Are republicans opposed to the leftwing simply because they don't understand it?

[Harry Dresden]

The law is I HAVE to have health insurance. Called Obamacare, aka ACA. Ever heard of this President Obama? He said ACA would insure ALL the uninsured.
I have paid as much as $1100 a month buying health insurance when I had kids at home. Drove old cars for 15 years, worked 70 hour weeks.
Something about being responsible.

so you had ins.....what about your crack about that 3rd party?....and you are not the only responsible person in this forum like you always seem to think you are....

 

[RKMBrown]

It's easy to have ideas when they involve spending someone else's money.

Oh that is so fucking deep.

Is that really the best you got? Of course it is.

Why try to make it more complicated than it is?

Dude I am sure you expressed the deepest thought your pea brain is capable of. And of course, simple minds like yours need to grasp as what seems to be a simple solution. If only if were as simple as your mind.

Can anyone translate this hamster's gibber jabber to English?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[healthmyths]

FACTS!
In 1979 6,912,000 or 13.4% of all hourly workers worked at minimum wage
In 2009 there were 3,572,000 people working at minimum wage of the total work force of 72,897,959 at hourly wage or 4.9%

WHERE would the consumer boost in spending come from??? 3,572,200 people? BIG INCREASE in spending to do what? Prices down???
How dumb are you? When the supply of a product increases does that also follow an increase in prices?
For you economically shrift LIP...
You said boost spending keeps prices down...right?

Prices go up when the supply goes down. Called law of supply and demand.
So in your lame scenario more consumer spending means less supply which means....DUH prices go up not DOWN!

Good god dude. I've already explained this to you. If you boosted the wages of everyone making under 10.10 per hour, that's 18 million People. The 4% making 7.25 are hardly the big picture.

IDIOT... YOU were describing MINIMUM WAGE workers... 3.5 million make Minimum.... NOT 18 million !

You dumb shit. There is such a thing as a state minimum wage. 18 million make less than 10.10 per hour. If the FEDERAL was raised to 10.10, 18 million people would get a raise. It's simple.

YOU are referencing raising the Minimum wage page to 3.5 million people working at minimum wage. NOTHING else. When I pointed out the FACT there were less then 3.5 million working at Minimum wage YOU altered your point i.e. those making less then $10.10 to all that make above $7.25 and less then $10.10.
So you are still FACTUALLY wrong!
Also I am sure you don't know this simple fact of business but when the wages are raised to $10.10 the employer will actually be paying
$10.82 per hour or over a year $1,512 MORE per employee not just in wages but SS/Medicare tax on the $10.10.
This is the PRIMARY reason Obama is pushing for $10.10 because he says MORE tax revenue!
WHICH is such a stupid reason to lay off these low skilled entry level people and them some.

Lol I never denied that only 4% make 7.25 per hour. The point i was always making is that 4% is hardly the big picture if the federal was raised to 10.10. That's it.

We need to raise taxes. Revenue as a percentage of GDP is near the historic low.

Let me understand this.... THE ONLY reason to raise taxes is because taxes as % of GDP too low?

Why is it so hard to use the Internet before making a stupid "historic low statement"?????
FACT is the "historic low per the below was 1934 at when tax revenue was 4.8% of GDP
FACT:The highest was 1944/45 might I remind you a little thing known as WWII... was 20.5% of GDP..
NOW as to your "current" statement:
2000 was 20.0% of GDP..
2014 was 17.5%
2006 was 17.6%

All in all IT IS BETTER that FEDERAL TAX RECEIPTS as % of GDP is Lower... means more money in the economy and less money to be squandered by stupid inane Federal expenditures like:

1. The National Institute of Health’s Center for Alternative and Complimentary Medicine spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits.
2. The Department of Interior spent $10,000 to monitor the growth rate of saltmarsh grass. In other words, the government is paying people to watch grass grow.
3. The National Science Foundation has granted more than $200,000 to a research project that is trying to determine how and why Wikipedia is sexist. Wikipedia’s War on Woman?
4. The National Institute of Health funded a study to see if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids. Regardless of the results, this experiment cost taxpayers $371,026.
5. The federal government has granted $804,254 for the development of a smartphone game called “Kiddio: Food Fight.”
6. The National Endowment for the Humanities has provided $47,000 for undergraduate classes that teach students about laughing and humor.
7. The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts.
Top 7 Wackiest Examples of Wasteful Government Spending from Wastebook 2014

