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.
I'm a soldier, I earn everything the hard way while you sit back on your lazy ass complaining and hating on federal workers who's jobs' you wished you had. Tnhey're much better educated than you private industry asswipes. You chart never takes that as well as other factors into consideration.
You can't even spell son! Educating retards like you was just another waste of my taxes. I am much smarter than you & it did not cost someone else.
6 of the 10 richest counties in U.S. are in the DC area.
Fat ass government leaches are bleeding this country dry. I can't wait until Flaylo loses his fat ass government job & pension.
I love charts like that..because they are such bullshit.
The President of the United States..who's job is extremely complex and demanding makes under 300K. While CEO's of a firm like Goldman Sachs, who's job is pretty much cake, gets compensation upwards of 20 million a year.
Wallstreet execs fleecing us for those extraordinary amounts just means that the average private sector worker makes even less than this chart suggest. Government cronies are the ones enabling those Wallstreet crooks to screw us.
As the purchase power of the dollar shrinks we have timmy geitner piling on our debt by visiting italy and bailing them out. Will he report his findings in terms of actual monies and where it went? or is this a habit of a round about way that taxpayers had no choice only the big banks dictate that when we pay the amount. you see how that works..fking bullstien and eventually a possible war over iran.What I find incomprehensible is that despite the fact that even liberal economists like Christina Romer are warning that raising taxes on ANYONE in a weak economy is bad fiscal policy...people like Flaylo continue to insist that a tax increase on the wealthy is the way to go. Once again...for you economically "challenged" folks out there...the reason why even a liberal Keynesian like Romer is cautioning against raising taxes on the wealthy is that doing so will slow an already anemic economy.
So if raising taxes on anyone is a bad idea...what's left? Gee, cutting spending? And where is waste rampant? The Federal Government? Duh? This really isn't rocket science, kiddies.
Instead of playing this stupid political game? Let's do the fiscally intelligent thing and cut spending before we get another credit downgrade. Then...when the economy DOES recover and start to grow...THEN and only then would a tax increase make sense to cut down the size of the deficit. You raise taxes when the economy is roaring...not when it's barely wheezing.
Taxing the people that most benefited from the Bush tax cuts will not slow recovery. There really is just so much money one can spend in a year so the tax cuts on that sector of society didn't at all help the economy. And the very wealthy DO NOT use their own wealth to "create jobs". They are extremely risk adverse.
russia and china are pist about our findings sanctions of iran. iran process a majority of china and if not russia oil cap.
you can argue about your infamous bush tax cuts but gov't is going to pile on more debt with tension increasing 10fold every day we'll have accept that no one likes us and russia and china have said so...iran is the heart for oil globally
I love charts like that..because they are such bullshit.
The President of the United States..who's job is extremely complex and demanding makes under 300K. While CEO's of a firm like Goldman Sachs, who's job is pretty much cake, gets compensation upwards of 20 million a year.
Wallstreet execs fleecing us for those extraordinary amounts just means that the average private sector worker makes even less than this chart suggest. Government cronies are the ones enabling those Wallstreet crooks to screw us.
And conservatives are basically the ones doing the enabling. When you guys say "Government Cronies"..what you really mean are the people cutting regulations and taxes. But of course..that's not what you in particular mean at all.
Wallstreet execs fleecing us for those extraordinary amounts just means that the average private sector worker makes even less than this chart suggest. Government cronies are the ones enabling those Wallstreet crooks to screw us.
And conservatives are basically the ones doing the enabling. When you guys say "Government Cronies"..what you really mean are the people cutting regulations and taxes. But of course..that's not what you in particular mean at all.
Oh! - You must be speaking of youe Democrat Butt Buddy Bunk Mate Bwarney Fwanks, who personally cut the GSE's regulator OFHEO's budget for trying to regulate Fannie & Freddie.
You can't even spell son! Educating retards like you was just another waste of my taxes. I am much smarter than you & it did not cost someone else.
Your pathetic fucking argument is bullshit and you know it, I like how dick heads like you throw out shitty charts that don't tell the full story because that bullshit works with less educated dick heads who don't know how to read between the lines and you are not more educated than I, there's a reason why I fast tracked in the military. If you thought I was going to buy that bullshit you posted you must not be very smart yourself.
