- Thread starter
- #121
Which "Banana Republic" builds these:
LOL!!!!! Which Washington Agency designed and built those?
What a fucking wanker you are, Swallow. You couldnt win an argument on whether the sky is blue.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Which "Banana Republic" builds these:
That's why Obama has reduced this country to "Banana Republic" status in only 7 years.No need for that, I was already aware the you would never recognize how ridiculous your line of reasoning was.Well no. It's not "ridiculous".
Learn how to read will you , I said Democrats in WASHINGTON before 2009, not "The Democrats in congress" ....It's the President that sets policy and signs bills into law. "The Democrats in congress" meme is the ridiculous one.
And essentially we've got a government crafted such that the "minority" has a good deal of power.
Reagan initiated supply side economics in the 80s. He cut the top tax rates, cut regulations across the board, broke the air traffic controller union (and basically drastically reduced the power of labor), spent wildly on expensively and useless military programs (like SDI) oversaw huge deficits and several financial cataclysms that required huge bailouts. Before leaving office he RAISED taxes on the poor and the middle class. He brought in brand spanking new taxes on TIPS and unemployment insurance. This is the history.
And while Vice President Bush was fiscally wiser, his SON Neil Bush oversaw one of the worst bank failures in history, Silverado savings and loan. It wasn't until President Clinton was elected that some of that got cleaned up. President Clinton is not entirely innocent, however, as he did sign into law the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which repealed a major component of the Glass-Steagall act that separated financials and commercial banks. But he was able to raise the tax rates a bit on the top earners and bring down the deficit. That's in addition to essentially creating the telecommunications infrastructure and advancing the Information technology sector in this country.
Enter George W. Bush, who cut top rates, defunded regulators, looked the other way at the Enron/Anderson debacle, presided over a loss of our manufacturing base, started 2 very expensive wars, put into place new entitlements with no way to pay for them and left office in the midst of yet another conservative engineered financial cataclysm requiring massive tax payer bailouts. This took two terms to do. Generally it's much easier to destroy than rebuild. And rebuilding is what President Obama engaged in and in the face of historic obstruction.
Conservative policy has always been ruinous in this country.
So in nutshell your thesis seems to be that all economics problems from now until the end of time are the fault of policies implemented by Reagan and Bush II, any economic successes of course will be credited to whatever Democrat is the flavor of the month (currently President Obama) and that no Democratic President need ever take responsibility for structural issues within the economy since Reagan and Bush basically made them unfixable. It's telling that you completely ignore monetary policy during the periods you attempt to dissect it's as if you don't recognize the part that monetary policy plays in our economy, you also make no mention of what the Democrats were doing during those two Presidencies it's as if they didn't exist in Washington at all.
We've had 7 years of "progressive" economic and monetary policy and from the perspective of the average American the economy sucks (spare me the stats cherry picking, you can do it, I can do it, but unless you live under a rock (or in Washington D.C.) you know as well as I do the average American is struggling to tread water).
One question, how many terms in office will it take for President Obama to "fix" all the economic problems and return us to the growth rate, job growth and general prosperity we enjoyed say in the mid to late 1980's? will be 5 terms be enough? how about 10?
Take your time and think it through Amigo...
Been to the world trade center recently in NYC?
The work is still ongoing 14 years after the 2001 attacks.
The twin towers themselves took over a decade to put up.
And several hours to knock down.
It's much harder to build and create than destroy.
Hitler and Mussolini were both elected, Nutjobber.Obama is having too good a time to resign
For the first time, he has cast off Congress and is getting the issues he is concerned about implemented without them
He is now the only game in town in Washington and he is loving every minute of it
So, he is a dictator and this makes you happy.
Leftists yearn for a totalitarian system.
Dictators are not elected with 70 million voters
Obama is operating within the limitations of his executive powers. Republucans are suffering the consequences of their internal strife
It isnt that you dont know anything. Oh wait, it is.
Which "Banana Republic" builds these:
LOL!!!!! Which Washington Agency designed and built those?
What a fucking wanker you are, Swallow. You couldnt win an argument on whether the sky is blue.
No that's actually teh defintion of Democrats. Dems are the kings of Crony Capitalism. Recall how Obama shredded bankruptcy law to protect GM and the unions, among many many other examples.That's why Obama has reduced this country to "Banana Republic" status in only 7 years.No need for that, I was already aware the you would never recognize how ridiculous your line of reasoning was.Well no. It's not "ridiculous".
Learn how to read will you , I said Democrats in WASHINGTON before 2009, not "The Democrats in congress" ....It's the President that sets policy and signs bills into law. "The Democrats in congress" meme is the ridiculous one.