A) Historical Tables The White House
Table 2.3—RECEIPTS BY SOURCE AS PERCENTAGES OF GDP: 1934–2020

 

[BULLDOG]

Interesting idea. Can you give a list of those names, and the years when they were changed? The specific lie that caused each change would also be helpful. I'm sure you have that information easily available, but I just can't find it.

Are you saying that classical liberal teachings of Locke or Hobbes about economic freedom and small government are exactly what today's liberals stand for? Read few history books that don't require democrat stamp of approval.

Don't try to change the subject. Your statement didn't mention Locke or Hobbs. I'm asking for clarification of your claim. It was your statement. If you don't know what you said, go back and reread it. What was the series of names used? When were the names changed? What specific lie do you claim to be the cause of each name change? I won't call you a liar who just makes up crazy stuff yet, but it's really beginning to look that way.

There was no "official" name change. Lefties are not doing that, they usually "evolve"... from Democrat Liberals to Democrat Populists to Democrat Progressives to Democrat Liberals (again) to Democrat Progressives (again)...

Again, read some books...

Not really the specific name change brought on by a specific lie that you claimed, is it now? What about the rest of it? You essentially described it as caught in lie/change name............caught in lie/change name......caught in lie/change name....... Come on now, surely you have some details don't you?

I gave you enough to think. To hard for you? Here is bit more... After Wilson, there were no progressives anywhere on the map for hundred or so years, except La Follette for few years that countered Coolidge. Why, because they did so much damage and they were too similar to commies in Europe that nobody wanted to be associated with that name anymore. Suddenly in recent years we have them again all over... What do you think where they were all that time, vanished or re-branded to something else ? Still to hard for you?

You are saying there were no liberals for as much as a hundred years, but somehow we have come back since Coolidge? You might want to go back and reread what you actually posted before you spout any more crazy shit. Or, you could just admit you were talking out your ass.

 

[Ame®icano]

Are you saying that classical liberal teachings of Locke or Hobbes about economic freedom and small government are exactly what today's liberals stand for? Read few history books that don't require democrat stamp of approval.

Don't try to change the subject. Your statement didn't mention Locke or Hobbs. I'm asking for clarification of your claim. It was your statement. If you don't know what you said, go back and reread it. What was the series of names used? When were the names changed? What specific lie do you claim to be the cause of each name change? I won't call you a liar who just makes up crazy stuff yet, but it's really beginning to look that way.

There was no "official" name change. Lefties are not doing that, they usually "evolve"... from Democrat Liberals to Democrat Populists to Democrat Progressives to Democrat Liberals (again) to Democrat Progressives (again)...

Again, read some books...

Not really the specific name change brought on by a specific lie that you claimed, is it now? What about the rest of it? You essentially described it as caught in lie/change name............caught in lie/change name......caught in lie/change name....... Come on now, surely you have some details don't you?

I gave you enough to think. To hard for you? Here is bit more... After Wilson, there were no progressives anywhere on the map for hundred or so years, except La Follette for few years that countered Coolidge. Why, because they did so much damage and they were too similar to commies in Europe that nobody wanted to be associated with that name anymore. Suddenly in recent years we have them again all over... What do you think where they were all that time, vanished or re-branded to something else ? Still to hard for you?

You are saying there were no liberals for as much as a hundred years, but somehow we have come back since Coolidge? You might want to go back and reread what you actually posted before you spout any more crazy shit. Or, you could just admit you were talking out your ass.

Nope, I didn't say that. Read again.

 

[eagle7_31]

Republicans seem to only use labels such as "socialism", "communism", or "facism" in regards to the left. They make outrageous claims like Obama and democrats want everyone to abandon their jobs and live off welfare. They think liberals wants to end capitalism as we know it.

