I come into this discussion late, so if this has already been noticed, I ask your temperance.
Madame Pelosi, in an unmitigated confession of her contempt for the citzenry of the United States of America, aka, We The People, described this as "We got one Republican vote, so that, in my opinion, makes it bi-partisan."
So wrong on so many levels.

Originally posted by Janky Red

I simply did math and projected it into the future and you are ATTACKING mathematics?

Its sad day when you attack people for trying to illuminate something, using the basic components of logic, I showed you numbers and you treat them like magic tricks. Even if the projection is only ten percent accurate, or TRILLIONS OFF, the cost is incredible and outrageous.

If you were not intoxicated by the ideological opiate, you would not lash out like a
spoilt ape.

" number don't count if they are ugly "


... like it or not we are screwed anyway you slice it, keep your head in the sand.

Your ignorance towards the gravity of the situation compounds the problem we face

[edit on 9-11-2009 by Janky Red]

[edit on 9-11-2009 by Janky Red]

Relax. I'm not "attacking" anything. I'm simply pointing out that if one puts garbage IN to any equation, one gets garbage back out. The numbers are unsustainable, and lead to a preposterous conclusion, hence there is an input error. The world will implode LONG before EVERYTHING we make is put in to health care, much less before astronomical figure we don't make are.

Logic leads to logical conclusions, not illogical ones like above. Hence, there is a definite flaw in your "logic". Your idea of "magic tricks" is highly applicable, with a caveat: misleading figures are not commonly termed "magic".

"Intoxicated by the ideological opiate"? "Spoiled ape"? WHO is on the attack? "Ideological opiate"... you get that straight out of Marx?

Numbers don't count if they are ugly? Wrong. Ugly numbers count. Ridiculously inflated ones don't. They are only used for propaganda purposes, to scare the uninitiated.

Don't include me in your "we". I don't play the insurance lotto, and will not be forced into it by you or anyone else, congress (or is that the Secretariat these days?) included.

The only "grave situation" we have is all these people looking for a problem to apply their "final solution" to.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Janky Red

Relax. I'm not "attacking" anything. I'm simply pointing out that if one puts garbage IN to any equation, one gets garbage back out. The numbers are unsustainable, and lead to a preposterous conclusion, hence there is an input error. The world will implode LONG before EVERYTHING we make is put in to health care, much less before astronomical figure we don't make are.

Logic leads to logical conclusions, not illogical ones like above. Hence, there is a definite flaw in your "logic". Your idea of "magic tricks" is highly applicable, with a caveat: misleading figures are not commonly termed "magic".

"Intoxicated by the ideological opiate"? "Spoiled ape"? WHO is on the attack? "Ideological opiate"... you get that straight out of Marx?

Numbers don't count if they are ugly? Wrong. Ugly numbers count. Ridiculously inflated ones don't. They are only used for propaganda purposes, to scare the uninitiated.

Don't include me in your "we". I don't play the insurance lotto, and will not be forced into it by you or anyone else, congress (or is that the Secretariat these days?) included.

The only "grave situation" we have is all these people looking for a problem to apply their "final solution" to.

I think it is pointless to discuss with you, you did not even try to do the calculation yourself, you take the lazy mans path... My numbers are fine and I suspect you
wouldn't look at them if they were burned into your forehead.

Can you wrap your head around this?


You make ten dollars and hour and can expect an 8% raise each year

first year $10.80

second year $11.88

third year $12.83

SAME EQUATION AS THIS-

One decade from now the current rate of $15,000 a year to cover a family of four

Year - 2019

+ 131% increase as is the trend

= $34,650

Two decades

Year - 2029

+131% increase as is the trend

= $80,041

Three decades

Year - 2039

+131% increase as is the trend

= $184,894

Four decades

Year - 2049

+131% increase as is the trend

$427,105

Five decades

Year - 2059

+131% increase as is the trend

$986,612

In re reading your post it is evident you are here to be a parrot and pay homage to your corporate masters. God would fail trying to bestow a shred of common sense upon you




[edit on 9-11-2009 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by Janky Red

I think it is pointless to discuss with you, you did not even try to do the calculation yourself, you take the lazy mans path... My numbers are fine and I suspect you
wouldn't look at them if they were burned into your forehead.

