I honestly feel that more republicans would abandon their party if they just accepted two facts:

[bripat9643]

You do realize you are wrong on both counts?

If you want to help the middle class, you remove the downward pressure on business (regulations and big government) so that middle class job creation can happen.

In addition, the majority of the country is right of center.

Have a nice night.

Regulations do very little to inhibit job growth. The BLS data proves that.

Horeseshit. Regulations have prevented a single new oil refinery from being built in this country in the last 50 years. Now Obama is creating regulations that will shut down all the coal fired power plants. Those are just two examples. Do you claim that isn't inhibiting job growth?

I am saying overall national job growth is affected only slightly.

That's still horseshit. Economic growth has decreased steadily as the regulatory regime has expanded.

Even if growth had decreased steadily (it has not), it's a big stretch to say regulations are to blame.

Horseshit. Yes, growth has decreased steadily. Compare today's growth with growth during the Reagan administration and especially with growth during the 1920s. What is to blame if not regulation?

 

[PredFan]

1) if you want to stimulate economic growth, you help the middle class and poor, not the wealthy. Think about this. The wealthy are doing better now MORE THAN EVER BERORE, so why has growth not been faster? It's because the middle class is shrinking because of rising income inequality. The rise in income inequality will only destabilize our economy even further because consumer spending is decreasing. Consumer spending is vital to the economy - it accounts for 70% of it.

Meanwhile, all this stimulus (tax cuts) to the wealthy does jack shit for the economy overall. Why? Two reasons: A) the wealthy are investing less and less these days because it is just easier for them to keep the money they save rather than make huge investments to grow their business. And even if they were investing more money, it wouldn't do jack shit to increase economic demand which is ultimately what matters. Businesses invest more when demand is up. B) the wealthy, individually when it comes to consumer spending, spend just as much money as someone in the middle class does when it comes to daily/monthly purchases. Sure they make extravagant purchases, but those ultimately do little for the economy at large.

2) Most Americans side with liberal issues that republicans oppose like raising the minimum wage, certain gun control laws, extending unemployment benefits, and gay marriage. Oh and recent polls show that most Americans believe in dramatic climate change and want the gov to do something about it.

1. The GOP actually wants to help the poor. The DNCS does not. The Democrats want to keep the poor poor and voting democrat. The GOP wants everyone to get rich, including the poor.
2. Utter nonsense.

 

[BULLDOG]

reasonable restrictions.

>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<
you fucking people keep using that word "REASONABLE", yet you can not define the word.., your "reasonable" most certainly will not be what i consider "reasonable", i'll be right up front with you and every fucking liberfool here, in plain English, without trying to pick it apart this is my "REASONABLE"

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

now, show me your version of "reasonable" !!

Should you be allowed armor piercing ammo? You would need them if the government ever got corrupt. What about a tank or armed drone?

Yes to all of the above.

I'm going to start selling all this high powered weaponry to black and Arab americans.

There wouldn't be any Arab Americans if the government followed a rational immigration policy. Furthermore, who's going to buy a weapon that might costs tens of thousands of dollars?

I don't know, Some idiot gun nut here said the average gun owner had at least one $6,800 rifle the other day.

 

[bripat9643]

>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<
you fucking people keep using that word "REASONABLE", yet you can not define the word.., your "reasonable" most certainly will not be what i consider "reasonable", i'll be right up front with you and every fucking liberfool here, in plain English, without trying to pick it apart this is my "REASONABLE"

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

now, show me your version of "reasonable" !!

Should you be allowed armor piercing ammo? You would need them if the government ever got corrupt. What about a tank or armed drone?

Yes to all of the above.

I'm going to start selling all this high powered weaponry to black and Arab americans.

There wouldn't be any Arab Americans if the government followed a rational immigration policy. Furthermore, who's going to buy a weapon that might costs tens of thousands of dollars?

I don't know, Some idiot gun nut here said the average gun owner had at least one $6,800 rifle the other day.

Sealyboo used the term "high powered weapons." What does that entail? I doubt that he/she is referring to a hunting rifle. I think something more like a tripod mounted weapon, like a 20 mm canon, would be the minimum to qualify. The shells alone for that weapon probably cost $20 a piece.

