We had a very lengthy thread about pot in the past and I was allways to the left of the argument but I would be willing to jump back in on that one. Now a strong third party is long overdue. That may be a good thread starter.
Gtech... If I have a number, let's say for example, 4.7 , and then a month later I add 0.2 to it, it becomes 4.9 What percent did my number increase?
To ferret77 I just realised I forgot to respond to this. Yes I agree it was directly from GWB's campaign or at least implied. Some of the reasons I myself dislike him, just simply stating Will or another who voted Bush may have done so for other issues than issues that you or even I may hold critical. Maybe we can find out what those issues are, one way or the other and attack those issues as those are the only issues that are going to make someone change their mind I know lots of people who claim themselves to be one party or the other, I however find it funny when many of these people hold beliefs totally different than the party they support. My brother inlaw for instance is totally anti liberal or democrat, full republican in his mind. Yet he is pro choice, pro schools to the extent of a flaming liberal, pro drugs, for seperation of church and state, and many other items to many to list in reality that make him a democrat far more than it makes him a republican, but he still thinks he's a republican. I find it actually very amusing hearing him make the same complaints and arguments that a democrat would make and then 2 seconds later bitch about how these liberals did this and that. I'm simpfully hopeful one of these days I'll beable to get him out of the closet or find the real reason he thinks he's a republican. Actually come to think of it I have at least 2 brother in laws that are this way, another one you'd think was a republican can't stand Bush? Must be something in the water. --edited pro abortion to the pc pro choice.
Hmm who's going to take the first jab, eagerly awaiting the catfight that's sure to be released by either of these topics. On the first one to give you a clue where I'll stand. I just recieved a very nice box from Norml's executive director for a domain name donation I made to them. I still have to thank them for that
Half the republicans I know , don't agree with them any of their issues when questioned, except maybe lower taxes its tough to argue with that If the repubs, dropped all the christian stuff, and gave the real reason we in Iraq instead of trying to mislead the world, they might be appealing, but then they would be republicans . so what happens when you lower taxes, yet spend way more How long before that has negative effects, that people recognize? What is a good example in the past that shows where we are heading ecomomically? I got a question why do people watch sports anyway?
Ok I fired up a new pot thread. Lets try debating that for a few days for a change. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=31528 By the way ferret, I believe Ireland uses a flat tax system and it is working very well. I'm a flat tax guy.
So....Assuming unemployment rate in Jan 2001 when Bush took office was 4.2 and is now 4.9 (http://www.bls.gov), using the 3rd grader math sourced above (4.9 - 4.2 = 0.7) 0.7 / 4.2 = 0.166666 To get percentage = %16.66 increase in unemployment from Bush's start to this month. What part of that 3rd grade math don't you understand Gtech??
Gtech and Zman have invited all their friends to come over and try to find the answer to this one, I am sure sooner or later they will be able to find an answer.
Exactly! But where are these lower taxes going to get us in a few years, possibly much, much higher taxes, afterall interest is a bitch! No matter what it appears that the republicans win every time on the tax issue even if factually they are correct or not. It's something that most people have embossed in their brain, just like you know the sun will be up tomorrow. But who do you blame for this? Republican lies at times or the Democrats inability to prove the republicans wrong in the majority of the nations eyes. Afterall at the end of the day it doesn't matter who lied or not, it only matters who won the election.
People are retarded, they will flip over the price of gas going up a quarter, but nobody even notices when they (this administration) give the energy companies 150 billion in subsides I was thinking about this, if there are 250 million people in the Us , so divide 150 billion by 250 million isn't that like $600 each, taken out of our pocket and handed to the oil companies?
ferret, if you want to get me talking shit about the admin then oil is the right place to start. That crap pisses me off. Oh, and illegal immigration and wasteful spending. Bush needs to drop some balls and cut this crap out.
I agree with you on merit, but in order to trully calculate this it would take a bunch of long boring scary numbers as each individual in a capatalist society plus including corporations etc are not worth the same $$$ figure when it relates to taxes. I would think you'd need to somehow come up with a percent per person/corporate entity paying taxes then state for example .01% is how much on average was given, I made xxx amount last year, I got xxx amount for a return so therefor they took .01% of the total amount. Anyone care to tackle this? I myself don't have that much time on my hands, sure I'll use that as the reason lol.
I know its not real math, but it puts the numbers in scale also there is way less then 250 million tax payers, right?
