Who Will The Democrats Select In 2012?

[KrazyHorse]

Again, right at the tail end by most def's I've seen.

And baby boom ending in 1956 is pretty stupid, since the peak of the baby boom was 1958-1962 or so.

[KrazyHorse]

Gen X is generally taken to encompass the trough from 1965 to 1980 or so.

[SlowwHand]

Desperation sets in to pass the buck. Fine. Pile it on. I have broad shoulders. Damned weenie. Wimp. Wuss.

[KrazyHorse]

You're a twit.

[Jon Miller]

I have never considered my mom GenX, I think she was born in 60?

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Again, 1960 for Gen X is ridiculous. The whole point is that Gen X is a "lost" generation; that the birthrate for the Gen X years was very low. 1960 was a very high birthrate year.

[Drake Tungsten]

Baby Boomers stop in 1964. Gen X went until 1981. Thank god I'm not a member of Gen Y; they might even be worse than their Boomer parents...

[KrazyHorse]

'struth

Me: physicist
Younger brother: coke dealer

[Darius871]

Baby Boomers stop in 1964. Gen X went until 1981. Thank god I'm not a member of Gen Y; they might even be worse than their Boomer parents...

[Zkribbler]

I'm curious Zkribb, exactly what would it take Obama to do to loose your support. Sometimes it seems your bit of a fanboy for him

I am a bit of a fanboy. Economically, I think Obama has taken all the correct steps to pull us out of the tailspin into which the Republican policies have put us.

I do disagree with him on healthcare. We need to go to a single-payor system like the rest of the industrialized world. Healthcare, paid for [or not] by private insurance is bankrupting this country, our citizens and especially Medicare. But Obama doesn't have the political backbone to go up against the insurance lobby.

I also disagree with White House predictions of 4% growth once this depression is over. That prediction is pure Fantasyland. It'll be around 1-1 1/2% growth for years. We have three decades of Reagonomics and of personal fiscal irresponsibility to correct. The One will not be able to fix that is 5 months, 1 term or even in his entire presidency.

[Zkribbler]

So you think it's just fine that an $800 billion dollar stimulus package was structured in such a way that it would have little to no stimulative effect, assuming that the projections of the government's economic community held? Glad to get that out of the way; now I know not to listen to you anymore...

So you think putting people to work, subsidizing states so they don't have to lay off teachers and cops, and also preventing the implosion of the American auto industry have no stimulative effect?? Good.

Me: physicist
Younger brother: coke dealer

Danger: Snide comment ahead. Proceed with caution:
...So, you're saying your brother is rich but that you're not.
End Snide Comment Area. Resume speed.

[Kuciwalker]

ZKRIB HIS ARGUMENT IS BASED 100% ON THE PREDICTIONS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. That is, GIVEN OBAMA'S ECONOMIC PREDICTIONS, the stimulus AS CONSTRUCTED would have LITTLE TO NO STIMULATING EFFECT because of HOW LONG IT TAKES ANY OF THE MONEY TO BE SPENT.

I can't tell whether being a union lawyer makes you really good at pretending to be stupid, or if they actually lobotomize you or something so you're able to spout the braindead nonsequiters you do ALL THE TIME.

[Drake Tungsten]

So you think putting people to work

The unemployment numbers indicate that he's not putting people to work. In fact, based on his administration's own projections, he is putting people out of work.*

*: Indirectly, of course.

[Zkribbler]

So you think it's just fine that an $800 billion dollar stimulus package was structured in such a way that it would have little to no stimulative effect, assuming that the projections of the government's economic community held? Glad to get that out of the way; now I know not to listen to you anymore...

You keep trying to tell me that 1 + 1 = 0. I see no reasoning behind your argument. I see no citation to recognized experts. I see nothing but empty rhetoric. So far, I am not convinced.

[Drake Tungsten]

You're a sad old man.