Republicans think handing corporations money creates jobs.

[Mikeoxenormous]

Tax cuts don't result in deficits

When you reduce revenues, you are creating deficits. The promise of tax cuts was that they would provide so much revenue via consumer spending, that we'd have surpluses as far as the eye can see. Any revenue loss on the income tax side would be made up by an increase in revenue from the consumer spending side. If you're now telling me that spending has to be cut, the primary reason for tax cuts (that they create growth, and thus revenues) is a lie, and there is no economic benefit to them. Which means they serve another function...as a Trojan Horse for spending cuts to things you are ideologically opposed to because you lack the courage to wipe it away via legislation.

So the strategy shifted to manufacturing deficits, because the fundamentals are so tragically flawed, and then using those deficits (with some questionable economic theory) as an excuse to cut spending. Those spending cuts are almost always operational, causing programs to fail. Conservatives then point to the failing programs they caused as an excuse to sell those programs off to private interests who profit at taxpayer expense while not providing a superior service or outcomes (see: charter schools, private prisons).

And I'm not sure why you are screeching about the debt. It was during Bush the Dumber that the debt clock was turned back on (because we had surpluses). Reagan tripled the debt, Bush the Elder grew it 50% in 4 years, and Bush the Dumber doubled it. That's not a great track record and doesn't really put a lot of confidence in what you're saying.

The rest of your post seems like a garbled mess of Russian Active Measures and deliberate misinterpretation of facts.

Back in 1932 an ounce of gold was $20. FDR couldn't spend more money on welfare programs because at the time, the dollar was stuck to the gold standard. Once FDR took everyone's gold and paid $25 for that ounce making the dollar 1/4 less valuable. Inflation started and soon an ounce of gold is still an ounce, but that dollar is now 1/600th of its worth. So the more the government spends money, artificially inflating minimum wage, inflation keeps going up, and all goods end up going up. Derpy derp, you are still new in the world, and when you IGNORE history, you end up being a liberal. Without Quantitative Easing of 4 trillion dollars, that dollar would be worth 1/1000th of its past and the ounce of gold would of been over $2,000. But you keep on goose stepping, because it is all about the PARTY. Now ignore the facts some more.


http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/files/images/communist-party-poster.jpg

 

[The Derp]

Back in 1932 an ounce of gold was $20. FDR couldn't spend more money on welfare programs because at the time, the dollar was stuck to the gold standard. Once FDR took everyone's gold and paid $25 for that ounce making the dollar 1/4 less valuable. Inflation started and soon an ounce of gold is still an ounce, but that dollar is now 1/600th of its worth. So the more the government spends money, artificially inflating minimum wage, inflation keeps going up, and all goods end up going up. Derpy derp, you are still new in the world, and when you IGNORE history, you end up being a liberal. Without Quantitative Easing of 4 trillion dollars, that dollar would be worth 1/1000th of its past and the ounce of gold would of been over $2,000. But you keep on goose stepping, because it is all about the PARTY. Now ignore the facts some more.

We aren't on the gold standard anymore, with good reason.

And I'm not sure why you oppose QE...that is trickle-down economics exercised to its fullest. So it's strange that you would think something that is precisely what your ideology is, is flawed. Unless you're conceding the ideology itself is flawed. The whole reason the Fed did QE was because Conservatives in Congress refused to go along with economic recovery. The Fed wasn't constrained by those limitations, so it did its own stimulus.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Back in 1932 an ounce of gold was $20. FDR couldn't spend more money on welfare programs because at the time, the dollar was stuck to the gold standard. Once FDR took everyone's gold and paid $25 for that ounce making the dollar 1/4 less valuable. Inflation started and soon an ounce of gold is still an ounce, but that dollar is now 1/600th of its worth. So the more the government spends money, artificially inflating minimum wage, inflation keeps going up, and all goods end up going up. Derpy derp, you are still new in the world, and when you IGNORE history, you end up being a liberal. Without Quantitative Easing of 4 trillion dollars, that dollar would be worth 1/1000th of its past and the ounce of gold would of been over $2,000. But you keep on goose stepping, because it is all about the PARTY. Now ignore the facts some more.