 

[BULLDOG]

Should you be allowed armor piercing ammo? You would need them if the government ever got corrupt. What about a tank or armed drone?

Yes to all of the above.

I'm going to start selling all this high powered weaponry to black and Arab americans.

There wouldn't be any Arab Americans if the government followed a rational immigration policy. Furthermore, who's going to buy a weapon that might costs tens of thousands of dollars?

I don't know, Some idiot gun nut here said the average gun owner had at least one $6,800 rifle the other day.

Sealyboo used the term "high powered weapons." What does that entail? I doubt that he/she is referring to a hunting rifle. I think something more like a tripod mounted weapon, like a 20 mm canon, would be the minimum to qualify. The shells alone for that weapon probably cost $20 a piece.

It wasn't my statement. I guess the poster was trying to make the point that gun owners are all well off. He also mentioned a house with several thousand square feet of area.

 

[Kondor3]

...2) Most Americans side with liberal issues...

That's not what a reasonable man would infer from the results of the 2010 and 2014 'shellackings' that Obumble suffered.

Hell, the only reason he got elected was that the Pubs were dumb enough to run (1) McSame and then (2) Mittens.

The lesser of two evils... twice... although, in retrospect, that might not have been true, after all, but, we'll never know.

 

[Billy000]

Regulations do very little to inhibit job growth. The BLS data proves that.

Horeseshit. Regulations have prevented a single new oil refinery from being built in this country in the last 50 years. Now Obama is creating regulations that will shut down all the coal fired power plants. Those are just two examples. Do you claim that isn't inhibiting job growth?

I am saying overall national job growth is affected only slightly.

That's still horseshit. Economic growth has decreased steadily as the regulatory regime has expanded.

Even if growth had decreased steadily (it has not), it's a big stretch to say regulations are to blame.

Horseshit. Yes, growth has decreased steadily. Compare today's growth with growth during the Reagan administration and especially with growth during the 1920s. What is to blame if not regulation?

Since Reagan? Its a variety of factors. One reason is that consumer spending has gone down. That's a driving piece of the economy.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I side with things that make sense. On one hand I said with investing in America and regulating businesses.(Not stupidly but wisely!) Whereas on the other, I stand with the family and utterly oppose anyone that would enlarge the current mess on that front. I pretty much don't like extremist of the left or right.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The OP is an exercise in delusion and mythology.

The economy is still struggling because it has been smacked with a number of new tax hikes (many of them from Obamacare) and new federal regulations, and because there is mounting fear that the federal government is going to continue to spend us toward a financial collapse--even as the national debt has now gone over $18 trillion.

Do you know what the U-6 unemployment measurement is? It gives you a much better picture of the job situation than the U-3. The U-6 unemployment rate is now higher than it has been in decades.

Have liberals learned nothing from Greece, Spain, Italy, England, Japan, etc.? Tax, borrow, and spend simply does not work.

 

[bripat9643]

Horeseshit. Regulations have prevented a single new oil refinery from being built in this country in the last 50 years. Now Obama is creating regulations that will shut down all the coal fired power plants. Those are just two examples. Do you claim that isn't inhibiting job growth?

I am saying overall national job growth is affected only slightly.

That's still horseshit. Economic growth has decreased steadily as the regulatory regime has expanded.

Even if growth had decreased steadily (it has not), it's a big stretch to say regulations are to blame.

Horseshit. Yes, growth has decreased steadily. Compare today's growth with growth during the Reagan administration and especially with growth during the 1920s. What is to blame if not regulation?

Since Reagan? Its a variety of factors. One reason is that consumer spending has gone down. That's a driving piece of the economy.

ROFL! You just said the economy went down because the economy went down. It's like claiming inflation is caused by a general increase in prices.

Economic growth has been declining since FDR, not just since Reagan.

 

[Billy000]

I am saying overall national job growth is affected only slightly.

That's still horseshit. Economic growth has decreased steadily as the regulatory regime has expanded.

Even if growth had decreased steadily (it has not), it's a big stretch to say regulations are to blame.

Horseshit. Yes, growth has decreased steadily. Compare today's growth with growth during the Reagan administration and especially with growth during the 1920s. What is to blame if not regulation?

Since Reagan? Its a variety of factors. One reason is that consumer spending has gone down. That's a driving piece of the economy.