As the purchase power of the dollar shrinks we have timmy geitner piling on our debt by visiting italy and bailing them out. Will he report his findings in terms of actual monies and where it went? or is this a habit of a round about way that taxpayers had no choice only the big banks dictate that when we pay the amount. you see how that works..fking bullstien and eventually a possible war over iran.Taxing the people that most benefited from the Bush tax cuts will not slow recovery. There really is just so much money one can spend in a year so the tax cuts on that sector of society didn't at all help the economy. And the very wealthy DO NOT use their own wealth to "create jobs". They are extremely risk adverse.
russia and china are pist about our findings sanctions of iran. iran process a majority of china and if not russia oil cap.
you can argue about your infamous bush tax cuts but gov't is going to pile on more debt with tension increasing 10fold every day we'll have accept that no one likes us and russia and china have said so...iran is the heart for oil globally
You're all over the place here ace. But it's a pretty simple concept. A person can only spend so much in a year. And since this is a consumer driven economic model, piling tons of cash into a very few hands doesn't work well. In fact..it's counter productive..and will spell an end to capitalism in this country.
Prove it. overwise shut the hell up and make your pt and quit whining it just makes you look weak.And conservatives are basically the ones doing the enabling. When you guys say "Government Cronies"..what you really mean are the people cutting regulations and taxes. But of course..that's not what you in particular mean at all.
Oh! - You must be speaking of youe Democrat Butt Buddy Bunk Mate Bwarney Fwanks, who personally cut the GSE's regulator OFHEO's budget for trying to regulate Fannie & Freddie.
I knew you were going to bring this up. Possibly because you have no idea what Fannie and Freddie actually does. Both had very little to do with the economic calamity wrought by the Bush administration. Neither did the CRA. Basically because all it did was to remove the practice of red lining poor neighborhoods. So quite contrary to all the conservative bullshit about this..the CRA actually lead the way to gentrifying many areas in this country. What actually happened was the practice of predatory lending companies like "Quick Loan Funding". Financial Houses like Goldman Sachs began to back subprime loans and bundled them into derivatives. When the shit initially hit the fan..those subprimes were dumped on Fannie and Freddie.
But of course..you wouldn't know anything about any of that. The personal insult just buttresses the stupidity of your argument..here.
What I find incomprehensible is that despite the fact that even liberal economists like Christina Romer are warning that raising taxes on ANYONE in a weak economy is bad fiscal policy...people like Flaylo continue to insist that a tax increase on the wealthy is the way to go. Once again...for you economically "challenged" folks out there...the reason why even a liberal Keynesian like Romer is cautioning against raising taxes on the wealthy is that doing so will slow an already anemic economy.
So if raising taxes on anyone is a bad idea...what's left? Gee, cutting spending? And where is waste rampant? The Federal Government? Duh? This really isn't rocket science, kiddies.
Instead of playing this stupid political game? Let's do the fiscally intelligent thing and cut spending before we get another credit downgrade. Then...when the economy DOES recover and start to grow...THEN and only then would a tax increase make sense to cut down the size of the deficit. You raise taxes when the economy is roaring...not when it's barely wheezing.
Taxing the people that most benefited from the Bush tax cuts will not slow recovery. There really is just so much money one can spend in a year so the tax cuts on that sector of society didn't at all help the economy. And the very wealthy DO NOT use their own wealth to "create jobs". They are extremely risk adverse.
why do you defend(freddie& fannie mae) failures? It's not secret they were toxic assets as you left nutter like to say it. It was the legisletion over several decades that caused this problem. IN short in the 2000's era Majority of the loans were over leveraged... increase above the standard 20 % down payment. Higher leverage loans have a higher probability of failing base on stats. Number don't lie.Oh! - You must be speaking of youe Democrat Butt Buddy Bunk Mate Bwarney Fwanks, who personally cut the GSE's regulator OFHEO's budget for trying to regulate Fannie & Freddie.
I knew you were going to bring this up. Possibly because you have no idea what Fannie and Freddie actually does. Both had very little to do with the economic calamity wrought by the Bush administration. Neither did the CRA. Basically because all it did was to remove the practice of red lining poor neighborhoods. So quite contrary to all the conservative bullshit about this..the CRA actually lead the way to gentrifying many areas in this country. What actually happened was the practice of predatory lending companies like "Quick Loan Funding". Financial Houses like Goldman Sachs began to back subprime loans and bundled them into derivatives. When the shit initially hit the fan..those subprimes were dumped on Fannie and Freddie.
