The Evidence is In!

[Uncensored2008]

Post 104 doesn't answer the question.

All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth.

Actually, tax cuts alone won't do it.

We need to cut regulation if we want business to return to our shores. When you wage war against those who create the jobs, you shouldn't be surprised when they pick up their ball and go play elsewhere - still your leftist always are surprised....

 

[logical4u]

What specifically should Obama have done that he didn't?

Not passed Obama care
Allowed the oil companies to drill
Not stopped the oil companies from drilling
Not appointed Czars that are unaccountable to run the government
Done away with the TSA in airports
Kept his hands off executive orders (not passed any)
Reduced regulations or streamlined regulations
Played class warfare
Played sexual preference warfare
Played racist warfare
Played cops against professor warfare
Playing illegal immigration warfare
FIRED Eric Holder when he proved his leadership would not be blind justice but blatant discrimmination
He should not have allowed those firearms to go to crimminals in the southwest (all to limit the second Ammendment) that were used in crimes and the murder of one of our own
He should have left the terrorists trials that were set in place and not made a big spectacle of them about moving the trial to NYC
He should have acknowledged the terrible floods in the Nashville, TN area (were those citizens the wrong color)
He should have acknowledged ther terrible floods in the Midwest (were those citizens the wrong color)
He should have stood proud for the USA, and not apologized for our very existence to every foreign country he visited
He should have met foreign leaders like a man, and not bowed like an "inferior"
Should I go on .....

We were talking about economic stimulus.

"Not passed Obama care
Allowed the oil companies to drill
Not stopped the oil companies from drilling
Not appointed Czars that are unaccountable to run the government
Done away with the TSA in airports
Kept his hands off executive orders (not passed any)
Reduced regulations or streamlined regulations
Played class warfare
Played sexual preference warfare
Played racist warfare
Played cops against professor warfare
Playing illegal immigration warfare
FIRED Eric Holder when he proved his leadership would not be blind justice but blatant discrimmination
He should not have allowed those firearms to go to crimminals in the southwest (all to limit the second Ammendment) that were used in crimes and the murder of one of our own
He should have left the terrorists trials that were set in place and not made a big spectacle of them about moving the trial to NYC
He should have acknowledged the terrible floods in the Nashville, TN area (were those citizens the wrong color)
He should have acknowledged ther terrible floods in the Midwest (were those citizens the wrong color)
He should have stood proud for the USA, and not apologized for our very existence to every foreign country he visited
He should have met foreign leaders like a man, and not bowed like an "inferior"
"
Which one of those stimulated the economy? If they didn't "stimulate" the economy, then they hurt the economy, get it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Even adjusted for inflation, government spending increased year over year every year of the Reagan presidency except one, 1987, which was long after the recession ended. So Reagan? smaller government?

No.

So for the third time, when did the Bush tax cuts stop working?

For the Nth time....see post #104.

Better, have someone with a degree higher than your GED explain it to you.

Post 104 doesn't answer the question.

All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth.

You say it every time there's a recession, even though taxes were already lowered from the last recession.

You do realize that if cutting taxes is the only solution to getting out of recessions, then eventually taxes are at zero, hell,

fed income taxes are already at zero for half of America. 50% paying no income tax. Next round of GOP tax cuts, what?

60% paying no taxes? Then 70%, then 80%, then 90%?

Question for Conservatives:

What will the Right's plan be for getting us out of some recession in the future, when taxes are already at zero?

Earned Income Credits for Millionaires?????

Think, people.

"All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth."

I love it!

"All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth."

And when I blow your 'thought' out of the water...can I choose a doll from the top shelf???


"...that any new tax legislation enacted next year should meet the following three tests:

First, it should reduce the net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required. Early action could give us extra leverage, added results, and important insurance against recession. Too large a tax cut, of course, could result in inflation and insufficient future revenues — but the greater danger is a tax cut too little, or too late, to be effective.

Second, the new tax bill must increase private consumption, as well as investment. Consumers are still spending between 92 and 94 percent on their after-tax income, as they have every year since 1950. But that after-tax income could and should be greater, providing stronger markets for the products of American industry. When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid-off, investment increases, and profits are high.

Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment. We have done this through the 1962 investment tax credit and through the liberalization of depreciation allowances — two essential parts of our first step in tax revision — which amounted to a ten percent reduction in corporate income taxes worth 2.5 billion dollars. Now we need to increase consumer demand to make these measures fully effective — demand which will make more use of existing capacity and thus increase both profits and the incentive to invest. In fact, profits after taxes would be at least 15 percent higher today if we were operating at full employment.

For all these reasons, next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes: for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.

Third, the new tax bill should improve both the equity and the simplicity of our present tax system. This means the enactment of long-needed tax reforms, a broadening of the tax base, and the elimination or modification of many special tax privileges. These steps are not only needed to recover lost revenue and thus make possible a larger cut in present rates, they are also tied directly to our goal of greater growth. For the present patchwork of special provisions and preferences lightens the tax loads of some only at the cost of placing a heavier burden on others. It distorts economic judgments and channels undue amounts of energy into efforts to avoid tax liability. It makes certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings. All this inhibits our growth and efficiency, as well as considerably complicating the work of both the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service."