ROFL! You just said the economy went down because the economy went down. It's like claiming inflation is caused by a general increase in prices.

Economic growth has been declining since FDR, not just since Reagan.

Um, why is it so hard to believe certain economic conditions cause others to go down? That is the nature of the economy. It is an integrated system. You just assume it is all because of regulations which is completely ridiculous. If the government really wanted to, they could come up with crazy regulations that could cause a downturn but they dont. There is no motive to do so,

The fallacy you cons have is that the government seeks to weaken the economy. If you just gave this some thought, you would see how ridiculous that is. What possible motive would there be? Do you honestly think some law makers are like "we need to destroy the economy! Why? I have no idea. We are just going to!"

Sure, sometimes certain regulations do more harm than good. Obama himself has gotten rid of some. You need to get past this fallacy that democrats want to turn America into a socialist nation and end capitalism as we know it. That does not make any sense. Even if dems wanted to, they would not get re-elected because the large majority of Americans wouldn't like it including me.

 

[Billy000]

1) if you want to stimulate economic growth, you help the middle class and poor, not the wealthy. Think about this. The wealthy are doing better now MORE THAN EVER BERORE, so why has growth not been faster? It's because the middle class is shrinking because of rising income inequality. The rise in income inequality will only destabilize our economy even further because consumer spending is decreasing. Consumer spending is vital to the economy - it accounts for 70% of it.

Meanwhile, all this stimulus (tax cuts) to the wealthy does jack shit for the economy overall. Why? Two reasons: A) the wealthy are investing less and less these days because it is just easier for them to keep the money they save rather than make huge investments to grow their business. And even if they were investing more money, it wouldn't do jack shit to increase economic demand which is ultimately what matters. Businesses invest more when demand is up. B) the wealthy, individually when it comes to consumer spending, spend just as much money as someone in the middle class does when it comes to daily/monthly purchases. Sure they make extravagant purchases, but those ultimately do little for the economy at large.

2) Most Americans side with liberal issues that republicans oppose like raising the minimum wage, certain gun control laws, extending unemployment benefits, and gay marriage. Oh and recent polls show that most Americans believe in dramatic climate change and want the gov to do something about it.

1. The GOP actually wants to help the poor. The DNCS does not. The Democrats want to keep the poor poor and voting democrat. The GOP wants everyone to get rich, including the poor.
2. Utter nonsense.

Lol if the repubs want to help the poor why don't their policies reflect it? Can you name a single repub policy targeted at the poor? Dems want to raise the minimum wage and increase in the income tax credit for the poor. Repubs are against both.

 

[Darkwind]

That's still horseshit. Economic growth has decreased steadily as the regulatory regime has expanded.

Even if growth had decreased steadily (it has not), it's a big stretch to say regulations are to blame.

Horseshit. Yes, growth has decreased steadily. Compare today's growth with growth during the Reagan administration and especially with growth during the 1920s. What is to blame if not regulation?

Since Reagan? Its a variety of factors. One reason is that consumer spending has gone down. That's a driving piece of the economy.

ROFL! You just said the economy went down because the economy went down. It's like claiming inflation is caused by a general increase in prices.

Economic growth has been declining since FDR, not just since Reagan.

Um, why is it so hard to believe certain economic conditions cause others to go down? That is the nature of the economy. It is an integrated system. You just assume it is all because of regulations which is completely ridiculous. If the government really wanted to, they could come up with crazy regulations that could cause a downturn but they dont. There is no motive to do so,

The fallacy you cons have is that the government seeks to weaken the economy. If you just gave this some thought, you would see how ridiculous that is. What possible motive would there be? Do you honestly think some law makers are like "we need to destroy the economy! Why? I have no idea. We are just going to!"

Sure, sometimes certain regulations do more harm than good. Obama himself has gotten rid of some. You need to get past this fallacy that democrats want to turn America into a socialist nation and end capitalism as we know it. That does not make any sense. Even if dems wanted to, they would not get re-elected because the large majority of Americans wouldn't like it including me.

1. No one says that government regulations are intended to destroy the economy. Everyone who has two braincells understands the use of regulations as a PR tactic to get elected.

2. In order for people to have middle class jobs, there has to be business the provides middle class jobs. Regulations are a downward pressure on job creation AND on employee costs.

