sorry, i didnt save it when i last looked it up
and i'm not really in the mood to do the research all over again
Obama: Fox News is 'destructive' to America
- Thread starter get_involved
- Start date
and i'm not really in the mood to do the research all over again
Go check yourself you trolling shitbag.
Father Time
I'll be Still Alive
- Nov 29, 2008
- 5,130
- 450
- 83
Hey pal, it's YOU that said there were times when it was okay to call people gay, so don't try the consistency bit now.
...Yeah I know and then you accused me of having double standards which you have yet to back up.
Last edited:
SuMar
VIP Member
- Mar 16, 2010
- 1,864
- 329
- 63
NYCarobhead is a blatherer of epic proportions.
The answer is, yes the country is in better shape. People are more informed and have more sources for news than ever before.
That is what Fox can do.
Is the country better off now politically and economically since the Dums took Congress in 2006?
ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,731
- 1,830
Since you've seen it, did they donate to dems, repubs or both? Thanks for not being an asshole about it. I'll look it up when I get to a computer but honestly, from the responses it's safe to assume no matter who they donate to or what they say...they will always he called liberals.
He does. It's going on all of the time...but Obama can't keep his mouth shut.
Greta was 100% to dems
and i dont remember what Smiths was but it was mostly, if not all, to dems
Ozmar
This tree will shoot you.
It should, shouldn't it? It takes two to tango, and it's a tough dance when there's a witch hunt going on.
Yes you have.
Now you're being dishonest.
And you called me a liar. As long as you can't be honest to yourself it's impossible to be honest to everyone else.
Last edited:
well, isnt it the dems running the "witchhunt" in Del right now?
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
What's worse is not only does he attack FOX for not parroting his talking points, but he pats MSNBC on the head for being good little parrots.
ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,731
- 1,830
Is this what you were talking about Dive:
I didnt find more but Greta is a liberal because she donated to her sisters campaign?
C'mon dude....this cannot be the reason you believe she's a liberal.
The OP is stacking the deck by not including the full quote in his thread title.
Fox News pushes "a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world," Obama said.
Translation:
Tax cuts and deregulation for the wealthiest Americans does not lead to US job growth.
The extra profits made possible by Reaganomics are no longer reliably invested in the real economy -- all too often, they are invested into Washington for the purpose of securing subsidies, bailouts, as well as capturing regulators and securing tax breaks for shipping jobs to cheaper, 3rd world labor markets. [The old Reagan model of tax cuts = jobs is less relevant in a world where our transnationals have their pick of global labor markets]
HERE IS WHAT CONSERVATIVES ARE NEVER TOLD BY THEIR PUNDITS
Corporations got sick of paying for the postwar middle class. It wasn't just their high wages either. FDR taxed the wealthy for the purpose of subsidizing the middle class with an infinite array of programs (housing, retirement, health care, parks, energy, education, food, etc). These programs solidified middle class buying power, that is, the middle class could actually afford to buy what they produced -- indeed, they had the power to drive the economy (which lead to greater reinvestment by the capitalist, who had an incentive to take advantage of the powerful demand. This demand doesn't exist today, because the middle class is gone). The result of government ensuring that the middle class was solvent lead to the era of America's greatest economic growth. And yes, during the postwar New Deal era (which lasted until Reagan), the wealthy were still wealthy, but the concentration of wealth was nothing like it is today, where all the money is literally stuck in fewer and fewer hands, and thus never makes it to the real economy (which, consequently, must be kept afloat with credit cards, bubbles, crazy mortgages, and kooky Obama stimulus gags). Point is: when profits don't trickle down to the middle class -- when they become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and frozen into dynastic inheritances -- the economy dies.
Back to the 70s when the kernel for the current system was born: the corporations got together and decided it was time to get rid of the expensive, pampered, entitlement fed middle class. They wanted to restore profits to the levels realized in the 60s, before Asia and Europe started cutting into their nut. So . . .they backed Reagan, who was sent to Washington to give them tax breaks, deregulation, and cheap labor. [The middle class is expensive, which is why our corporations favor the 3rd world, where they can take advantage of sweat shops and zero pollution laws]
Reagan succeeded, laying the foundations for globalization, freeing corporations to shop the globe for the cheapest labor market. He also destroyed labor's political power at home, replacing lobbyists with unions in Washington. Consequently, middle class buying power, which reached its apex in the 60s, saw a long 30 year decline (-which decline was interestingly accompanied by a 30 year rise in the credit industry). By the 90's, the middle class began to rely increasingly on fancy debt instruments to keep pace. Moreover, the cheap education and health care of the postwar years was slowly destroyed in the interest of concentrated profits, not least because health insurance corporations lobbied Washington for the creation of fixed no-compete territories.