OK...get ready.....here comes the best part!!!!



"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."


OK...Proves the case for "....you people on the Right.."???

Guess, who am I quoting?? C'mon...take a guess....no one expects you to be right anyway...

Here, look it up:American Rhetoric: John F. Kennedy - Address to the Economic Club of New York

Those damn right-wingers!!!

""All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth."

I LOVE it!

Gee...I may be in trouble if you ever learn how to read, eh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...Ronald Reagan single-handedly defeated the Russians..."

1. At the same time the Soviets started deploying the deadly SS-20 missiles, Moscow began a political program to disarm American and NATO forces opposing them in Europe. Moscow's political program included direct and indirect support for the "Nuclear Freeze" movement inside Europe and America.

The Soviets found many willing patsy friends inside America.

The "Freeze" movement pushed for the total dismantling of U.S. and NATO nuclear weapons, staging massive demonstrations and pressuring the newly elected government of Ronald Reagan.

The liberal press called upon Reagan to remove the tactical nuclear arsenal from Europe. Europeans fell easy prey to the false theory that a nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in Europe would remain inside the continent. Freeze supporters here in the U.S. clamored that the strategic arsenal based inside America was more than enough to stop any attack in Germany.

The Hollywood establishment labeled Reagan a reckless "cowboy" who would press the nuclear button at the drop of a hat. The wide liberal criticism openly insulted Reagan as a senile fool who could carry the world into global nuclear war.
Walk Softly ...

Reagan did not give in. Instead of caving to the political pressure, Reagan went against the polls, against the liberal media and against Hollywood's advice to disarm in the face of the Soviet threat. Reagan opted instead to match Moscow's firepower and up the ante.

The Reagan administration decided to deploy a new series of U.S. nuclear missiles in Europe. Despite the protests and howling liberal media, Reagan began to deploy advanced Pershing II tactical missiles and land-based Tomahawk cruise missiles to meet the Soviet SS-20 threat.
The Legacy of Ronald Reagan – Peace

So, yes....pretty much "single-handedly."
But I'll include Lady Thatcher, if you like.

So, again, as I pointed out, you're saying that you believe Obama single-handedly killed Osama Bin Laden.

2. Are you aware of the fact that the 'Liberal Lion,' Senator Ted Kennedy offered the Soviets a pact against the sitting Presidnent of the United States?

The following from the Central Committee archives, in Moscow: May 14, 1983, Committee on State Security of the USSR, On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov. "… very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. … dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons… the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics…. "

" …a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations … so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA… also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield.
… to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA… the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters…"
Letter Details Kennedy Offer To USSR | Sweetness & Light

3. I strongly suggest that you educate yourself as to the duplicity of the Left, the Democrats, and the following texts would go a long way in that direction:

Dr. Paul Kangor, Hoover Institution, Stanford “DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century”

and

"The Mitrokhin Archives", a fascinating cache of documents was taken out of Russia by a defector...
The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB [Paperback]
Christopher Andrew (Author)
(Author), Vasili Mitrokhin (Author)

And no, I'm not going to buy that line of BS.

Might as well read some lefty novels about how Bush was a secret Nazi who loved to kill babies, or watch Farenheit 9/11.

I strongly suggest that you educate yourself....

"And no, I'm not going to buy that line of BS."

Learned that technique in a Liberal school, eh?

Sure is a great time saver, not reading....

 

[Vast LWC]

I strongly suggest that you educate yourself....

"And no, I'm not going to buy that line of BS."

Learned that technique in a Liberal school, eh?

Sure is a great time saver, not reading....

Yeah, I don't read comic books either.

Both are about equally factual.

At least comic books are entertaining.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I strongly suggest that you educate yourself....

"And no, I'm not going to buy that line of BS."

Learned that technique in a Liberal school, eh?

Sure is a great time saver, not reading....

Yeah, I don't read comic books either.

Both are about equally factual.

At least comic books are entertaining.

Leftie...don't you realize that you are validating the charicature of the left??

Ignorant, anti-intellectual....
...how do you know it isn't factual if you haven't read it????


I must tell you...for me, it is enlightening to read books written by the other side...

this is why the Left has let you down, you don't examine all perspectives.

From Coulter:
"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican…"

And you just proved it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I strongly suggest that you educate yourself....

"And no, I'm not going to buy that line of BS."

Learned that technique in a Liberal school, eh?

Sure is a great time saver, not reading....

Yeah, I don't read comic books either.

Both are about equally factual.

At least comic books are entertaining.

Leftie...don't you realize that you are validating the charicature of the left??

Ignorant, anti-intellectual....
...how do you know it isn't factual if you haven't read it????


I must tell you...for me, it is enlightening to read books written by the other side...

this is why the Left has let you down, you don't examine all perspectives.

From Coulter:
"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican…"

And you just proved it.

Intellectually, liberals are weak.

