then do so
happily. I wouldn't want to disrupt your serenity. There was no cheap shot.

Is this an admission of the fact that you can't find data to support
your claims, or you are too lazy to look?

I made no claims, other than to state what wasn't shown. Are you trying to say
that the GDP or the national debt *were* shown?

Your arguments are sounding more like basskisser's by the minute.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:14:52 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:03:53 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:



On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:17:24 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




John H wrote:



On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:23:12 -0500, thunder wrote:





On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:57:54 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:






So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion with
his
special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43
trillion in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally fiscally
responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat.

Where the federal debt is concerned, Republicans are #1.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


This chart hides whatever the GDP was doing at the same time. If the GDP was
decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart would show an increase in
the percent of GDP. It is a typical liberal manner of showing data.

Find a chart with *both* numbers tracked. Then one can see what actually
occurred.

John -- rather than just challenging the data provided, why don't *YOU*
provide data to refute the argument. You're not in a classroom here!


I didn't challenge the accuracy of what was portrayed. I challenged the
implication that was made given the data presented.

But you *still* have not presented any data of your own to support your
position


If I were to present your brain weight as a percent of your body weight, I'll
bet the slope of the curve would be quite negative. That's not a slur on you,
it's just a fact.

*AND* you find it necessary to take cheap shots at anyone who challenges you


Never mind. If you believe the data supports the implication, then do so
happily. I wouldn't want to disrupt your serenity. There was no cheap shot.

Is this an admission of the fact that you can't find data to support
your claims, or you are too lazy to look?


I made no claims, other than to state what wasn't shown. Are you trying to say
that the GDP or the national debt *were* shown?

Your arguments are sounding more like basskisser's by the minute.

You commented
"This chart hides whatever the GDP was doing at the same time. If the
GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart would show
an increase in the percent of GDP. It is a typical liberal manner of
showing data."

So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating your
point as prophesied.

"If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart
would show an increase in the percent of GDP."

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating your
point as prophesied.

"If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart
would show an increase in the percent of GDP."



************************************************** *************************
Body Weight(lbs) Brain Weight(lbs) Brain Weight as percent
Body Weight

15 1 6.6%
30 1.3 4.3%
60 1.8 3.0%
90 2.0 2.2%
140 2.3 1.6%
220 2.5 1.1%
************************************************** **********************
There. Do you get the idea?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating your
point as prophesied.

"If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart
would show an increase in the percent of GDP."




************************************************** *************************
Body Weight(lbs) Brain Weight(lbs) Brain Weight as percent
Body Weight

15 1 6.6%
30 1.3 4.3%
60 1.8 3.0%
90 2.0 2.2%
140 2.3 1.6%
220 2.5 1.1%
************************************************** **********************
There. Do you get the idea?

Yes -- You have now proved that you cannot follow even your own logic.
The question involved economics. You presented a desenting opinion, yet
are unable or unwilling to show proof of anything other than that when
pushed into a corner, you resort to personal attack.

HarryKrause wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating
your point as prophesied.

"If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart
would show an increase in the percent of GDP."




************************************************** *************************

Body Weight(lbs) Brain Weight(lbs) Brain Weight as percent

Body Weight

15 1
6.6%
30 1.3
4.3%
60 1.8
3.0%
90 2.0
2.2%
140 2.3 1.6%
220 2.5 1.1%
************************************************** **********************
There. Do you get the idea?



Yeah. A substitute math teacher who cannot arrange columns. Nice work.

IS that *REALLY* your job John?

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:23:37 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating your
point as prophesied.

"If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart
would show an increase in the percent of GDP."




************************************************** *************************
Body Weight(lbs) Brain Weight(lbs) Brain Weight as percent
Body Weight

15 1 6.6%
30 1.3 4.3%
60 1.8 3.0%
90 2.0 2.2%
140 2.3 1.6%
220 2.5 1.1%
************************************************** **********************
There. Do you get the idea?