But of course..you wouldn't know anything about any of that. The personal insult just buttresses the stupidity of your argument..here.
What I find incomprehensible is that despite the fact that even liberal economists like Christina Romer are warning that raising taxes on ANYONE in a weak economy is bad fiscal policy...people like Flaylo continue to insist that a tax increase on the wealthy is the way to go. Once again...for you economically "challenged" folks out there...the reason why even a liberal Keynesian like Romer is cautioning against raising taxes on the wealthy is that doing so will slow an already anemic economy.
So if raising taxes on anyone is a bad idea...what's left? Gee, cutting spending? And where is waste rampant? The Federal Government? Duh? This really isn't rocket science, kiddies.
Instead of playing this stupid political game? Let's do the fiscally intelligent thing and cut spending before we get another credit downgrade. Then...when the economy DOES recover and start to grow...THEN and only then would a tax increase make sense to cut down the size of the deficit. You raise taxes when the economy is roaring...not when it's barely wheezing.
Taxing the people that most benefited from the Bush tax cuts will not slow recovery. There really is just so much money one can spend in a year so the tax cuts on that sector of society didn't at all help the economy. And the very wealthy DO NOT use their own wealth to "create jobs". They are extremely risk adverse.
Simple just wrong,the middle class and lower by far got the largest benift from the Bush tax cuts. The numbers are in black and white ,but these two still refuse to face reality,with the the rich need to pay mantra.
The only clowns misrepresenting anything is the these two.
What are the numbers??? who received the largest tax reduction??
As the purchase power of the dollar shrinks we have timmy geitner piling on our debt by visiting italy and bailing them out. Will he report his findings in terms of actual monies and where it went? or is this a habit of a round about way that taxpayers had no choice only the big banks dictate that when we pay the amount. you see how that works..fking bullstien and eventually a possible war over iran.
russia and china are pist about our findings sanctions of iran. iran process a majority of china and if not russia oil cap.
you can argue about your infamous bush tax cuts but gov't is going to pile on more debt with tension increasing 10fold every day we'll have accept that no one likes us and russia and china have said so...iran is the heart for oil globally
You're all over the place here ace. But it's a pretty simple concept. A person can only spend so much in a year. And since this is a consumer driven economic model, piling tons of cash into a very few hands doesn't work well. In fact..it's counter productive..and will spell an end to capitalism in this country.
maybe you can point wor i'm all over the place before playing a recorded version
my economics are sound but you may need to check yourself out.
You're all over the place here ace. But it's a pretty simple concept. A person can only spend so much in a year. And since this is a consumer driven economic model, piling tons of cash into a very few hands doesn't work well. In fact..it's counter productive..and will spell an end to capitalism in this country.
maybe you can point wor i'm all over the place before playing a recorded version
my economics are sound but you may need to check yourself out.
Your economics? Are sound how? Because you incorporate big fonts, call people names and use pretty colors?
Your post is all over the place. And it had nothing to do with responding to the points I made in my post. But heck..lets ask a simple question here.
Which model do you think bodes better for a consumer driven economy..and why?
10 people with 10,000 dollars?
1 person with 90,000 dollars and 9 people with 1,111 dollars?
The housing foreclosures speak for themself b/c apparently you can't pass the leverage concept of the loan. in the meantime, the taxpayers were footing the bill to cover those toxic assets.why do you defend(freddie& fannie mae) failures? It's not secret they were toxic assets as you left nutter like to say it. It was the legisletion over several decades that caused this problem. IN short in the 2000's era Majority of the loans were over leveraged... increase above the standard 20 % down payment. Higher leverage loans have a higher probability of failing base on stats. Number don't lie.I knew you were going to bring this up. Possibly because you have no idea what Fannie and Freddie actually does. Both had very little to do with the economic calamity wrought by the Bush administration. Neither did the CRA. Basically because all it did was to remove the practice of red lining poor neighborhoods. So quite contrary to all the conservative bullshit about this..the CRA actually lead the way to gentrifying many areas in this country. What actually happened was the practice of predatory lending companies like "Quick Loan Funding". Financial Houses like Goldman Sachs began to back subprime loans and bundled them into derivatives. When the shit initially hit the fan..those subprimes were dumped on Fannie and Freddie.