We aren't on the gold standard anymore, with good reason.

And I'm not sure why you oppose QE...that is trickle-down economics exercised to its fullest. So it's strange that you would think something that is precisely what your ideology is, is flawed. Unless you're conceding the ideology itself is flawed. The whole reason the Fed did QE was because Conservatives in Congress refused to go along with economic recovery. The Fed wasn't constrained by those limitations, so it did its own stimulus.

Trickle Down is liberals term not Conservatives, you fucking moron. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Supply Side economics is what this economy runs well on, when someone wants want another has, instead of doing the liberal way, of stealing from that person, people work for a living then give up their money freely for those goods and services that is wanted. Liberals just take, whether through taxes or worse, robbery, because liberals are too fucking lazy to go out and legitimately earn something.

 

[The Derp]

Trickle Down is liberals term not Conservatives

It doesn't matter what you call it, it still smells like shit. So you can call it trickle-down, you can call it supply-side, you can call it voodoo economics...it doesn't change the fundamental core flaw at its heart.

Supply Side economics is what this economy runs well on, when someone wants want another has,

So you don't know what your ideology even is. Supply-side economics is the theory of "if you build it, they will come", and just as magical in its thinking as it was in Field of Dreams. It's just another form of trickle-down, by giving suppliers (aka rich people) tax breaks they would theoreitcally use to expand. However, the flaw is that increasing profits is not the same thing as increasing revenues. Supply-side does nothing to increase revenues, though it does much to increase profits. But consumers don't benefit from profit increases, workers don't benefit from profit increases, the only ones who benefit are those who own the companies.

So it's hard to see how supply-side theory translates to consumer demand when, fundamentally the premise is flawed, and because we have all this empirical evidence from the last 37 years showing the belief system is crap.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Trickle Down is liberals term not Conservatives

It doesn't matter what you call it, it still smells like shit. So you can call it trickle-down, you can call it supply-side, you can call it voodoo economics...it doesn't change the fundamental core flaw at its heart.

Supply Side economics is what this economy runs well on, when someone wants want another has,

So you don't know what your ideology even is. Supply-side economics is the theory of "if you build it, they will come", and just as magical in its thinking as it was in Field of Dreams. It's just another form of trickle-down, by giving suppliers (aka rich people) tax breaks they would theoreitcally use to expand. However, the flaw is that increasing profits is not the same thing as increasing revenues. Supply-side does nothing to increase revenues, though it does much to increase profits. But consumers don't benefit from profit increases, workers don't benefit from profit increases, the only ones who benefit are those who own the companies.

So it's hard to see how supply-side theory translates to consumer demand when, fundamentally the premise is flawed, and because we have all this empirical evidence from the last 37 years showing the belief system is crap.

So I supposed your solution to the problem that you are talking about is "Socialism", where everyone will be equal?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Trickle Down is liberals term not Conservatives

It doesn't matter what you call it, it still smells like shit. So you can call it trickle-down, you can call it supply-side, you can call it voodoo economics...it doesn't change the fundamental core flaw at its heart.

Supply Side economics is what this economy runs well on, when someone wants want another has,

So you don't know what your ideology even is. Supply-side economics is the theory of "if you build it, they will come", and just as magical in its thinking as it was in Field of Dreams. It's just another form of trickle-down, by giving suppliers (aka rich people) tax breaks they would theoreitcally use to expand. However, the flaw is that increasing profits is not the same thing as increasing revenues. Supply-side does nothing to increase revenues, though it does much to increase profits. But consumers don't benefit from profit increases, workers don't benefit from profit increases, the only ones who benefit are those who own the companies.

So it's hard to see how supply-side theory translates to consumer demand when, fundamentally the premise is flawed, and because we have all this empirical evidence from the last 37 years showing the belief system is crap.

Oh by the way, I am a stock holder, been one since 1987 but not an owner of that company. I have made lots of profits from being invested in that company. But shitheads like you, cant understand that, can you?

REVENUES is liberal term for TAXES....

 

[The Derp]

So I supposed your solution to the problem that you are talking about is "Socialism", where everyone will be equal?