Yes -- You have now proved that you cannot follow even your own logic.
The question involved economics. You presented a desenting opinion, yet
are unable or unwilling to show proof of anything other than that when
pushed into a corner, you resort to personal attack.

Where, pray tell, is a personal attack? The brain vs body weight analogy was
*not* an attack. Hell, the same idea is true of any human. I showed how a
comparison of two quantities by using a ratio will hide a lot of information,
such as the actual quantities involved.

Did you organize one of these?

Dear MoveOn member,

March 19th, 2005 will mark 2 full years since the bombs started falling in
Iraq. As of yesterday, 1,516 American troops have been killed in combat, and
over 11,220 have been seriously injured. Uncounted tens of thousands of
Iraqi civilians have died, and millions are without electricity or running
water. The Bush administration is in the middle of an optimism campaign
on Iraq, and wants us to believe that a stable peace is around the corner.
But most realists see years of chaos and violence ahead. The two-year
anniversary of the invasion is an important time to come together in
response.

Our friends at Sojourners--a network of progressive faith-based
communities--are organizing peace vigils all across the country, and they
have asked MoveOn members to join them. You can either find a vigil in
your neighborhood, or start one of your own. It's a first step--an
opportunity to mark this date with a solemn recognition of those we have
lost, and a firm commitment to finding a better way.

To find a vigil near you, just go to:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=654&id=522...kG76zTsBh1XI9A

To host a vigil, go to:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=655&id=522...kG76zTsBh1XI9A

The vigils will take many different forms. Some are hosted by churches,
synagogues and mosques and include religious prayers. Some are hosted by
local peace groups and are non-denominational. Resources are available
online to help you organize either type. Common elements include reading
the names of fallen Americans and Iraqis, prayer for peace, and silence.

This anniversary is also an important time to reflect on the war itself,
and where we go from here. The fundamental error of the invasion has left
us, as a nation, with no opportunity for a quick fix. But together, we
must address the catastrophe Bush has created, and ensure we are never
again deceived into a reckless war.

Last summer, we surveyed MoveOn members to determine where folks stood on
Iraq. An overwhelming majority of us agreed that we need to have a clear
exit plan. And that consensus remains: in order to gain the trust of the
Iraqi people, they must know that we don't intend to be there forever.

In the days ahead, we will work together to end the war, by pressuring the
President to negotiate a binding exit plan with the Iraqi government. We
will push to ensure that America doesn't establish permanent military
bases in Iraq, which would send such a terrible message to the world about
our motives there.

Together, we will demand that Congress root out the corporate corruption
that has undercut the rebuilding efforts and washed billions we've already
put into Iraq down the drain. This is especially crucial as Congress
prepares to approve another $80+ billion for Iraq.

And we will counter the Bush doctrine of shortsighted, go-it-alone
militarism by promoting healthy engagement with the international
community--the best way to accomplish diplomatic goals, and address real
security threats.

Finally, we'll organize to increase the political consequences for
misleading the country into war. Future lawmakers must know that
illegitimate wars come at a great political cost.

Our work together goes on. But this Saturday, let's begin by
commemorating what has happened, mourning those we have lost and building
hope together for a more peaceful world.

To find and join a two-year anniversary peace vigil, click he

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=654&id=522...kG76zTsBh1XI9A

To host your own vigil, click here

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=655&id=522...kG76zTsBh1XI9A

Thanks for all that you do to make the world a more secure and peaceful
place.

Sincerely,

--Eli Pariser, Ben Brandzel and the MoveOn.org Team
March 16th, 2005


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 +0000, Jim, wrote:

So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating your
point as prophesied.

I'm afraid he won't be able to. Anyway you want to slice it, there is not
enough smoke, nor enough mirrors, to hide the fact that Reagan and the two
Bushes are responsible for the surge in Federal Debt. I doubt it's an
accident. Bankrupting the country is a way to get rid of all those pesky
social programs, like education, social security, etc. etc.

