Delegates....a rigged system?

[Iceweasel]

Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.

Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?

Not unless they are spending it.

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy.

Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.

 

[HUGGY]

Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?

Not unless they are spending it.

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy.

Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.

I think it is foolish to always believe that "cheaper" is better. Bush drastically cut back on the financial regulators. How did THAT savings work out for ours and the world's economies?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No. No, they shouldn't. We have no need for the government to usurp even more control of the lives and choices of individuals.

How would that translate to government usurping control?

Did you just ask me how Congress dictating rules for private organizations is the government usurping control? Seriously?

You are continuously running with the political parties are like private businesses like grocery chains meme. That isn't what we are discussing. The political parties are deeply involved in government, you are either propagandizing or stuck on stupid.

They're no more "deeply involved" with the government than any group of citizens attempting to influence the policies of the government that affect their lives. They're private organizations. Being organized to affect public policy rather than organized to generate income changes that not in the slightest. There is no amount of "Ehrmagerd, they want to get a candidate elected, that means they're GOVERNMENT!" that will make that true.

They aren't doing anything that you aren't doing, really, except they're working harder at it, spending more money on it, and being more effective at it.

I'm on par with the Republican and Democratic national parties? You are living in denial, that must be your problem.

The entire election process on local, state and federal government is run through them. How does that not speak to you?

Who said "on par"? Where are those words in my post? Oh, they aren't there? Then I will assume that this is your newfound leftist debate style, which you should be SO proud of having adopted.

Let me repeat myself a little slower, since while adopting leftspeak, you apparently also reduced your IQ by 50 points to match theirs (not to mention took on their sense of shame). They are doing the same thing you are doing, ie. attempting to influence public policy. They are just spending more time, effort, and money than you are, and thus being more effective.

So OBVIOUSLY, LeftWeasel, I said EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of you being on any "par" with anyone. I said, "Same goals, different effort, different result".

The "entire election process" is not run through the parties. The party operations are run through the parties. I dunno about where you live - and clearly, YOU don't know about where you live either, if you've drunk so much Trump-Aid that you think elections are run by political parties - but where I live, the elections are run by the Arizona Secretary of State's office and the various county recorders' offices. I suspect wherever you live has similar GOVERNMENT offices that handle GOVERNMENT functions, and I'm sure they could probably run an intervention for you and explain the whole "difference between government and private organizations" thing for you.

 

[Pete7469]

I don't take homework assignments from nit wits. You chose a particular tax cut I didn't name. I am referring to the extensive research that has been done by the field of economics.

As for W, it was overall beneficial, but he did dilute the benefit by making the tax code more complex, complexity drives inefficiency. He also had a massive Social Security and Medicare tax increase. Like everything, W did almost nothing right and then when he did he screwed it up

W "compromised" with democrooks. When you do that you will never come up with an agreement that is better than half-right.

The republicrats had the government by the balls between 2002 and 2006. They could have fixed a whole lot of things. Instead they "compromised" and spent a shit ton more than they should have. They didn't unfuck immigration, they didn't unfuck entitlements, and they didn't defund democrook slush fund programs.

The war is something we don't agree on, but I do agree it was grossly mismanaged and dragged out far too long.

 

[mudwhistle]

Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.

Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?

Not unless they are spending it.

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply the military are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy. Local, state and national police agencies and the various courts add a lot to the economy also.

Federal government. All of the stuff you mentioned is state and local.

 

[percysunshine]

You asked for an example, I gave you one.

I could give you many more. Want to see their efforts on marriage equality, or religious liberty, prayer in schools, or ten commandments in public buildings, or nativity scenes on public property, or . . . or are you ready to admit you are wrong?

So your proof the religious right is controlling the Republican party is that they're opposing you people moving to the left. With "marriage equality," we didn't have gay marriage until you people created it illegally through the courts. That isn't the Republicans moving to the right, it's you moving to the left. Guys whipping out their dick in bathrooms with 12 year old girls is you moving to the left. Taking the ten commandments off of walls is you moving to the left. If you want to make the case you're controlled by anti-religious fanatics, that you can support. Well, unless they are Muslim ...

This post perfectly illustrates that you are a Cafeteria Constitutionalist.

