They never explained the material of the DVDs though. They could very well have been hand crafted from early 19th century Amish furniture.

The Times, Independent and Telegraph are "right-wing cranks"? They are in the Hopenchange era.

Google searched "obama disses brown" and the 1st 5 hits were all far right nutjob sites and the 6th was civfanatics.

Yes, right-wing cranks. Your bringing it up here reinforces that appearance.

I am fine with his spending in general.

I dislike his way of dealing with the banks and the economic crisis.

I am disappointed with his diplomatic ability so far.

JM

He did pretty well in Canada. Couldn't say that was a tough crowd though. I don't think anyone thought about gifts, let alone counted coup over them.

Did anyone care about the crappy gift that Bush gave Brown? Can we use this as conclusive proof that the right wing is irredeemably ****ed?

None of that matters!

What was so crappy about that?

Besides, I thought you didn't want Obama following in Bush's footsteps...

What was wrong witht he jacket? If anything only points out how ridiculously snobbish TimesOnline is.

I also see nothing wrong with the gifts given to the two Brown boys by Obama.

Ramo: Bush=Good. Obama=Bad. Reality and facts be damned!

Dissing the Brits has been a popular sport in the US for 230 years. Obama joins in and that bastion of the American press, the New York Daily News, leads the pack in howling at Obama. This so-called liberal paper per NGR was the one with the cartoon about the police shooting the chimp that led many to believe they had dissed Obama. That paper hates Obama without qualification and is very close to an over-the-edge rightwing spread.

It's based on statements by right wingers such as yourself (and certain Poly posters - see this thread, various right wing blogs, the National Review, etc.). http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/smile.gif

I really wasn't going to post on Bush/Blair gift incident, but someone actually made a second thread on this topic. As I said, irredeemably ****ed.

Yes, you are.

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

I just said I supported the creation of a two-tier universal healthcare system in the U.S. in another thread. You two are so far gone that you don't even know what a "right-winger" is anymore.

That's just as true now as when I first said it. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/smile.gif

Universal healthcare in America isn't going to "cut costs" as you claim, since Americans are extremely unlikely to accept the reduction in services that would be needed to achieve that. I still support universal healthcare despite this, but with cuts to other entitlements (Social Security being the obvious target) to keep entitlement spending from sucking up an unhealthy amount of U.S. GDP.

And no Social Security cuts mean jack in the context of the deficits due to health care spending. The idea that cutting SS is a substitute for cost control in health care is a lunatic fantasy.

http://blog.prospect.org/blog/ezrakl...ram_growth.jpg
http://www.cbpp.org/1-29-07bud.pdf

None of those curves look like "straight lines" to me, and yes, projections should typically give lower order terms in an expansion higher precedence.

But the CBO is obviously full of ****. We should instead be relying on the non-existent projection that relies mostly on the 7th time derivatives. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/smile.gif

But the CBO is obviously full of ****.

I'm questioning the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, not the CBO. Why couldn't you have found an actual CBO or GAO projection? I know they exist, since I was briefed on them last year.

edit: No wonder those projections looked a lot like the ones CAP uses...

According to New York Times reporter Matt Bai, CBPP is one of three left wing think tanks funded by the Democracy Alliance. The other two are the Center for American Progress and the Economic Policy Institute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_...icy_Priorities

edit 2: This report from the CBPP doesn't seem to disagree with me...

The main sources of rising expenditures are rising costs throughout the U.S. health care system and
demographic changes, with health care costs playing the larger role. Together, these two forces will
cause the “big three” domestic programs — Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid — to grow
considerably faster than the economy. Collectively, these three programs are projected to grow by
slightly more than 13 percent of GDP between now and 2050.

All other programs, including all domestic programs other than the “big three,” are projected to
grow more slowly than the economy in coming decades and consequently do not contribute to the
projected rise in deficits and debt. Of particular note, entitlement programs outside of the “big three”
are projected to grow more slowly than the economy. Common pronouncements that the nation’s
fiscal problems result from a general “entitlement crisis” are thus mistaken.

Why exactly can't a cut in Social Security expenses (one of the "big three") be used to limit the growth in overall entitlement spending down by counteracting the rise in healthcare expenses?

Why exactly can't a cut in Social Security expenses (one of the "big three") be used to keep the level of overall entitlement spending down by counteracting the rise in healthcare expenses?

Are you blind? Honestly, WTF?

Tax revenues aren't a fixed quantity. You have to make a set of assumptions here. To name a few: the AMT, the Bush 2001 tax cuts, the Bush 2003 tax cuts. Plus others that probably aren't in any of these graphs. Obviously, that isn't the relevant number in these graphs.

So we're back to the CBO being full of **** because it doesn't include the all-important 7th and 8th order terms. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/smile.gif