Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
.Most economist recommend no such thing.
Really? Got some links to back your bullshit up?
Cuz I got these to back my claims up:
U.S. should end Bush tax cuts to shrink debt: economist | Reuters
Independent economist group endorses ending Bush tax cuts | The Raw Story
Economist's View: "Democrats and the Bush Tax Cuts"
Those are just three links. If you want more, let me know.
The first article is calling for an end to all the tax cuts, the second is not a group of economist as much as it is a group with a political agenda to end wealth, the third is a call to restructure the tax code to make it more progressive.
How, exactly, do these back up your claims?
Wrong about what? Obama didn't give any money to any banks.
Actually, stupidfuck - Obama gave all the money to the banks. Bush was out of office before the monies were handed out.
Bush is a fucktard and promoted TARP - which fucktard Obama voted for - but Bush was gone before the checks were handed out, which Obama did with a smile.
Wrong about what? Obama didn't give any money to any banks.
Actually, stupidfuck - Obama gave all the money to the banks. Bush was out of office before the monies were handed out.
Bush is a fucktard and promoted TARP - which fucktard Obama voted for - but Bush was gone before the checks were handed out, which Obama did with a smile.
You are wrong on two points:
1) You are confusing grants with loans. Loans have to be paid back. Grants do not. The banks got loans. It was a good thing, too, because without them, many if not most would have failed and, with the resulting failure of FDIC, ordinary folks like you and I would lose our bank deposits (I'm guessing you don't actually have any bank deposits which is why you don't give a shit)
2) The President doesn't give money to anyone. The People consent to the use of their tax dollars through their elected representatives.
It was not. You're so full of shit.
Critical thinking means reasoning that since natural climate changes have occurred in the past its therefore preposterous to even propose man could influence the climate? That's "critical' thinking in your book? REALLY?
So, it sounds like you're for cutting taxes for some but you want to raise taxes on wealthier Americans.
Half right. I'm for leaving tax rates where they are for the middle and lower classes, not cutting them. And then yes, I'm all for asking wealthier Americans to pay more. Me and Adam Smith are totes in lock step on that one.
My question is why raise taxes on anybody?
Because we're drowning in a deficit caused by two unfunded wars and tax cuts on the wealthy. That's why.
Yes. I do. So does pretty much every economist in the world.
That's a commentary piece.
Obama's plan, that I agree with, is to start to dig out of the hole by raising taxes, then you can make logical cuts to spending, yes. I suggest we start with the largest spender in government: Defense. You game?
Evidence of it working? Okay, see Bill Clinton's presidency. Next.
Again, the question is WHY do you want to see tax rates increased on anybody, especially after you acknowledge that taxes on the "middle class" should not be increased.
Because the rich can afford it. Because they have an obligation to the rest of society, who built the framework of the free market that allowed them to prosper (oh, God, I can't wait to see what the Tea Bagger Fucks say to this point) so mightily, to give back more. Again, Adam Smith, the guy who Conservatives would gladly suck off if they had the chance, believed the same exact thing.
A little logic and reason if you please.
Done and done.
So, it sounds like you're for cutting taxes for some but you want to raise taxes on wealthier Americans.
Half right. I'm for leaving tax rates where they are for the middle and lower classes, not cutting them. And then yes, I'm all for asking wealthier Americans to pay more. Me and Adam Smith are totes in lock step on that one.
Because we're drowning in a deficit caused by two unfunded wars and tax cuts on the wealthy. That's why.
Yes. I do. So does pretty much every economist in the world.
That's a commentary piece.
Obama's plan, that I agree with, is to start to dig out of the hole by raising taxes, then you can make logical cuts to spending, yes. I suggest we start with the largest spender in government: Defense. You game?
Evidence of it working? Okay, see Bill Clinton's presidency. Next.
Because the rich can afford it. Because they have an obligation to the rest of society, who built the framework of the free market that allowed them to prosper (oh, God, I can't wait to see what the Tea Bagger Fucks say to this point) so mightily, to give back more. Again, Adam Smith, the guy who Conservatives would gladly suck off if they had the chance, believed the same exact thing.
A little logic and reason if you please.
Done and done.
Oh my, another "Let's raise taxes now in exchange for a PROMISE of less spending in the future". How many times do you think we'll fall for that shit? The reduced spending has NEVER happened. How about this: You reduce spending now in exchange for a promise of future tax increases. Deal?
Second, our largest expenditures are not wars, they are medicare and medicade. So, as a Libertarian, I stand against our extensive military interventionism but if you're going to quote statistics, please be honest. In addition, there is NO WAY you can say with certainty that Bush's tax cuts added to the deficit because you have no way of knowing what the revenue would have been with higher tax rates. You may not believe in the Laffer curve but you can't state with certainty that the opposite is true.
The "commentary" on the UK is fact. They are experiencing less revenue after raising taxes. Chalk one up for Laffer, an economist! Oh my.
Lastly, America has THE MOST PROGRESSIVE tax system in the modern world. Our rich pay more of what it takes to run the government than all those socialist countries you lefties adore. Of course, it's never enough for you. Basically, your entire argument comes down to class envy. I want more and I want him to have less. How childish.
Welfare and public education is designed to keep people poor and ignorant.
then why has it not produced what you claimed it produces?
In NYC, 1/3 of the high school students drop out (40%+ for minorities), I'd say that's the requires result of a failed, Progressive educational system
It was not. You're so full of shit.
Oh good god. Did you even make it to third grade?