But of course..you wouldn't know anything about any of that. The personal insult just buttresses the stupidity of your argument..here.
Defend what? Freddie and Fannie? They work amazingly well, when you have people that do proper due diligence when making loans. You probably remember that whole corruption investigation of Freddie and Fannie during the Bush administration. During that time their agents stopped doing the actuary work on loans..allowing a whole new cottage industry..the Predatory lender. These guys had no financial or banking experience whatsoever. And they were encouraged by financial institutions, like Goldman, to make loans in volume. So a wholly unregulated industry duped people into loans they didn't understand.
You're all over the place here ace. But it's a pretty simple concept. A person can only spend so much in a year. And since this is a consumer driven economic model, piling tons of cash into a very few hands doesn't work well. In fact..it's counter productive..and will spell an end to capitalism in this country.
maybe you can point wor i'm all over the place before playing a recorded version
my economics are sound but you may need to check yourself out.
Your economics? Are sound how? Because you incorporate big fonts, call people names and use pretty colors?
Your post is all over the place. And it had nothing to do with responding to the points I made in my post. But heck..lets ask a simple question here.
Which model do you think bodes better for a consumer driven economy..and why?
10 people with 10,000 dollars?
1 person with 90,000 dollars and 9 people with 1,111 dollars?
Prove it. overwise shut the hell up and make your pt and quit whining it just makes you look weak.Oh! - You must be speaking of youe Democrat Butt Buddy Bunk Mate Bwarney Fwanks, who personally cut the GSE's regulator OFHEO's budget for trying to regulate Fannie & Freddie.
I knew you were going to bring this up. Possibly because you have no idea what Fannie and Freddie actually does. Both had very little to do with the economic calamity wrought by the Bush administration. Neither did the CRA. Basically because all it did was to remove the practice of red lining poor neighborhoods. So quite contrary to all the conservative bullshit about this..the CRA actually lead the way to gentrifying many areas in this country. What actually happened was the practice of predatory lending companies like "Quick Loan Funding". Financial Houses like Goldman Sachs began to back subprime loans and bundled them into derivatives. When the shit initially hit the fan..those subprimes were dumped on Fannie and Freddie.
But of course..you wouldn't know anything about any of that. The personal insult just buttresses the stupidity of your argument..here.
LET'S begin: why do you defend(freddie& fannie mae) failures? It's not secret they were toxic assets as you left nutter like to say it. It was the legislation over several decades that caused this problem. IN short in the 2000's era Majority of the loans were over leveraged... increase above the standard 20 % down payment. Higher leverage loans have a higher probability of failing base on stats. Number don't lie.
I just demostrated to you how econ 101 works but of course you that. CRA was an act or law base on racist claims on redlining. But the gov't got in and place an invisible hand of bullshit and fuk up this standard 20 % down requirement thus creating an over leveraged loan. Overleverage creates higher volitility of failure or less probability of paying the loan of through the life of the loan. Overleverage loan are repeating the same process as in the results of the 1929 crash where every one was borrowing on credit. When the time was to call on the market, the market didn't have the physical cash or back up currency as in gold. We are currently playing the same game. and you want to defend the failure of Freddie/Fannie/countrywide.
in the meantime, geitner is going to italy and forking over billions of taxpayer monies which we don't have...we are broke and economy is flatlining.
maybe you can point wor i'm all over the place before playing a recorded version
my economics are sound but you may need to check yourself out.
Your economics? Are sound how? Because you incorporate big fonts, call people names and use pretty colors?
Your post is all over the place. And it had nothing to do with responding to the points I made in my post. But heck..lets ask a simple question here.
Which model do you think bodes better for a consumer driven economy..and why?
10 people with 10,000 dollars?
1 person with 90,000 dollars and 9 people with 1,111 dollars?
Chances are that 1 or 2 are going to end up with all the cash eventually anyway because they are a little brighter and/or work a little harder, what then? At the very least a couple will go crazy spending and be broke in no time. Is that when we divy it up again?