You asked for an example, and I gave you multiple examples. Now you want to claim it's the Left's fault that you're wrong.

Your examples were all the Republicans not wanting to move to the left. So your argument is the religious right control the Republican party because they are fighting moving to the left?

How is removing religion from taxpayer-funded public buildings "moving to the Left"? The Constitution separates church and state. Is the Constitution a Leftist document?

Are you claiming that religion belongs to the Right?

Separation of church and State isn't in the Constitution, that was a statement by a judge 100 years ago. Also, it doesn't contradict what I said. I didn't argue it was or wasn't. The law is changing by moving us to the left. It wasn't prohibited to post the 10 commandments, you people fought for it. Try to follow the discussion.

On your point though. I'm not a Christian, but I'm not seeing the issue in what is actually in the Constitution. How is posting the 10 commandments a violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?" Which commandment do you disagree with?

The first Amendment;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -



btw, for all you morons out there, the Constitution refers to the political parties with the passage

"..right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

[Synthaholic]

We can successfully monitor and enforce a no-fly zone across all of Iraq all the way from Incirlik, Türkiye but the military is incompetent when it comes to a no-walk zone in Texas?

Yes, obviously given their record. OK, I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?

a) I roll an occasional bowling ball

b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.

You really are not bright. Your argument actually sounds good to you?

You're flailing. Badly.

The U.S. Army and Air Force could easily monitor the border if we moved enough of them there from their useless current locations in Utah, Kansas, and other interior locations that are only there for make-work and to spread the Defense money around to all the states in order to make them dependent upon it.

Your failing, badly. I didn't say we can't monitor them and my example wasn't monitoring. I didn't say anything with the marbles about you being able to see them. here's a question:

I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?

a) I roll an occasional bowling ball

b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.

Where in that example am I doubting your ability to see the marbles?

Our military has...what do you call it . . . oh, yeah - technology. Infrared, motion detection, helicopters, binoculars - all kinds of neat stuff, Wally!

Begging the question. I have a question though.
I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?

a) I roll an occasional bowling ball

b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.

So what's your answer? You're an inane little boy making an idiotic argument

If the room is a large barren, hard to traverse wasteland like the Texas/Arizona border there's plenty of time to catch up with all the marbles.

Even the ones you've obviously lost!

 

[Synthaholic]

That's been proven false.

Well, that's true in the sense that leftist lawyers tell you they know more economics than economists do and you believe them.

It's not true if you believe empirical data.

Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to

Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.

Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?

Not unless they are spending it.

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

But they didn't spend it.

And more taxes collected means more infrastructure spending, which creates jobs, which adds to the pool of taxpayers.

After Boehner campaigned in 2010 on "Where are the jobs, Mr. President", Republicans won, and haven't produced one Jobs Bill to help employ people.

 

[Synthaholic]

The rest of us investing our own money and giving them jobs does nothing for the economy.

Show where tax cuts = more jobs.

Oh, that's right - you don't back up your bullshit.

Sure I can, but I'm not interested in explaining the field of economics to an imbecile. Take econ 101. If you turn off the lawyers in your head, it'll change your life when you realize the leftist lawyers are full of shit

Oh, that's right - you don't back up your bullshit.

 

[Synthaholic]

Well, that's true in the sense that leftist lawyers tell you they know more economics than economists do and you believe them.

It's not true if you believe empirical data.

Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to

Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.

Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?

Not unless they are spending it.

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

Who produced the Hoover Dam?

 

[kaz]

Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.

Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?

Not unless they are spending it.

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply the military are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy. Local, state and national police agencies and the various courts add a lot to the economy also.

My God man. I hope that is a sarcastic post.

Infrastructure - when you fix your sidewalk, that expands your wealth?

Military - When you buy insurance or install a security system, that expands your wealth?

you're a mental midget, seriously? Those protect what you have, they don't make you richer. What is wrong with you? Seriously?

 

[kaz]

Not unless they are spending it.

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy.

Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.

I think it is foolish to always believe that "cheaper" is better. Bush drastically cut back on the financial regulators. How did THAT savings work out for ours and the world's economies?

Bush sucked and that was stupid. But he CONTINUED a Clinton policy, he didn't create it. My God, you are a partisan boot licking Democrat, the people who fucked you and your family. How sad is that?