None of this is based in reality but they believe it anyway. They just believe what they want to believe. Do they even understand what liberalism stands for? I think if they did understand it, they would embrace it.

When will facts permeate their stupidity bubbles?

Its a two way street. A number of liberals believe conservatives are racist, Nazis etc. 'The tea party is based on racism' etc etc. To have a meaningful exchange(not very likely on this board) one has to realize both sides have their warts.

 

[BULLDOG]

Don't try to change the subject. Your statement didn't mention Locke or Hobbs. I'm asking for clarification of your claim. It was your statement. If you don't know what you said, go back and reread it. What was the series of names used? When were the names changed? What specific lie do you claim to be the cause of each name change? I won't call you a liar who just makes up crazy stuff yet, but it's really beginning to look that way.

There was no "official" name change. Lefties are not doing that, they usually "evolve"... from Democrat Liberals to Democrat Populists to Democrat Progressives to Democrat Liberals (again) to Democrat Progressives (again)...

Again, read some books...

Not really the specific name change brought on by a specific lie that you claimed, is it now? What about the rest of it? You essentially described it as caught in lie/change name............caught in lie/change name......caught in lie/change name....... Come on now, surely you have some details don't you?

I gave you enough to think. To hard for you? Here is bit more... After Wilson, there were no progressives anywhere on the map for hundred or so years, except La Follette for few years that countered Coolidge. Why, because they did so much damage and they were too similar to commies in Europe that nobody wanted to be associated with that name anymore. Suddenly in recent years we have them again all over... What do you think where they were all that time, vanished or re-branded to something else ? Still to hard for you?

You are saying there were no liberals for as much as a hundred years, but somehow we have come back since Coolidge? You might want to go back and reread what you actually posted before you spout any more crazy shit. Or, you could just admit you were talking out your ass.

Nope, I didn't say that. Read again.

You are trying to change what your original statement that I responded to was. No time for your childish hiding.

 

[hadit]

The left is opposed because it IS understood.

 

[lake avenue]

You're talking as if democrats are left wing, when both U.S parties are right wing.

 

[Ame®icano]

There was no "official" name change. Lefties are not doing that, they usually "evolve"... from Democrat Liberals to Democrat Populists to Democrat Progressives to Democrat Liberals (again) to Democrat Progressives (again)...

Again, read some books...

Not really the specific name change brought on by a specific lie that you claimed, is it now? What about the rest of it? You essentially described it as caught in lie/change name............caught in lie/change name......caught in lie/change name....... Come on now, surely you have some details don't you?

I gave you enough to think. To hard for you? Here is bit more... After Wilson, there were no progressives anywhere on the map for hundred or so years, except La Follette for few years that countered Coolidge. Why, because they did so much damage and they were too similar to commies in Europe that nobody wanted to be associated with that name anymore. Suddenly in recent years we have them again all over... What do you think where they were all that time, vanished or re-branded to something else ? Still to hard for you?

You are saying there were no liberals for as much as a hundred years, but somehow we have come back since Coolidge? You might want to go back and reread what you actually posted before you spout any more crazy shit. Or, you could just admit you were talking out your ass.

Nope, I didn't say that. Read again.

You are trying to change what your original statement that I responded to was. No time for your childish hiding.

Nope. Try again.

 

[2aguy]

Believe us....we get it....we really, really get it.....which is why we resist it and fight it....sadly...you don't get it, but think you do....

 

[RKMBrown]

You're talking as if democrats are left wing, when both U.S parties are right wing.

ROFL

 

[zeke]

It's easy to have ideas when they involve spending someone else's money.

Oh that is so fucking deep.

Is that really the best you got? Of course it is.

Why try to make it more complicated than it is?

Dude I am sure you expressed the deepest thought your pea brain is capable of. And of course, simple minds like yours need to grasp as what seems to be a simple solution. If only if were as simple as your mind.

Can anyone translate this hamster's gibber jabber to English?

I can.

Damn dude. I know you aren't very smart, but even you should have been able to follow along.

You are such a pea brain that you expressed the deepest thought you are capable of, in one sentence.
Unfortunately what you tried to address is a complex problem that is not easy to solve. And one sentence just won't cover it.