Now, John, the following link looks at the debt in enough different ways,
that only those in true denial will not admit it's Reagan and the two
Bushes baby.

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...ionalDebt.html

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:24:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

HarryKrause wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating
your point as prophesied.

"If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart
would show an increase in the percent of GDP."




************************************************** *************************

Body Weight(lbs) Brain Weight(lbs) Brain Weight as percent

Body Weight

15 1
6.6%
30 1.3
4.3%
60 1.8
3.0%
90 2.0
2.2%
140 2.3 1.6%
220 2.5 1.1%
************************************************** **********************
There. Do you get the idea?



Yeah. A substitute math teacher who cannot arrange columns. Nice work.

IS that *REALLY* your job John?

I won't discuss comments made by Harry. How he has his line length set is his
business.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:23:37 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating your
point as prophesied.

"If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart
would show an increase in the percent of GDP."




*********************************************** ****************************
Body Weight(lbs) Brain Weight(lbs) Brain Weight as percent
Body Weight

15 1 6.6%
30 1.3 4.3%
60 1.8 3.0%
90 2.0 2.2%
140 2.3 1.6%
220 2.5 1.1%
*********************************************** *************************
There. Do you get the idea?

Yes -- You have now proved that you cannot follow even your own logic.
The question involved economics. You presented a desenting opinion, yet
are unable or unwilling to show proof of anything other than that when
pushed into a corner, you resort to personal attack.


Where, pray tell, is a personal attack? The brain vs body weight analogy was
*not* an attack. Hell, the same idea is true of any human. I showed how a
comparison of two quantities by using a ratio will hide a lot of information,
such as the actual quantities involved.
And this has what to do with economics?

Did you organize one of these?

Nope -- but as stated earlier, I will be attending one. Nice try at
changing the topic though

Data re move on anti-war vigils deleted

HarryKrause wrote:

Jim, wrote:

HarryKrause wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating
your point as prophesied.

"If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the
chart would show an increase in the percent of GDP."




************************************************** *************************

Body Weight(lbs) Brain Weight(lbs) Brain Weight as percent

Body Weight

15
1 6.6%
30
1.3 4.3%
60
1.8 3.0%
90
2.0 2.2%
140 2.3
1.6%
220 2.5
1.1%
************************************************** **********************

There. Do you get the idea?





Yeah. A substitute math teacher who cannot arrange columns. Nice work.



IS that *REALLY* your job John?



It is, indeed. And by his own admission, he is lousy at it. According to
Herring, he is a substitute teacher for the Fairfax County, Virginia,
school system, and when he is assigned a job, he mainly babysits his
charges. He also makes racially based comments about the black students
he babysits. All in all, he's a piece of work. Oh, and that whining
about social security...Jim is on a military pension. But we'll leave
that for another day.

Jim(H) is on a military pension

I presume disability.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:55:44 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

HarryKrause wrote:

Jim, wrote:

HarryKrause wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating
your point as prophesied.

"If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the
chart would show an increase in the percent of GDP."




************************************************** *************************

Body Weight(lbs) Brain Weight(lbs) Brain Weight as percent

Body Weight

15
1 6.6%
30
1.3 4.3%
60
1.8 3.0%
90
2.0 2.2%
140 2.3
1.6%
220 2.5
1.1%
************************************************** **********************

There. Do you get the idea?





Yeah. A substitute math teacher who cannot arrange columns. Nice work.



IS that *REALLY* your job John?



It is, indeed. And by his own admission, he is lousy at it. According to
Herring, he is a substitute teacher for the Fairfax County, Virginia,
school system, and when he is assigned a job, he mainly babysits his
charges. He also makes racially based comments about the black students
he babysits. All in all, he's a piece of work. Oh, and that whining
about social security...Jim is on a military pension. But we'll leave
that for another day.