 

[Vast LWC]

Leftie...don't you realize that you are validating the charicature of the left??

Ignorant, anti-intellectual....
...how do you know it isn't factual if you haven't read it????


I must tell you...for me, it is enlightening to read books written by the other side...

this is why the Left has let you down, you don't examine all perspectives.

From Coulter:
"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican…"

And you just proved it.

Ahh, I see.

You're equating the fact that I don't want to read the amazing tales of fiction that you listed, with a lack of desire to consume reading material from a wide range of viewpoints.

Happily, that is not the case.

What is the case is that I feel that hyperbolic works of utter fiction are not worthy of my time, whether they come from the extreme left, right, or from extremist Star Trek fans trying to write a novel that bashes Star Wars as inferior.

Which is why I equated the reading material you mentioned with such Leftward-leaning works of fiction as Farenheit 9/11.

And Coulter is a prime example of an extremist fiction writer, though I am ashamed to admit, I did read most of "Slander" some time ago, before I discovered her true nature. At least her revisionist history was entertaining, if nothing else.

 

[Vast LWC]

Intellectually, liberals are weak.

Strange then, that conservatives are always trying to paint them as "Intellectual Elitists" then...

So, are Liberals stupid or elitist intellectuals, which is it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Intellectually, liberals are weak.

Strange then, that conservatives are always trying to paint them as "Intellectual Elitists" then...

So, are Liberals stupid or elitist intellectuals, which is it?

Liberal are stupid, but they tell themselves they're an intellectual elite.

 

[daveman]

So the Reagan and Bush tax cuts didn't work?

Don't tell me, tell your rightwing pals.

Idiot. They would work if the idiots like obamaturd would stop the spending. Obamaturd=not good.

Reagan and Bush didn't stop the spending. They borrowed their presidencies' prosperity.

And you oppose that.

So why do you think it's okay for Obama to do it? Well, never mind the fact that there hasn't been any Obama prosperity.

 

[daveman]

Post 104 doesn't answer the question.

All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth.

Actually, tax cuts alone won't do it.

We need to cut regulation if we want business to return to our shores. When you wage war against those who create the jobs, you shouldn't be surprised when they pick up their ball and go play elsewhere - still your leftist always are surprised....

"Why did my dog run away? I wasn't through beating him!!"

 

[daveman]

Intellectually, liberals are weak.

Strange then, that conservatives are always trying to paint them as "Intellectual Elitists" then...

So, are Liberals stupid or elitist intellectuals, which is it?

There is no mutual exclusion there. "Intellectual", as used today, doesn't necessarily mean "intelligent".

 

[Vast LWC]

Liberal are stupid, but they tell themselves they're an intellectual elite.

Actually, you're wrong on both counts.

Most liberals don't call themselves intellectually elite, they are only branded so as a political tactic by the right-wing media.

Of course, there are the Keith Olbermann / Bill Maher types who actually do act like intellectual elitists, but those guys are assholes.

And there is an Ann Coulter right-wing "intellectual elitist" for every Bill Maher.

 

[Vast LWC]

There is no mutual exclusion there. "Intellectual", as used today, doesn't necessarily mean "intelligent".

While I agree with that, most people wouldn't try to paint an idiot as an "intellectual elitist" as a political tactic. It just wouldn't hold much water.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Liberal are stupid, but they tell themselves they're an intellectual elite.

Actually, you're wrong on both counts.

Most liberals don't call themselves intellectually elite, they are only branded so as a political tactic by the right-wing media.

Of course, there are the Keith Olbermann / Bill Maher types who actually do act like intellectual elitists, but those guys are assholes.

And there is an Ann Coulter right-wing "intellectual elitist" for every Bill Maher.

Obama thinks he's an intellectual, he's a moron.

 

[Vast LWC]

Obama thinks he's an intellectual, he's a moron.

Again, Obama's "intellectual elitism" is a construct of the Right-wing Media.

Obama is no more "elitist" in reality than most conservative politicians.

Obama IS intelligent, however, and has the documentation to prove it.

But then, so are the great majority of the people who make it into the US Senate and above on both sides, with a few notable exceptions.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Pubs- stupidest, greediest, most bought off and misled party in the modern world. Don't believe in science or experts, believe in "common sense", the voice of god and high school grad demagogues, half believe the black president is a kenyan, muslim, MARXIST. Absolute idiocy. So it's not surprising cons are found to have an IQ ten points lower than libs, and at this point many psychologists wonder if conservatism these days is a sociopathy...the lack of history and politics knowledge and misinformation is scary. There ya go...

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Oh, and Krauthammer and Will are pompous, bought off asses. Will lost it after moving on from the world of baseball to politics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obama thinks he's an intellectual, he's a moron.

Again, Obama's "intellectual elitism" is a construct of the Right-wing Media.

Obama is no more "elitist" in reality than most conservative politicians.

Obama IS intelligent, however, and has the documentation to prove it.

But then, so are the great majority of the people who make it into the US Senate and above on both sides, with a few notable exceptions.

Documentation? LOL!
Let's see his GPA and his test scores.