I was just pointing out that with your limited abilities, you expressed the deepest thought you are capable of.
And you admitted that what you offered was the best you've got.

No big deal dude. I have known you aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer for a while now.

 

[Gadawg73]

The law is I HAVE to have health insurance. Called Obamacare, aka ACA. Ever heard of this President Obama? He said ACA would insure ALL the uninsured.
I have paid as much as $1100 a month buying health insurance when I had kids at home. Drove old cars for 15 years, worked 70 hour weeks.
Something about being responsible.

so you had ins.....what about your crack about that 3rd party?....and you are not the only responsible person in this forum like you always seem to think you are....

3rd party would be employer or government paying for and providing your health insurance. You, the insurance company and your employer = 3. 1, 2, 3. New math for you.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's easy to have ideas when they involve spending someone else's money.

Oh that is so fucking deep.

Is that really the best you got? Of course it is.

Why try to make it more complicated than it is?

Dude I am sure you expressed the deepest thought your pea brain is capable of. And of course, simple minds like yours need to grasp as what seems to be a simple solution. If only if were as simple as your mind.

Can anyone translate this hamster's gibber jabber to English?

I can.

Damn dude. I know you aren't very smart, but even you should have been able to follow along.

You are such a pea brain that you expressed the deepest thought you are capable of, in one sentence.
Unfortunately what you tried to address is a complex problem that is not easy to solve. And one sentence just won't cover it.

I was just pointing out that with your limited abilities, you expressed the deepest thought you are capable of.
And you admitted that what you offered was the best you've got.

No big deal dude. I have known you aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer for a while now.

Translation: You are too dumb to understand my point.

 

[Gadawg73]

FACTS!
In 1979 6,912,000 or 13.4% of all hourly workers worked at minimum wage
In 2009 there were 3,572,000 people working at minimum wage of the total work force of 72,897,959 at hourly wage or 4.9%

WHERE would the consumer boost in spending come from??? 3,572,200 people? BIG INCREASE in spending to do what? Prices down???
How dumb are you? When the supply of a product increases does that also follow an increase in prices?
For you economically shrift LIP...
You said boost spending keeps prices down...right?

Prices go up when the supply goes down. Called law of supply and demand.
So in your lame scenario more consumer spending means less supply which means....DUH prices go up not DOWN!

Good god dude. I've already explained this to you. If you boosted the wages of everyone making under 10.10 per hour, that's 18 million People. The 4% making 7.25 are hardly the big picture.

IDIOT... YOU were describing MINIMUM WAGE workers... 3.5 million make Minimum.... NOT 18 million !

You dumb shit. There is such a thing as a state minimum wage. 18 million make less than 10.10 per hour. If the FEDERAL was raised to 10.10, 18 million people would get a raise. It's simple.

YOU are referencing raising the Minimum wage page to 3.5 million people working at minimum wage. NOTHING else. When I pointed out the FACT there were less then 3.5 million working at Minimum wage YOU altered your point i.e. those making less then $10.10 to all that make above $7.25 and less then $10.10.
So you are still FACTUALLY wrong!
Also I am sure you don't know this simple fact of business but when the wages are raised to $10.10 the employer will actually be paying
$10.82 per hour or over a year $1,512 MORE per employee not just in wages but SS/Medicare tax on the $10.10.
This is the PRIMARY reason Obama is pushing for $10.10 because he says MORE tax revenue!
WHICH is such a stupid reason to lay off these low skilled entry level people and them some.

Lol I never denied that only 4% make 7.25 per hour. The point i was always making is that 4% is hardly the big picture if the federal was raised to 10.10. That's it.

We need to raise taxes. Revenue as a percentage of GDP is near the historic low.

How about cut spending? Has that EVER crossed your mind? Do you drive a Bentley on your salary? Providing equal outcome instead of equal opportunity is bankrupting the country.