And essentially we've got a government crafted such that the "minority" has a good deal of power.
Reagan initiated supply side economics in the 80s. He cut the top tax rates, cut regulations across the board, broke the air traffic controller union (and basically drastically reduced the power of labor), spent wildly on expensively and useless military programs (like SDI) oversaw huge deficits and several financial cataclysms that required huge bailouts. Before leaving office he RAISED taxes on the poor and the middle class. He brought in brand spanking new taxes on TIPS and unemployment insurance. This is the history.
And while Vice President Bush was fiscally wiser, his SON Neil Bush oversaw one of the worst bank failures in history, Silverado savings and loan. It wasn't until President Clinton was elected that some of that got cleaned up. President Clinton is not entirely innocent, however, as he did sign into law the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which repealed a major component of the Glass-Steagall act that separated financials and commercial banks. But he was able to raise the tax rates a bit on the top earners and bring down the deficit. That's in addition to essentially creating the telecommunications infrastructure and advancing the Information technology sector in this country.
Enter George W. Bush, who cut top rates, defunded regulators, looked the other way at the Enron/Anderson debacle, presided over a loss of our manufacturing base, started 2 very expensive wars, put into place new entitlements with no way to pay for them and left office in the midst of yet another conservative engineered financial cataclysm requiring massive tax payer bailouts. This took two terms to do. Generally it's much easier to destroy than rebuild. And rebuilding is what President Obama engaged in and in the face of historic obstruction.
Conservative policy has always been ruinous in this country.
So in nutshell your thesis seems to be that all economics problems from now until the end of time are the fault of policies implemented by Reagan and Bush II, any economic successes of course will be credited to whatever Democrat is the flavor of the month (currently President Obama) and that no Democratic President need ever take responsibility for structural issues within the economy since Reagan and Bush basically made them unfixable. It's telling that you completely ignore monetary policy during the periods you attempt to dissect it's as if you don't recognize the part that monetary policy plays in our economy, you also make no mention of what the Democrats were doing during those two Presidencies it's as if they didn't exist in Washington at all.
We've had 7 years of "progressive" economic and monetary policy and from the perspective of the average American the economy sucks (spare me the stats cherry picking, you can do it, I can do it, but unless you live under a rock (or in Washington D.C.) you know as well as I do the average American is struggling to tread water).
One question, how many terms in office will it take for President Obama to "fix" all the economic problems and return us to the growth rate, job growth and general prosperity we enjoyed say in the mid to late 1980's? will be 5 terms be enough? how about 10?
Take your time and think it through Amigo...
Been to the world trade center recently in NYC?
The work is still ongoing 14 years after the 2001 attacks.
The twin towers themselves took over a decade to put up.
And several hours to knock down.
It's much harder to build and create than destroy.
Interesting you would use the term "Banana Republic"
A Banana Republic is a nation built to protect the interests of the wealthy industrialists. In this case the banana companies in Central America. A puppet dictator was established to control the powerless workers and enrich the wealthy plantation owners
By definition......today's Republican Party
No that's actually teh defintion of Democrats. Dems are the kings of Crony Capitalism. Recall how Obama shredded bankruptcy law to protect GM and the unions, among many many other examples.That's why Obama has reduced this country to "Banana Republic" status in only 7 years.No need for that, I was already aware the you would never recognize how ridiculous your line of reasoning was.Well no. It's not "ridiculous".
Learn how to read will you , I said Democrats in WASHINGTON before 2009, not "The Democrats in congress" ....It's the President that sets policy and signs bills into law. "The Democrats in congress" meme is the ridiculous one.
And essentially we've got a government crafted such that the "minority" has a good deal of power.
Reagan initiated supply side economics in the 80s. He cut the top tax rates, cut regulations across the board, broke the air traffic controller union (and basically drastically reduced the power of labor), spent wildly on expensively and useless military programs (like SDI) oversaw huge deficits and several financial cataclysms that required huge bailouts. Before leaving office he RAISED taxes on the poor and the middle class. He brought in brand spanking new taxes on TIPS and unemployment insurance. This is the history.
And while Vice President Bush was fiscally wiser, his SON Neil Bush oversaw one of the worst bank failures in history, Silverado savings and loan. It wasn't until President Clinton was elected that some of that got cleaned up. President Clinton is not entirely innocent, however, as he did sign into law the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which repealed a major component of the Glass-Steagall act that separated financials and commercial banks. But he was able to raise the tax rates a bit on the top earners and bring down the deficit. That's in addition to essentially creating the telecommunications infrastructure and advancing the Information technology sector in this country.