 

[Synthaholic]

Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?

Not unless they are spending it.

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy.

Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.

Name the company that's going to take on the cost of extending an interstate, or building a new bridge between Lexington and Cincinnati.

 

[Synthaholic]

But he CONTINUED a Clinton policy, he didn't create it.

You're full of shit, as usual.

 

[kaz]

So your proof the religious right is controlling the Republican party is that they're opposing you people moving to the left. With "marriage equality," we didn't have gay marriage until you people created it illegally through the courts. That isn't the Republicans moving to the right, it's you moving to the left. Guys whipping out their dick in bathrooms with 12 year old girls is you moving to the left. Taking the ten commandments off of walls is you moving to the left. If you want to make the case you're controlled by anti-religious fanatics, that you can support. Well, unless they are Muslim ...

This post perfectly illustrates that you are a Cafeteria Constitutionalist.

You asked for an example, and I gave you multiple examples. Now you want to claim it's the Left's fault that you're wrong.

Your examples were all the Republicans not wanting to move to the left. So your argument is the religious right control the Republican party because they are fighting moving to the left?

How is removing religion from taxpayer-funded public buildings "moving to the Left"? The Constitution separates church and state. Is the Constitution a Leftist document?

Are you claiming that religion belongs to the Right?

Separation of church and State isn't in the Constitution, that was a statement by a judge 100 years ago. Also, it doesn't contradict what I said. I didn't argue it was or wasn't. The law is changing by moving us to the left. It wasn't prohibited to post the 10 commandments, you people fought for it. Try to follow the discussion.

On your point though. I'm not a Christian, but I'm not seeing the issue in what is actually in the Constitution. How is posting the 10 commandments a violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?" Which commandment do you disagree with?

The first Amendment;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -



btw, for all you morons out there, the Constitution refers to the political parties with the passage

"..right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Was that supposed to contradict what I said?

 

[kaz]

Yes, obviously given their record. OK, I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?

a) I roll an occasional bowling ball

b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.

You really are not bright. Your argument actually sounds good to you?

You're flailing. Badly.

The U.S. Army and Air Force could easily monitor the border if we moved enough of them there from their useless current locations in Utah, Kansas, and other interior locations that are only there for make-work and to spread the Defense money around to all the states in order to make them dependent upon it.

Your failing, badly. I didn't say we can't monitor them and my example wasn't monitoring. I didn't say anything with the marbles about you being able to see them. here's a question:

I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?

a) I roll an occasional bowling ball

b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.

Where in that example am I doubting your ability to see the marbles?

Our military has...what do you call it . . . oh, yeah - technology. Infrared, motion detection, helicopters, binoculars - all kinds of neat stuff, Wally!

Begging the question. I have a question though.
I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?

a) I roll an occasional bowling ball

b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.

So what's your answer? You're an inane little boy making an idiotic argument

If the room is a large barren, hard to traverse wasteland like the Texas/Arizona border there's plenty of time to catch up with all the marbles.

Even the ones you've obviously lost!

Which is why we don't have illegal aliens in this country. You're stupid as shit

 

[kaz]

Well, that's true in the sense that leftist lawyers tell you they know more economics than economists do and you believe them.

It's not true if you believe empirical data.

Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to

Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.

Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?

Not unless they are spending it.

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

But they didn't spend it.

And more taxes collected means more infrastructure spending, which creates jobs, which adds to the pool of taxpayers.

After Boehner campaigned in 2010 on "Where are the jobs, Mr. President", Republicans won, and haven't produced one Jobs Bill to help employ people.

How leftists fill a pool. Take a bucket of water out of a half filled pool. Dump most of it on the ground (bureaucracy) and put the rest back into the pool. Repeat until the pool is full ...

 

[kaz]

Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.

Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?

Not unless they are spending it.

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

Who produced the Hoover Dam?

Relevance? You don't know what economic productivity is, Holmes

 

[kaz]

Not unless they are spending it.

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy.

Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.

Name the company that's going to take on the cost of extending an interstate, or building a new bridge between Lexington and Cincinnati.

The companies that build interstates and new bridges that government hires to do it for them

 

[eagle1462010]

bump