Jim(H) is on a military pension

I presume disability.

"Here we go 'round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush...."
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:48:53 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:23:37 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating your
point as prophesied.

"If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart
would show an increase in the percent of GDP."




********************************************** *****************************
Body Weight(lbs) Brain Weight(lbs) Brain Weight as percent
Body Weight

15 1 6.6%
30 1.3 4.3%
60 1.8 3.0%
90 2.0 2.2%
140 2.3 1.6%
220 2.5 1.1%
********************************************** **************************
There. Do you get the idea?

Yes -- You have now proved that you cannot follow even your own logic.
The question involved economics. You presented a desenting opinion, yet
are unable or unwilling to show proof of anything other than that when
pushed into a corner, you resort to personal attack.


Where, pray tell, is a personal attack? The brain vs body weight analogy was
*not* an attack. Hell, the same idea is true of any human. I showed how a
comparison of two quantities by using a ratio will hide a lot of information,
such as the actual quantities involved.
And this has what to do with economics?

Did you organize one of these?

Nope -- but as stated earlier, I will be attending one. Nice try at
changing the topic though

Data re move on anti-war vigils deleted

You're the one who brought up the 'personal attack'. I've pointed out that it's
not possible to discuss your 'chart' when the data (economic or otherwise) is
distorted. I've given you an example of the distortion.

You also brought up attending church to pray for the quick return of our
soldiers. That's something we all pray for, at least those of us who pray. There
are, in our midst, several libs who have strongly expressed their disbelief in
such activities.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

HarryKrause wrote:
Jim, wrote:

HarryKrause wrote:

Jim, wrote:

HarryKrause wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating
your point as prophesied.

"If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the
chart would show an increase in the percent of GDP."




************************************************** *************************

Body Weight(lbs) Brain Weight(lbs) Brain Weight as percent

Body Weight

15
1 6.6%
30
1.3 4.3%
60
1.8 3.0%
90
2.0 2.2%
140
2.3 1.6%
220
2.5 1.1%
************************************************** **********************

There. Do you get the idea?







Yeah. A substitute math teacher who cannot arrange columns. Nice work.





IS that *REALLY* your job John?





It is, indeed. And by his own admission, he is lousy at it. According
to Herring, he is a substitute teacher for the Fairfax County,
Virginia, school system, and when he is assigned a job, he mainly
babysits his charges. He also makes racially based comments about the
black students he babysits. All in all, he's a piece of work. Oh, and
that whining about social security...Jim is on a military pension.
But we'll leave that for another day.



Jim(H) is on a military pension

I presume disability.


Hertvik is on a military pension, too?


Interesting.

Dunno about him -- I was using your reference -- "Jim is on a military
pension."

John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:48:53 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:23:37 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:





So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating your
point as prophesied.

"If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart
would show an increase in the percent of GDP."




********************************************* ******************************
Body Weight(lbs) Brain Weight(lbs) Brain Weight as percent
Body Weight

15 1 6.6%
30 1.3 4.3%
60 1.8 3.0%
90 2.0 2.2%
140 2.3 1.6%
220 2.5 1.1%
********************************************* ***************************
There. Do you get the idea?

Yes -- You have now proved that you cannot follow even your own logic.
The question involved economics. You presented a desenting opinion, yet
are unable or unwilling to show proof of anything other than that when
pushed into a corner, you resort to personal attack.


Where, pray tell, is a personal attack? The brain vs body weight analogy was
*not* an attack. Hell, the same idea is true of any human. I showed how a
comparison of two quantities by using a ratio will hide a lot of information,
such as the actual quantities involved.

And this has what to do with economics?

Did you organize one of these?

Nope -- but as stated earlier, I will be attending one. Nice try at
changing the topic though

Data re move on anti-war vigils deleted


You're the one who brought up the 'personal attack'. I've pointed out that it's
not possible to discuss your 'chart' when the data (economic or otherwise) is
distorted. I've given you an example of the distortion.