It probably is pointless. I'm not led astray that easily. Your "numbers" are based on an assumptive initial input, with an assumptive progression in the course of the math. I can use the same methodology to "prove" that 30 years from now, the US will be a smoking crater populated by irradiated spanish-speaking zombies. All I have to do is create the proper assumptive input, and "do the math".

Remember, in any decent statistics course, you will be told that, mathematically speaking, there are lies, there are DAMN lies, and then there are statisitics. In that order.

Can you wrap your head around this?


You make ten dollars and hour and can expect an 8% raise each year

first year $10.80

second year $11.88

third year $12.83

Your initial assumption there is that I work for someone else, who will in turn give me raises.

Error.

Your next assumption is that those raises WILL be 8%.

Error.

I think we can see where this leads.

SAME EQUATION AS THIS-

(mathematical magic truncated for brevity)

Exactly.

In re reading your post it is evident you are here to be a parrot and pay homage to your corporate masters. God would fail trying to bestow a shred of common sense upon you

Parrot. You think that one up all by yourself? Please point out what I have "parroted", and from whom, and I'll happily retract it.

MY "corporate masters"? I have no such. Neither will I allow YOUR corporate masters to force me into this government-run insurance lottery scam. Neither by force, nor by subterfuge and fear as you are attempting to do.

I think for myself, and more's the pity when anyone tries to pull the wool over my eyes as you have. They ALWAYS react poorly when called on it. You provide an excellent example.

My common sense is just fine, thank you. I can't help it if you don't like independent thought. One thing for sure, I thank the God you mention that I'm not infected with the brand of "common sense" that would allow me to fall for your mathematical parlor tricks.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Janky Red

I think it is pointless to discuss with you, you did not even try to do the calculation yourself, you take the lazy mans path... My numbers are fine and I suspect you
wouldn't look at them if they were burned into your forehead.

It probably is pointless. I'm not led astray that easily. Your "numbers" are based on an assumptive initial input, with an assumptive progression in the course of the math. I can use the same methodology to "prove" that 30 years from now, the US will be a smoking crater populated by irradiated spanish-speaking zombies. All I have to do is create the proper assumptive input, and "do the math".

Remember, in any decent statistics course, you will be told that, mathematically speaking, there are lies, there are DAMN lies, and then there are statisitics. In that order.

Can you wrap your head around this?


You make ten dollars and hour and can expect an 8% raise each year

first year $10.80

second year $11.88

third year $12.83

Your initial assumption there is that I work for someone else, who will in turn give me raises.

Error.

Your next assumption is that those raises WILL be 8%.

Error.

I think we can see where this leads.

SAME EQUATION AS THIS-

(mathematical magic truncated for brevity)

Exactly.

In re reading your post it is evident you are here to be a parrot and pay homage to your corporate masters. God would fail trying to bestow a shred of common sense upon you

Parrot. You think that one up all by yourself? Please point out what I have "parroted", and from whom, and I'll happily retract it.

MY "corporate masters"? I have no such. Neither will I allow YOUR corporate masters to force me into this government-run insurance lottery scam. Neither by force, nor by subterfuge and fear as you are attempting to do.

I think for myself, and more's the pity when anyone tries to pull the wool over my eyes as you have. They ALWAYS react poorly when called on it. You provide an excellent example.

My common sense is just fine, thank you. I can't help it if you don't like independent thought. One thing for sure, I thank the God you mention that I'm not infected with the brand of "common sense" that would allow me to fall for your mathematical parlor tricks.

Mathematic parlor tricks

and yes you are astray

Yes, I assumed that you would get a raise for brevity and to assist in your PROVEN lack of self initiative in discussion.

And there we have it -

you did NOT disprove that healthcare is raising 131% every ten years -

you did not disprove this math (or if you did, LET ME SEE!)

I showed you the equation, it is elementary, not magic.

