Debunking the rightwing "class warfare" retard rhetoric

[Contumacious]

The rightwingers like to make the bogus claim that higher taxes on the rich constitutes "class warfare,"

dis·crim·i·na·tion

noun /disˌkriməˈnāSHən/ 
discriminations, plural

The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people



slav·er·y

noun /ˈslāvərē/ 


a system in which people are the property of others

but conveniently ignore the fact that their efforts to cut funding for the poor and disadvantaged, unemployment assistance, funding to schools, funding to improve inner city decay, etc, are all examples of the worst kind of class warfare in themselves.

Is it you who conveniently forget that the Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude

Is it you who forgot that the federal government is supposed to be NEUTRAL and is not supposed to punish the rich merely because they are successful.

.

 

[Flopper]

The rightwingers like to make the bogus claim that higher taxes on the rich constitutes "class warfare," but conveniently ignore the fact that their efforts to cut funding for the poor and disadvantaged, unemployment assistance, funding to schools, funding to improve inner city decay, etc, are all examples of the worst kind of class warfare in themselves.

Of course they like to make their own form of class warfare under the mask of calling it "fiscal conservatism," but we all know the deal about Republican "fiscal conservatism. As I posted in another thread, Republitards are the party of big government and deficits, in the past 30 years not one Republitard president has presided over a surplus while and office and each year the size of government grew while the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, so can the real party of class warfare please stand up?

No democrat has presided over a surplus either.

the national debt has gone up 53 years running.

As far as schools GW presided over one of the largest increase ever to education.

Glad we could clear up your misconceptions.

Truman, Johnson, and Clinton all had surpluses. The only Republican since 1930 to have a surplus was Eisenhower.

 

[Full-Auto]

In regards to source number one, the data states that small businesses are disproportionately affected by regulation than the bigger businesses, why do you think that? Its the same dynamic that plays out with the rich and middleclass, those that are richer are disproportionally hit the least while the less rich are hit the hardest. Quite simply put, the bigger businesses have the money to throw away to pay the costs, the smaller businesses don't. Plus if you bothered to click the link at the bottom, the data may say released in September 2010, but it only deals with data actually from 2008, once again, who was president in 2008?

Well thats a no brainer as small business must comply with the same regs but doesnt do the same dollar amount of business. But you found a way to bring class warfare back.

VERY GOOD.

Did you even read your own source? The small businesses disproportionately pay *MORE* than the big rich businesses.

Which I pointed out as to why. But you seem to think class warfare is a good argument.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The rightwingers like to make the bogus claim that higher taxes on the rich constitutes "class warfare," but conveniently ignore the fact that their efforts to cut funding for the poor and disadvantaged, unemployment assistance, funding to schools, funding to improve inner city decay, etc, are all examples of the worst kind of class warfare in themselves.

Of course they like to make their own form of class warfare under the mask of calling it "fiscal conservatism," but we all know the deal about Republican "fiscal conservatism. As I posted in another thread, Republitards are the party of big government and deficits, in the past 30 years not one Republitard president has presided over a surplus while and office and each year the size of government grew while the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, so can the real party of class warfare please stand up?

No democrat has presided over a surplus either.

the national debt has gone up 53 years running.

As far as schools GW presided over one of the largest increase ever to education.

Glad we could clear up your misconceptions.

Truman, Johnson, and Clinton all had surpluses. The only Republican since 1930 to have a surplus was Eisenhower.

Truman had a surplus?
War surplus maybe

Clinton having a surplus is one of the greatest lies the democrats have ever told up until you get to obama.

 

[Full-Auto]

No democrat has presided over a surplus either.

the national debt has gone up 53 years running.

As far as schools GW presided over one of the largest increase ever to education.

Glad we could clear up your misconceptions.

Truman, Johnson, and Clinton all had surpluses. The only Republican since 1930 to have a surplus was Eisenhower.

Truman had a surplus?
War surplus maybe

Clinton having a surplus is one of the greatest lies the democrats have ever told up until you get to obama.

Repubs tell the same story, I have corrected many.

 

[Flopper]

How about forming two countries out of what the USA is today, one capitalist based the other socialist based, and we see who does better. Everyones happy cause they get what they want.

Deal?

Yes. Yes. Yes!