Before we get to my solution, let's close the loop on your belief system; namely that in 37 years it hasn't delivered on a single promise made of it. So I know you read my post. I know you digested what I said. I know you don't disagree (because you offered no counter-argument). So why do you feel the need to switch gears and move the goalposts? Are you too much of a snowflake to admit that your belief system has this YUGE, glaring flaw in it?

 

[The Derp]

Oh by the way, I am a stock holder, been one since 1987 but not an owner of that company. I have made lots of profits from being invested in that company. But shitheads like you, cant understand that, can you?

I don't believe anything any Conservative says about themselves on the message boards. I find they usually exaggerate or make up things about themselves in order to lend their bad argument credibility it doesn't otherwise have.

 

[MindWars]

A key date is May 12, 2016. That was the day when U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, in the case U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, (130 F. Supp. 3d 53, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), ruled against Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/HofR-challenge-to-ACA-DCt-5-12-16.pdf

 

[MindWars]

View attachment 124511


View attachment 124512

CONFIRMED: TREASURY SAYS OBAMA STOLE FROM FANNIE, FREDDIE INVESTORS TO FUND OBAMACARE
Docs reveal Obama defrauding mortgage investors


A key date is May 12, 2016. That was the day when U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, in the case U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, (130 F. Supp. 3d 53, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), ruled against Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell.

View attachment 124513

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/HofR-challenge-to-ACA-DCt-5-12-16.pdf

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A careful analysis of the Treasury Department’s “Agency Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2013” provides evidence the Obama administration stole from Fannie and Freddie investors to fund Obamacare.

The analysis begins with a table entitled “Summary Financial Information,” presented on page 26 of the Treasury Department’s “Agency Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2013.”

Confirmed: Treasury Says Obama Stole From Fannie, Freddie Investors to Fund Obamacare

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

So I supposed your solution to the problem that you are talking about is "Socialism", where everyone will be equal?

Before we get to my solution, let's close the loop on your belief system; namely that in 37 years it hasn't delivered on a single promise made of it. So I know you read my post. I know you digested what I said. I know you don't disagree (because you offered no counter-argument). So why do you feel the need to switch gears and move the goalposts? Are you too much of a snowflake to admit that your belief system has this YUGE, glaring flaw in it?

First off I have been around a lot longer than you have, so I have seen what Communism has done to countries. I have seen what Fascism has done to countries. I have seen what Socialism has done to countries. All have failed, it people and drove them into such poverty that many of their citizens have faced execution to leave and come here. Now Capitalism isn't the perfect form of an economy, but it is by far 1000s of times better than any socialists way. But you are too stupid to know better, because you have been brainwashed by Marxism.

I don't give a rats ass whether you believe me or not, for I don't care how well you do in life, unless you are one of those who suckle off the government teats with EBT cards and assisted housing. I worked my ass out of poverty, went over seas and made plenty of money. I didn't sit back being a liberal victim, and bitched and moan about how unfair life is.

 

[The Derp]

Confirmed: Treasury Says Obama Stole From Fannie, Freddie Investors to Fund Obamacare

Who are the "investors"?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

So I supposed your solution to the problem that you are talking about is "Socialism", where everyone will be equal?

Before we get to my solution, let's close the loop on your belief system; namely that in 37 years it hasn't delivered on a single promise made of it. So I know you read my post. I know you digested what I said. I know you don't disagree (because you offered no counter-argument). So why do you feel the need to switch gears and move the goalposts? Are you too much of a snowflake to admit that your belief system has this YUGE, glaring flaw in it?

And no I am not a liberal butthurt snowflake.

 

[The Derp]

First off I have been around a lot longer than you have, so I have seen what Communism has done to countries. I have seen what Fascism has done to countries. I have seen what Socialism has done to countries. All have failed, it people and drove them into such poverty that many of their citizens have faced execution to leave and come here. Now Capitalism isn't the perfect form of an economy, but it is by far 1000s of times better than any socialists way. But you are too stupid to know better, because you have been brainwashed by Marxism.