{Seeking to replace the controlling functions of the local aristocracy, the Prussian court attempted to instill social obedience in the citizens through indoctrination. Every individual had to become convinced, in the core of his being, that the King was just, his decisions always right, and the need for obedience paramount.[citation needed]
The schools imposed an official language, to the prejudice of ethnic groups living in Prussia. The purpose of the system was to instill loyalty to the Crown and to train young men for the military and the bureaucracy. As the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, a key influence on the system, said, "If you want to influence [the student] at all, you must do more than merely talk to him; you must fashion him, and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than what you wish him to will." [}
Prussian education system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Leftism is simply a manifestation of stupidity.
{American educators were fascinated by German educational trends. In 1818, John Griscom gave a favorable report of Prussian education. English translations were made of French philosopher Victor Cousin's work, "Report on the State of Public Education in Prussia." Calvin E. Stowe, Henry Barnard, Horace Mann, George Bancroft and Joseph Cogswell all had a vigorous interest in German education. In 1843, Mann traveled to Germany to investigate how the educational process worked. Upon his return to the United States, he lobbied heavily to have the "Prussian model" adopted.
Mann convinced his fellow modernizers, especially those in the Whig Party to legislate tax-supported elementary public education in their states. Indeed, most northern states adopted one version or another of the system he established in Massachusetts, especially the program for "normal schools" to train professional teachers[2]. In 1852, Mann was instrumental in the decision to adopt the Prussian education system in Massachusetts. Soon New York state set up the same method in 12 different schools on a trial basis.}
Fucking A but you folk are dumb.
Critical thinking means reasoning that since natural climate changes have occurred in the past its therefore preposterous to even propose man could influence the climate? That's "critical' thinking in your book? REALLY?
Ohhhbahhhbahhhbahhhmahhh..
Oh look everyone, he's saying we're like Prussia! He clearly has a grasp on modern America!
Republicans represent all of the people. Not just the convenient ones.
then why has it not produced what you claimed it produces?
In NYC, 1/3 of the high school students drop out (40%+ for minorities), I'd say that's the requires result of a failed, Progressive educational system
LOL. What a dumb fucking statement to make. It probably more points out the lack of really good funding for education, the lack of emphasis on education, and a lack of opportunities for urban kids.
Failing all over the place.
Yes or no, Dumbfuck, TARP was Bush's baby. Yes or no.
First you fucktard, Obama voted for TARP. Yes or no.
In NYC, 1/3 of the high school students drop out (40%+ for minorities), I'd say that's the requires result of a failed, Progressive educational system
LOL. What a dumb fucking statement to make. It probably more points out the lack of really good funding for education, the lack of emphasis on education, and a lack of opportunities for urban kids.
Failing all over the place.
Yet New York ranks #1 in spending per student...
New York leads all states in school spending per student | syracuse.com
Now what was that you were saying about failing?
Anyone who doesn't believe your conspiracy theory nutter bullshit is dumb I guess.It was not. You're so full of shit.
Oh good god. Did you even make it to third grade?
{Seeking to replace the controlling functions of the local aristocracy, the Prussian court attempted to instill social obedience in the citizens through indoctrination. Every individual had to become convinced, in the core of his being, that the King was just, his decisions always right, and the need for obedience paramount.[citation needed]
The schools imposed an official language, to the prejudice of ethnic groups living in Prussia. The purpose of the system was to instill loyalty to the Crown and to train young men for the military and the bureaucracy. As the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, a key influence on the system, said, "If you want to influence [the student] at all, you must do more than merely talk to him; you must fashion him, and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than what you wish him to will." [}
Prussian education system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Leftism is simply a manifestation of stupidity.
{American educators were fascinated by German educational trends. In 1818, John Griscom gave a favorable report of Prussian education. English translations were made of French philosopher Victor Cousin's work, "Report on the State of Public Education in Prussia." Calvin E. Stowe, Henry Barnard, Horace Mann, George Bancroft and Joseph Cogswell all had a vigorous interest in German education. In 1843, Mann traveled to Germany to investigate how the educational process worked. Upon his return to the United States, he lobbied heavily to have the "Prussian model" adopted.
Mann convinced his fellow modernizers, especially those in the Whig Party to legislate tax-supported elementary public education in their states. Indeed, most northern states adopted one version or another of the system he established in Massachusetts, especially the program for "normal schools" to train professional teachers[2]. In 1852, Mann was instrumental in the decision to adopt the Prussian education system in Massachusetts. Soon New York state set up the same method in 12 different schools on a trial basis.}
Fucking A but you folk are dumb.
Critical thinking means reasoning that since natural climate changes have occurred in the past its therefore preposterous to even propose man could influence the climate? That's "critical' thinking in your book? REALLY?
Ohhhbahhhbahhhbahhhmahhh..
It was not. You're so full of shit.
Oh good god. Did you even make it to third grade?
{Seeking to replace the controlling functions of the local aristocracy, the Prussian court attempted to instill social obedience in the citizens through indoctrination. Every individual had to become convinced, in the core of his being, that the King was just, his decisions always right, and the need for obedience paramount.[citation needed]
Republicans represent all of the people. Not just the convenient ones.
Who did The Obama serve when He forced the Dems to cut taxes for the rich in 2010?
Republicans represent all of the people. Not just the convenient ones.
So why you insist on electing people who only look out for 1% of the people? This compromise proposed by Obama would benefit MILLIONS of Americans. But I know, if you can't slurp some semen from the dick of the rich, what's the point, right?