Regulations cost this country 2 Trillion dollars PER YEAR!

I'm going to do something you have not done in this or any thread. Provide a source for the information I"m using..

U.S. federal government regulations cost an estimated $2.028 trillion in 2012 (in 2014
dollars), an amount equal to12 percent of GDP.

Regulatory costs are distributed across major business types and among firms of different sizes; the findings of this report indicate that
compliance costs fall disproportionately on small businesses. Table 1 summarizes the incidence of costs by firm size based on aggregate data for all sectors of the U.S. economy.

http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/Cost-of-Federal-Regulations/Federal-Regulation-Full-Study.pdf

 

[Darkwind]

1) if you want to stimulate economic growth, you help the middle class and poor, not the wealthy. Think about this. The wealthy are doing better now MORE THAN EVER BERORE, so why has growth not been faster? It's because the middle class is shrinking because of rising income inequality. The rise in income inequality will only destabilize our economy even further because consumer spending is decreasing. Consumer spending is vital to the economy - it accounts for 70% of it.

Meanwhile, all this stimulus (tax cuts) to the wealthy does jack shit for the economy overall. Why? Two reasons: A) the wealthy are investing less and less these days because it is just easier for them to keep the money they save rather than make huge investments to grow their business. And even if they were investing more money, it wouldn't do jack shit to increase economic demand which is ultimately what matters. Businesses invest more when demand is up. B) the wealthy, individually when it comes to consumer spending, spend just as much money as someone in the middle class does when it comes to daily/monthly purchases. Sure they make extravagant purchases, but those ultimately do little for the economy at large.

2) Most Americans side with liberal issues that republicans oppose like raising the minimum wage, certain gun control laws, extending unemployment benefits, and gay marriage. Oh and recent polls show that most Americans believe in dramatic climate change and want the gov to do something about it.

1. The GOP actually wants to help the poor. The DNCS does not. The Democrats want to keep the poor poor and voting democrat. The GOP wants everyone to get rich, including the poor.
2. Utter nonsense.

Lol if the repubs want to help the poor why don't their policies reflect it? Can you name a single repub policy targeted at the poor? Dems want to raise the minimum wage and increase in the income tax credit for the poor. Repubs are against both.

Their polices DO reflect it. There are more ways to help people than just handing out benefits.

 

[PredFan]

1) if you want to stimulate economic growth, you help the middle class and poor, not the wealthy. Think about this. The wealthy are doing better now MORE THAN EVER BERORE, so why has growth not been faster? It's because the middle class is shrinking because of rising income inequality. The rise in income inequality will only destabilize our economy even further because consumer spending is decreasing. Consumer spending is vital to the economy - it accounts for 70% of it.

Meanwhile, all this stimulus (tax cuts) to the wealthy does jack shit for the economy overall. Why? Two reasons: A) the wealthy are investing less and less these days because it is just easier for them to keep the money they save rather than make huge investments to grow their business. And even if they were investing more money, it wouldn't do jack shit to increase economic demand which is ultimately what matters. Businesses invest more when demand is up. B) the wealthy, individually when it comes to consumer spending, spend just as much money as someone in the middle class does when it comes to daily/monthly purchases. Sure they make extravagant purchases, but those ultimately do little for the economy at large.

2) Most Americans side with liberal issues that republicans oppose like raising the minimum wage, certain gun control laws, extending unemployment benefits, and gay marriage. Oh and recent polls show that most Americans believe in dramatic climate change and want the gov to do something about it.

1. The GOP actually wants to help the poor. The DNCS does not. The Democrats want to keep the poor poor and voting democrat. The GOP wants everyone to get rich, including the poor.
2. Utter nonsense.

Lol if the repubs want to help the poor why don't their policies reflect it? Can you name a single repub policy targeted at the poor? Dems want to raise the minimum wage and increase in the income tax credit for the poor. Repubs are against both.

They aren't targeting the poor. Nor are they targeting the Middle Class. They are targeting businesses who would be employing these people. The Democrats, however, only hand them enough money so that they can remain poor but still vote Democrat. We've been doing their handouts ever since Roosevelt and it's only resulted in more and more poor people. The DNC isn't helping anyone but themselves.