With slavery defunct (and under the condition that it is never instituted again), I'd be happy if this country would divide. All blue States could join up with Canada and the Red States could go their own way - be either independant or join a confederation...whatever....

I'm really not worried about the economies of the Blue states, but Texas would have to be willing to support just about all of the other Red states.

What makes you think Texas would willing to support the rest of the red states?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

No democrat has presided over a surplus either.

the national debt has gone up 53 years running.

As far as schools GW presided over one of the largest increase ever to education.

Glad we could clear up your misconceptions.

Truman, Johnson, and Clinton all had surpluses. The only Republican since 1930 to have a surplus was Eisenhower.

Truman had a surplus?
War surplus maybe

Clinton having a surplus is one of the greatest lies the democrats have ever told up until you get to obama.

That's why the data I posted proves Clinton did preside over a surplus and you keep believing lies.

 

[Flopper]

You want to end class warfare? It's easy. A flat tax at a low rate. < 10%. That way everyone pays their fair share. An equal burden on all people. We eliminate the artificial classes that have only been created because of our Government. And we can all start looking at each others as equals and brothers instead of being angry at our brothers because of how much or how little they earn.

Every American should be paying their fair share.

Whether you think a flat tax is fair depends on how you define fair.

 

[Full-Auto]

Truman, Johnson, and Clinton all had surpluses. The only Republican since 1930 to have a surplus was Eisenhower.

Truman had a surplus?
War surplus maybe

Clinton having a surplus is one of the greatest lies the democrats have ever told up until you get to obama.

That's why the data I posted proves Clinton did preside over a surplus and you keep believing lies.

Yet the national debt went up. But thanks for the LOL facts.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Truman had a surplus?
War surplus maybe

Clinton having a surplus is one of the greatest lies the democrats have ever told up until you get to obama.

That's why the data I posted proves Clinton did preside over a surplus and you keep believing lies.

Yet the national debt went up. But thanks for the LOL facts.

The deficit was reduced gradually under Clinton until he ran a surplus.

 

[Flopper]

Truman, Johnson, and Clinton all had surpluses. The only Republican since 1930 to have a surplus was Eisenhower.

Truman had a surplus?
War surplus maybe

Clinton having a surplus is one of the greatest lies the democrats have ever told up until you get to obama.

Repubs tell the same story, I have corrected many.

Truman had 4 years of surpluses. The last year was 1951, 6 years after WWII and in the middle of the Korean war. Clinton had not one, but 4 years of surpluses.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Truman, Johnson, and Clinton all had surpluses. The only Republican since 1930 to have a surplus was Eisenhower.

Truman had a surplus?
War surplus maybe

Clinton having a surplus is one of the greatest lies the democrats have ever told up until you get to obama.

That's why the data I posted proves Clinton did preside over a surplus and you keep believing lies.

No Clinton did not have a surplus
In 2001 we had a National Debt of $5.807463 trillion and a deficit of $133.29 billion
In 2000 National Debt was $5.674178 trillion and a deficit of $17.91 billion
In 1999 National Debt was $5.656270 trillion and a deficit of $130.08 billion
So go ahead tell another lie.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Truman, Johnson, and Clinton all had surpluses. The only Republican since 1930 to have a surplus was Eisenhower.

Truman had a surplus?
War surplus maybe

Clinton having a surplus is one of the greatest lies the democrats have ever told up until you get to obama.

Repubs tell the same story, I have corrected many.

So you think clinton had a surplus?

 

[auditor0007]

I'm not gonna respond to all that drivel but ill ask you this. Why the Fuck is all the unemployment extensions not enough? Get off your ass and do something for them yourself and stop demanding I pay their way. You idiots cry about taxes being to low yet you never send in extra "because its the right thing to do"

Get off my nuts and out of my wallet.

Why should I send in more if you are not going to help out also?

How do you know what I do or don't do? In fact my business donates to Habitat for Humanity. What do you do? But now that you know I do give to the poor I can assume your going to now follow suit? LOL

I donate regularly to the Red Cross. Most of us have a favorite charity; the Red Cross is mine.