Of course, I don't believe you...and finding that you have to lean on unverifiable personal anecdotes to lend your argument credibility it doesn't otherwise have, is quite telling. Namely that you've reached the point in the argument where it's painfully obvious there are no facts to support your position. So you migrate the argument to one of hysteric emotion like a true snowflake. I don't believe anything any Conservative says about themselves on the internet because Conservatives lie constantly. They inflate their credentials (or just make them up) to qualify the stupid thing they're about to say. You wouldn't believe me if I told you I was Tom Brady, so why should I believe anything you say about yourself? It's in your interests to lie about your credentials, because that's how you're supporting your argument that is absent of facts. Get over yourself, snowflake.

I don't give a rats ass whether you believe me or not

Well, since your argument hinges on the qualifiers you've set, it matters a great deal that I believe you. Since you have no facts, all you have is your word. And why the hell should I trust you? Conservatives have been co-opted by Russia, so I don't even know why you feel the need to pretend that all the energy and emotion you spent trying to set yourself up as an authority on the subject simply because you say so, if not because your argument is deficient of facts.

Basically, you don't have facts to support yourself. So to fill that void, you invent things about yourself in order to lend your argument credibility it should have on the facts, only it doesn't because facts run contrary to Conservatism.

 

[The Derp]

And no I am not a liberal butthurt snowflake.

You sure seem to be...screeching about your made-up personal qualifications as the credibility to your argument, then immediately saying it doesn't matter if I believe them. You've tied your unverifiable personal anecdotes to your argument. So without them, you got nothing.

 

[The Derp]

When a Conservatives fills the fact void in their argument with unverifiable personal anecdotes, you know they're full of shit.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

First off I have been around a lot longer than you have, so I have seen what Communism has done to countries. I have seen what Fascism has done to countries. I have seen what Socialism has done to countries. All have failed, it people and drove them into such poverty that many of their citizens have faced execution to leave and come here. Now Capitalism isn't the perfect form of an economy, but it is by far 1000s of times better than any socialists way. But you are too stupid to know better, because you have been brainwashed by Marxism.

Of course, I don't believe you...and finding that you have to lean on unverifiable personal anecdotes to lend your argument credibility it doesn't otherwise have, is quite telling. Namely that you've reached the point in the argument where it's painfully obvious there are no facts to support your position. So you migrate the argument to one of hysteric emotion like a true snowflake. I don't believe anything any Conservative says about themselves on the internet because Conservatives lie constantly. They inflate their credentials (or just make them up) to qualify the stupid thing they're about to say. You wouldn't believe me if I told you I was Tom Brady, so why should I believe anything you say about yourself? It's in your interests to lie about your credentials, because that's how you're supporting your argument that is absent of facts. Get over yourself, snowflake.

I don't give a rats ass whether you believe me or not

Well, since your argument hinges on the qualifiers you've set, it matters a great deal that I believe you. Since you have no facts, all you have is your word. And why the hell should I trust you? Conservatives have been co-opted by Russia, so I don't even know why you feel the need to pretend that all the energy and emotion you spent trying to set yourself up as an authority on the subject simply because you say so, if not because your argument is deficient of facts.

Basically, you don't have facts to support yourself. So to fill that void, you invent things about yourself in order to lend your argument credibility it should have on the facts, only it doesn't because facts run contrary to Conservatism.

Conservatives have been co-opted by Russia,

 

[Papageorgio]

I can you can't.

LOL! Well, nice that you've set yourself up to not have your views challenged.

I have my views challenged all the time, I just don't allow someone like you to pretend they are all knowing and put up the parameters.

 

[Papageorgio]

When have the Republicans passed a no minimum wage bill?

Never. But that doesn't mean they don't want to. Conservatives don't want to lower the minimum wage, they want to abolish it. I assume because they want American workers to work for the same wages and in the same conditions their Third World counterparts do, while also lowering the standard of living.

But lower standards is pretty Conservative. So it comes as no surprise that their strategy is to race to the bottom.

So no bill has been introduced, no bill has been passed however, you think you know everything therefore you must be right. Sorry, I don't listen to that kind of BS logic, I find it wrong and counterproductive to solving any issue.

 

[The Derp]

I have my views challenged all the time, I just don't allow someone like you to pretend they are all knowing and put up the parameters.

Right, because you're gonna need to shift the parameters as your argument falls apart.