Year - 2019

+ 131% increase as is the trend

= $34,650

Two decades

Year - 2029

+131% increase as is the trend

= $80,041

Three decades

Year - 2039

+131% increase as is the trend

= $184,894

Four decades

Year - 2049

+131% increase as is the trend

$427,105

Five decades

Year - 2059

+131% increase as is the trend

$986,612

You guys are WEAK - enjoy your new corporate masters




[edit on 10-11-2009 by Janky Red]

I just HAD to jump into this one, but from here on out I promise I'll try to stay in my own conversations.

Originally posted by Janky Red
He came at me first, didn't take three minutes to do the Math (like someone else)
and is a big boy now.

Indeed, 'tis true. I never have been able to abide by folks pulling "facts" and figures out of their posteriors with intent to scare anyone else into their way of thinking.

Guilty as accused.

Wake up and be for your country men for once, not the big men whole make the world turn.

I AM for my countrymen. That includes doing everything I can to keep them form getting bullied into working for the socialistic nanny state.

Get it? I'm for my COUNTRYMEN, not your government. Some of us exist ONLY to protect them from such horrors.

From the immediately preceeding post:

Originally posted by Janky Red

No actually Janky refers to Beyond disgusting and Red refers to the color of Yer party GOPer and no I can't see Russia from my house Red.

First, I'm not a GOPer. I left them in the dust when the neocons took over. The amusing thing, to me, is that you aren't old enough to recall the original color scheme. Prior to the 2000 elections, when the neocons first gained power, blue stood for the Republican Party, and red for the Democrat party. It extended world-wide, and red represented anything left of center, and blue represented anything right of center.

The colors were switched in the 2000 elections to reflect the neocon takeover, since they are far from "conservative". Neocons are nothing more than another version of socialist.

Its funny, I can smell neocons much better then you can smell socialists.
A like a perfect little neocon drone you refuse to think about your country.
Time and time again put your head in the sand and spit out your guidelines.

As stated above, there is no practical difference. Maybe you should have your sniffer checked out. Agreed, neither neocons nor progressives are looking out for the country. That's left to people like "us".

I think the fact that we are here, dukeing it out, is evidence enough that we haven't stuck our heads in any sand. Had we done so, we'd have never seen the attempt at subterfuge.

So far, I've seen no one but you try to put out "guidelines".

I know what the insurance companies are going to do - they are going to
rape this country further. Sadly you and your mates don't get a badge or a discount
on your future premiums for selling out your country. The fact that you guys are to lazy
to do the math for yourself is no surprise, Neocons love the elite...

First, the insurance companies will only do what their customers allow them to do.

Unless the government FORCES it.

I want neither a badge NOR "premium discounts". I can't use either one, since, as I told you before, I'm not buying into that insurance scam. I don't participate, get it?

You, sir, have FAR more in common with the neocons than I. Both you AND they have an agenda to so infuse government into the life of the common man to the point that liberty is choked entirely to death.

How does it feel to have labels tossed in your direction?

Originally posted by Janky Red

Mathematic parlor tricks

and yes you are astray

Yes, I assumed that you would get a raise for brevity and to assist in your PROVEN lack of self initiative in discussion.

Did you intend me to respond to mere juvenile insults? If so, this sentence is your response to all of the above.

you did NOT disprove that healthcare is raising 131% every ten years -

Why should I? It was YOUR assertion, therefore YOU have the burden of proof. You gave one reference to the past, have given NO proof about your future assumptions. Note that I said "proof", not some nebulous estimate, that can be picked out of the air, or wherever else it is you get your "facts".

Better dust off that crystal ball, if you're peering into the future.

you did not disprove this math (or if you did, LET ME SEE!)

I never needed to, as I've no quarrel with the math itself. My quarrel has consistently been with the inputs into the equations, and the methodology of your extrapolation, taking it beyond all logical limits.

I showed you the equation, it is elementary, not magic.

....

See how neatly I can truncate that drivel you've posted over and over again? You should try it, in the interest of saving space. Continually posting it over and over again will lend no validity to it whatsoever. It's as falsely assumptive the umpteenth time as it was the first.

You guys are WEAK - enjoy your new corporate masters

Might be weak, but at least I don't have to cook the books to "prove" an invalid point.

I'll ignore the insult about the "corporate masters". It's getting tiresome and repetitive, and as I've already mentioned, just repeating something over and over will never make it so.