I don't question that the rate (that is, the unemployment rate) is higher now. After all, GWB inherited Clinton's failing economy with recession, a dotcom bust, corporate scandals, etc. Coupled with the WTC bombings that crippled our economy, shut airports, has ultimately caused airlines to go bankrupt, caused Bush to sign extended unemployment benefits, etc. And the unemployment rate (not the snake oil rate) is continue to come down, even though some hope it won't. The percentage is ALREADY derived by the US Bureau of Labor. It does not come with a label attached to it, that says "some assembly required, to get desired result, add your own math formulas." The number is calculated based on it's criteria and it is used by economists to gage the the unemployment rate. Still lacking? Any credible source that shows that economists and/or news reports use their own snake oil math to increase numbers for affect. Nay one.
Average Retail Price per Gallon of Gasoline is up 47.98% Despite the amazing ability to release unemployment figures no later than the 3rd of September it took 3 weeks to finally release the average retail price of a gallon of gasoline for the month of August which was $2.486. "The national average retail regular gasoline price was 147.1 cents per gallon on January 22, 2001." What cost $1.47 in 2000, 22 days before Bush took office, would cost $1.68 in June 2005. 2.486 - 1.68 = 0.806 / 0.47976190476 or 47.98% The Average Retail Price per Gallon of Gasoline is up 47.98% adjusted for inflation under George W Bush. The raw price is up 69%. 2.486 - 1.471 = 1.015 / 1.471 = 0.69000679809 or 69% At the same point in Bill Clinton's term gas was up 1.11% adjusted for inflation. 122.350 - 121.000 = 1.350 / 121.000 = 0.0111572479 or 1.11% The raw price was up 15.23%. 122.350 - 106.175 = 16.175 / 106.175 = 0.15234283023 or 15.23% Bill O'Reilly Lies About Bush's Poverty Record Bill O'Reilly cherry-picked census numbers to falsely suggest Bush is better on poverty than Clinton For the sake of discussion let's assume two presidents have the same average unemployment rate or poverty rate. On the surface that may seem as if the two presidencies are relatively equal. The math below demonstrates exactly how "averages" can be used to be blatantly misleading. President 1 assumes office and unemployment is at 10%. Unemployment drops to 1% like this: 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1=55/10=5.5 President 2 assumes office after president 1 and unemployment increases back to 10% like this: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10=55/10=5.5 Both presidents have an average unemployment rate of 5.5%. Are both presidencies equal? One cut unemployment by 90%, the second increased unemployment by 1,000%, both have an average unemployment rate of 5.5%. Although Bush's poverty rate average is 12.25%(11.7, 12.1, 12.5, 12.7) the truth is poverty increased every year under Bush and the end result is poverty is up 12.39% from 11.3% to 12.7% whereas Bill Clinton's average poverty rate was 13.2875%. But, the whole truth is Clinton's poverty rate decreased from 14.8% to 11.3% which equals a reduction of 23.65% in poverty. In the real case of Bush and Clinton the lower averaged president actually increased poverty whereas the higher averaged president lowered poverty. Averages don't tell the whole story. American support for Iraq war at all-time low- poll Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. "We'd like your opinion of the way George W. Bush is handling certain aspects of his job. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?" Approve Disapprove Unsure ALL adults 33% 62% 5% Remember when not supporting the war was unpatriotic? I guess 62% of Americans are unpatriotic. FTCR: Health Care Premiums Surpass Minimum Wage Salary; Increase Marks the Beginning of the End of Health Care System The Kaiser Family Foundation report found that health care premiums are increasing 2.5 times faster than inflation and 3 times faster than workers earnings. As a result, the cost of family health insurance coverage for one year rose to $10,880 in 2005. Minimum-wage, full-time worker income for one year is $10,712. The report also found that the number of employers that offer health insurance fell to 60 percent -- a 10 percent reduction since 2000. The Bush Legacy The Clinton Legacy The Unemployment Rate & 9-11 Historical Unemployment Rate by Presidential Term Historical Periods of Recession by Presidential Terms Presidents And The Economy Presidents And The Stock Market Dispelling the Myth Minimum Wage Increases Cause Unemployment Poverty in one of the Richest Countries in the World Cost of World War II What Catholics Really Want My administration will look first to faith based programs Feed your head @ CaseAgainstBush.com