 

[Roadrunner]

Less than 3.5 million are on minimum wage, 4% of the work force.
Raise the MW to $15 a hour and multiply the gain of $7 a hour by the 3.5 million workers. The total gain of all MW workers would be 24 million dollars a hour. Total wages at $15 a hour for all MW workers would be around $52 million dollars a hour.
If the minimum wage worker spent ALL of that 52 million dollars ALL of them combined make in 1 hour of work it represents 1.2% of ALL the Gross Domestic Product of one hour's worth of work. For the layman, IOW someone that does not understand 3 grade math, at $15 a hour there is littl to no economic benefit to the economy to spend much time raising wages for low and no skilled labor.
As a former athlete, minimum wage earner and current owner of 3 businesses (none of which employ MW workers), how much playing time do players get and how much should a worker be paid?
Pay is always commensurate with the skills required for the job, same as playing time between the lines
Should a 16 year old saying "do you want fries with this" make $15 a hour, same wage as a certified nurse assistant? Raising the MW puts pressure on other low paying entry jobs with some skills. Most all government mandates increase the cost of doing business which always raises prices.
What does a single mother's maternal status have to do with her rate of pay? Nothing! Unfortunately the dumb masses demand this type of government. "The poor, OH WHOA'S ME"
I support safety nets helping the poor and the kids but making economic policy for the country based on emotion? That is what is happening and fools want it and fools offer it.

Most MW workers are high school and college kids. If you have a kid and are single and making minimum wage, DO NOT HAVE ANOTHER KID!!! If you are a family making the minimum wage DO NOT HAVE KIDS UNTIL YOU CAN AFFORD THEM. If you are single and making the MW and it is not enough $$$, get 2 jobs. Nights, weekends. Go TO WORK.
If you still believe raising the MW benefits the economy and helps workers get ahead ignore the above. You are a minimum wage worker, a socialist, someone that does not know 3rd math or all the above or all of the above.

Nice post, but Isn't the term WOE is me?

 

[Roadrunner]

Why would they still be poor? If the minimum wage was increased to 10.10, the price increase on goods would be pennies on the dollar. Not only that, but the boost to consumer spending would keep prices down.

Pennies add up, economics 101

Um yeah they do. Something at McDonald's may go up 10 cents while a person making $1.50 more an hour can afford to buy a lot more on the menu at a time.

A human in today's modern society will purchase or make use of 200 or more products. From food to toothpaste.

If you add that 10 cents to each item, you come up with an increase of 20 dollars. That means if you raise the minimum wage to 10 dollars per hour, an increase of $2.75, the poor person is losing $17.25. This assumes that just each item add only 10 cents to cover the increase in wage.

So much for your vaunted compassion and living wage.

You realize that person would have to buy each and every item each and every hour .......for your math to work don't you?

Person can keep buying Big Mac or Whooper or Big Beef Burrito over and over.

From the looks of the fatasses out in the real world, I think they do.

 

[Roadrunner]

It's because we understand it all too well. So does anyone else familiar with history.

I haven't seen this post before I replied. You explained it more efficiently.

There is thing called "discipline in constant dealings". Who doesn't know what is it, Google it.

Over years, liberals gained this reputation of shameless and compulsive liars. Every time they got caught in the lie and people abandon them, they pull back, regroup and change name, then come out again with the same tactics. American voter recognized them for what they are and is now in abandoning phase...

Interesting idea. Can you give a list of those names, and the years when they were changed? The specific lie that caused each change would also be helpful. I'm sure you have that information easily available, but I just can't find it.

Are you saying that classical liberal teachings of Locke or Hobbes about economic freedom and small government are exactly what today's liberals stand for? Read few history books that don't require democrat stamp of approval.

Don't try to change the subject. Your statement didn't mention Locke or Hobbs. I'm asking for clarification of your claim. It was your statement. If you don't know what you said, go back and reread it. What was the series of names used? When were the names changed? What specific lie do you claim to be the cause of each name change? I won't call you a liar who just makes up crazy stuff yet, but it's really beginning to look that way.

There was no "official" name change. Lefties are not doing that, they usually "evolve"... from Democrat Liberals to Democrat Populists to Democrat Progressives to Democrat Liberals (again) to Democrat Progressives (again)...

Again, read some books...

Progressives, what North Koreans called POWs they brainwashed into submission.

Fits the Dem masses brainwashed into submission too.