 

[auditor0007]

What you want is a society with no safety net. There are quite a few of those throughout the world. Personally, I don't know too many who would choose to live in any of those places other than volunteer workers who provide humanitarian aid to those people.

so called "safety nets" have only come into existence in countries where capitalism has made them wealthy enough to pay for such foolishness. You have put the cart before the horse. Capitalism made the safety net possible, not the other way around.

Without the "safety nets," the USA would be a much wealthier country with much fewer poor people who could easily be supported with private charity.

Damn, you are right. We had so fewer poor people in the 1800's. We really should try to get back to that era when the government stayed out of the way of business. It really was so much better for the average American.

 

[auditor0007]

I'm waiting for a response auditor. My contributions go directly to the poor where they have to most impact. So will you now pay more in taxes voluntarily so that uncle Sam can rip both you and the poor off? You challenged me. I responded. It's your turn.

So now you want me to give to charity, which I do, and to give the government more, but you are going to take a pass on giving the government more since you donate to charity? Please.

 

[auditor0007]

Has the situation gotten worse since hee took his turn at the helm, despite his idiotic borrow and spend "programs," or haven't they.

If you took the time to stop being an ignorant partisan hack and actually educated yourself on the issue, you’d learn there’s little if anything policymakers can do, regardless who is in the WH, regardless his party affiliation:

But this recovery may remain lackluster for years, many economists say, because of heavy household debt, a financial system still damaged by the mortgage crisis, fragile confidence and a government with few good options for supporting growth.

Debt Overhang Slows U.S. Economic Recovery - WSJ.com

If McCain has been elected in 2008, we’d be exactly where we are now, he’d implement the same economic policies as Obama, since McCain would be advised by the same policymakers Obama is being advised by now.

It would be the same for Congress, as the options are just as limited and futile.

Heavy household debt will continue to be the most significant hindrance to recovery, as consumer spending has historically been the engine driving economic growth.

And heavy household debt didn’t appear all of a sudden January 20, 2009; as with all the problems the economy faces, they took years to develop and will take years to resolve.

There is an even more basic issue thwarting the economy right now. The baby boomers have stopped spending, and they have done it for a very basic reason; they don't need half the shit they were buying in the past anymore. Their kids are grown and they are downsizing, from their homes, to their vehicles, to just about everything. And if they have not yet retired, then they are now socking their money away for retirement. They are not spending, and they will never spend again like they did over the last 30 years. Since they are such a large percentage of the overall population, this is a huge problem, and there really are not good answers to solve the problem. Our best bet is to find something to produce that we can sell to ourselves and hopefully export also. The problem with exporting anything is that our labor costs are not very competitive with other emerging markets, so we need to find something to manufacture that they can't. Not an easy task.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem with exporting anything is that our labor costs are not very competitive with other emerging markets, so we need to find something to manufacture that they can't. Not an easy task.

Unfortunately the opportunity for this passed some 20 years ago, it will also require investment in education and training programs to ensure a workforce capable of producing high-quality goods.

 

[skookerasbil]

This is perhaps the gayest thread Ive seen on this forum in 2011.

How much has America spent on the poor in the past 40 years???


11

Trillion

Assholes!!!!






Anyway...........bottom line is, the Keynesian approach is an exercise in epic fAiL and about to get shelved again for at least a generation. And Im laughing............I remember just two short years ago the k00ks in here giddy about Hope and Change!!!



Meanwhile........all the left has now is to beat the class warfare drum for the next 16 months!!!! Laugh my balls off............is going to be a fcukking hoot on here for the next year and a half for conservatives

 

[DaGoose]

Truman had a surplus?
War surplus maybe

Clinton having a surplus is one of the greatest lies the democrats have ever told up until you get to obama.

That's why the data I posted proves Clinton did preside over a surplus and you keep believing lies.

No Clinton did not have a surplus
In 2001 we had a National Debt of $5.807463 trillion and a deficit of $133.29 billion
In 2000 National Debt was $5.674178 trillion and a deficit of $17.91 billion
In 1999 National Debt was $5.656270 trillion and a deficit of $130.08 billion
So go ahead tell another lie.

Truman had a surplus?
War surplus maybe

Clinton having a surplus is one of the greatest lies the democrats have ever told up until you get to obama.

Repubs tell the same story, I have corrected many.

So you think clinton had a surplus?

Damn those pesky facts!!

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton | FactCheck.org

.