Enter George W. Bush, who cut top rates, defunded regulators, looked the other way at the Enron/Anderson debacle, presided over a loss of our manufacturing base, started 2 very expensive wars, put into place new entitlements with no way to pay for them and left office in the midst of yet another conservative engineered financial cataclysm requiring massive tax payer bailouts. This took two terms to do. Generally it's much easier to destroy than rebuild. And rebuilding is what President Obama engaged in and in the face of historic obstruction.
Conservative policy has always been ruinous in this country.
So in nutshell your thesis seems to be that all economics problems from now until the end of time are the fault of policies implemented by Reagan and Bush II, any economic successes of course will be credited to whatever Democrat is the flavor of the month (currently President Obama) and that no Democratic President need ever take responsibility for structural issues within the economy since Reagan and Bush basically made them unfixable. It's telling that you completely ignore monetary policy during the periods you attempt to dissect it's as if you don't recognize the part that monetary policy plays in our economy, you also make no mention of what the Democrats were doing during those two Presidencies it's as if they didn't exist in Washington at all.
We've had 7 years of "progressive" economic and monetary policy and from the perspective of the average American the economy sucks (spare me the stats cherry picking, you can do it, I can do it, but unless you live under a rock (or in Washington D.C.) you know as well as I do the average American is struggling to tread water).
One question, how many terms in office will it take for President Obama to "fix" all the economic problems and return us to the growth rate, job growth and general prosperity we enjoyed say in the mid to late 1980's? will be 5 terms be enough? how about 10?
Take your time and think it through Amigo...
Been to the world trade center recently in NYC?
The work is still ongoing 14 years after the 2001 attacks.
The twin towers themselves took over a decade to put up.
And several hours to knock down.
It's much harder to build and create than destroy.
Interesting you would use the term "Banana Republic"
A Banana Republic is a nation built to protect the interests of the wealthy industrialists. In this case the banana companies in Central America. A puppet dictator was established to control the powerless workers and enrich the wealthy plantation owners
By definition......today's Republican Party
Yes, I am on the money here: Obama, President for Life of the People's Republic of America.
Hmm, who is supporting re-auth of ExIm Bank? Who is supporting "Green Energy" that benefits wealthy investors? Who is supporting closed shop union membership and mandatory dues?No that's actually teh defintion of Democrats. Dems are the kings of Crony Capitalism. Recall how Obama shredded bankruptcy law to protect GM and the unions, among many many other examples.That's why Obama has reduced this country to "Banana Republic" status in only 7 years.No need for that, I was already aware the you would never recognize how ridiculous your line of reasoning was.
Learn how to read will you , I said Democrats in WASHINGTON before 2009, not "The Democrats in congress" ....
So in nutshell your thesis seems to be that all economics problems from now until the end of time are the fault of policies implemented by Reagan and Bush II, any economic successes of course will be credited to whatever Democrat is the flavor of the month (currently President Obama) and that no Democratic President need ever take responsibility for structural issues within the economy since Reagan and Bush basically made them unfixable. It's telling that you completely ignore monetary policy during the periods you attempt to dissect it's as if you don't recognize the part that monetary policy plays in our economy, you also make no mention of what the Democrats were doing during those two Presidencies it's as if they didn't exist in Washington at all.
We've had 7 years of "progressive" economic and monetary policy and from the perspective of the average American the economy sucks (spare me the stats cherry picking, you can do it, I can do it, but unless you live under a rock (or in Washington D.C.) you know as well as I do the average American is struggling to tread water).
One question, how many terms in office will it take for President Obama to "fix" all the economic problems and return us to the growth rate, job growth and general prosperity we enjoyed say in the mid to late 1980's? will be 5 terms be enough? how about 10?
Take your time and think it through Amigo...
Been to the world trade center recently in NYC?
The work is still ongoing 14 years after the 2001 attacks.
The twin towers themselves took over a decade to put up.
And several hours to knock down.
It's much harder to build and create than destroy.
Interesting you would use the term "Banana Republic"
A Banana Republic is a nation built to protect the interests of the wealthy industrialists. In this case the banana companies in Central America. A puppet dictator was established to control the powerless workers and enrich the wealthy plantation owners
By definition......today's Republican Party
Yes, I am on the money here: Obama, President for Life of the People's Republic of America.
Supporting the interests of capitalists while keeping the workforce under control is a keystone of both the Republican Party and a Banana Republic
Dictators are not elected with 70 million voters
Obama is operating within the limitations of his executive powers. Republucans are suffering the consequences of their internal strife