You also brought up attending church to pray for the quick return of our
soldiers. That's something we all pray for, at least those of us who pray. There
are, in our midst, several libs who have strongly expressed their disbelief in
such activities.


Given that you failed to post any data supporting your position, I'll
use what Harry Posted

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...ionalDebt.html

Which I sure don't intemperate as supporting your argument.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:49:37 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:48:53 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:23:37 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:





So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating your
point as prophesied.

"If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart
would show an increase in the percent of GDP."




******************************************** *******************************
Body Weight(lbs) Brain Weight(lbs) Brain Weight as percent
Body Weight

15 1 6.6%
30 1.3 4.3%
60 1.8 3.0%
90 2.0 2.2%
140 2.3 1.6%
220 2.5 1.1%
******************************************** ****************************
There. Do you get the idea?

Yes -- You have now proved that you cannot follow even your own logic.
The question involved economics. You presented a desenting opinion, yet
are unable or unwilling to show proof of anything other than that when
pushed into a corner, you resort to personal attack.


Where, pray tell, is a personal attack? The brain vs body weight analogy was
*not* an attack. Hell, the same idea is true of any human. I showed how a
comparison of two quantities by using a ratio will hide a lot of information,
such as the actual quantities involved.

And this has what to do with economics?

Did you organize one of these?

Nope -- but as stated earlier, I will be attending one. Nice try at
changing the topic though

Data re move on anti-war vigils deleted


You're the one who brought up the 'personal attack'. I've pointed out that it's
not possible to discuss your 'chart' when the data (economic or otherwise) is
distorted. I've given you an example of the distortion.

You also brought up attending church to pray for the quick return of our
soldiers. That's something we all pray for, at least those of us who pray. There
are, in our midst, several libs who have strongly expressed their disbelief in
such activities.


Given that you failed to post any data supporting your position, I'll
use what Harry Posted

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...ionalDebt.html

Which I sure don't intemperate as supporting your argument.

Now you're leaving without explaining the 'personal attack'. Did the little math
lesson come across as a personal attack?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:49:37 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:48:53 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:



On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:23:37 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




John H wrote:



On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:






So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating your
point as prophesied.

"If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart
would show an increase in the percent of GDP."




******************************************* ********************************
Body Weight(lbs) Brain Weight(lbs) Brain Weight as percent
Body Weight

15 1 6.6%
30 1.3 4.3%
60 1.8 3.0%
90 2.0 2.2%
140 2.3 1.6%
220 2.5 1.1%
******************************************* *****************************
There. Do you get the idea?

Yes -- You have now proved that you cannot follow even your own logic.
The question involved economics. You presented a desenting opinion, yet
are unable or unwilling to show proof of anything other than that when
pushed into a corner, you resort to personal attack.


Where, pray tell, is a personal attack? The brain vs body weight analogy was
*not* an attack. Hell, the same idea is true of any human. I showed how a
comparison of two quantities by using a ratio will hide a lot of information,
such as the actual quantities involved.

And this has what to do with economics?


Did you organize one of these?

Nope -- but as stated earlier, I will be attending one. Nice try at
changing the topic though

Data re move on anti-war vigils deleted


You're the one who brought up the 'personal attack'. I've pointed out that it's
not possible to discuss your 'chart' when the data (economic or otherwise) is
distorted. I've given you an example of the distortion.

You also brought up attending church to pray for the quick return of our
soldiers. That's something we all pray for, at least those of us who pray. There
are, in our midst, several libs who have strongly expressed their disbelief in
such activities.


Given that you failed to post any data supporting your position, I'll
use what Harry Posted

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...ionalDebt.html

Which I sure don't intemperate as supporting your argument.


Now you're leaving without explaining the 'personal attack'. Did the little math
lesson come across as a personal attack?
given your previous comments -- YES!