By the time Bush 43 took over, solid middle class jobs were mostly gone (replaced by Walmart & temp retail jobs). Predictably, middle class buying power was on life support. Moreover, the rich array of postwar social and economic programs -- designed to safeguard consumer demand by making sure the middle class had an affordable cost of living and actual money to spend -- had been abandoned in favor of tax cuts and corporate subsidies (with the promise of a trickle down effect).
What of the trickle down in our new globalized universe? Indeed, what happened after the historic Bush tax cuts and his massive, concentrated 6 years of corporate subsidies? Bush proceeded over the lowest job growth in history. This is where we first heard the term "jobless recovery". It wasn't a jobless recovery, quite, because jobs were being created in 3rd labor markets, where labor is cheap. Regardless, the old Reagan model was no longer working as well as it did in the 80s. The world had changed. New thinking was needed. Remember: the American economy is based on a high level of middle class consumption, but profits are no longer cycling down to the consumer, who lost his job and benefits to the cheaper 3rd world competition. This structural flaw cannot be addressed by the brain-dead platforms of either party, who now simply sell legislation for money.
Obama is correct about the FOX news economic stance. It will not lead to job growth. We've been practicing Reaganomics (i.e., taking care of corporations and letting middle class demand fend for itself) for 30 years. Reaganomics has been the dominant policy approach of both parties since the 80s -- with cosmetic variations in the top tax rate (from 35% to 39%). Clinton lowered the capital gains tax, cut welfare, and deregulated more than Reagan -- and Obama surrounded himself with a pro free market economic team, i.e., there is no Left. When Obama says FOX is wrong, he is merely giving some candy to his base. He isn't going to change a thing about how power works in Washington. He isn't going to challenge the corporate control of government. He is going to protect the status quo and take care of the people who fund our elections. If he does anything else -- if he tries to make government work for non-wealthy Americans like it did during the postwar years -- he will be destroyed. Government is officially gone. The United States is run by a collection of very powerful corporations. Reaganomics succeeded in concentrating power beyond the Left's wildest dreams. The game is over.
Fox News pushes "a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world," Obama said.
Translation:
Tax cuts and deregulation for the wealthiest Americans does not lead to US job growth.
The extra profits made possible by Reaganomics are no longer reliably invested in the real economy -- all too often, they are invested into Washington for the purpose of securing subsidies, bailouts, as well as capturing regulators and securing tax breaks for shipping jobs to cheaper, 3rd world labor markets. [The old Reagan model of tax cuts = jobs is less relevant in a world where our transnationals have their pick of global labor markets]
HERE IS WHAT CONSERVATIVES ARE NEVER TOLD BY THEIR PUNDITS
Corporations got sick of paying for the postwar middle class. It wasn't just their high wages either. FDR taxed the wealthy for the purpose of subsidizing the middle class with an infinite array of programs (housing, retirement, health care, parks, energy, education, food, etc). These programs solidified middle class buying power, that is, the middle class could actually afford to buy what they produced -- indeed, they had the power to drive the economy (which lead to greater reinvestment by the capitalist, who had an incentive to take advantage of the powerful demand. This demand doesn't exist today, because the middle class is gone). The result of government ensuring that the middle class was solvent lead to the era of America's greatest economic growth. And yes, during the postwar New Deal era (which lasted until Reagan), the wealthy were still wealthy, but the concentration of wealth was nothing like it is today, where all the money is literally stuck in fewer and fewer hands, and thus never makes it to the real economy (which, consequently, must be kept afloat with credit cards, bubbles, crazy mortgages, and kooky Obama stimulus gags). Point is: when profits don't trickle down to the middle class -- when they become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and frozen into dynastic inheritances -- the economy dies.
Back to the 70s when the kernel for the current system was born: the corporations got together and decided it was time to get rid of the expensive, pampered, entitlement fed middle class. They wanted to restore profits to the levels realized in the 60s, before Asia and Europe started cutting into their nut. So . . .they backed Reagan, who was sent to Washington to give them tax breaks, deregulation, and cheap labor. [The middle class is expensive, which is why our corporations favor the 3rd world, where they can take advantage of sweat shops and zero pollution laws]
Reagan succeeded, laying the foundations for globalization, freeing corporations to shop the globe for the cheapest labor market. He also destroyed labor's political power at home, replacing lobbyists with unions in Washington. Consequently, middle class buying power, which reached its apex in the 60s, saw a long 30 year decline (-which decline was interestingly accompanied by a 30 year rise in the credit industry). By the 90's, the middle class began to rely increasingly on fancy debt instruments to keep pace. Moreover, the cheap education and health care of the postwar years was slowly destroyed in the interest of concentrated profits, not least because health insurance corporations lobbied Washington for the creation of fixed no-compete territories.
By the time Bush 43 took over, solid middle class jobs were mostly gone (replaced by Walmart & temp retail jobs). Predictably, middle class buying power was on life support. Moreover, the rich array of postwar social and economic programs -- designed to safeguard consumer demand by making sure the middle class had an affordable cost of living and actual money to spend -- had been abandoned in favor of tax cuts and corporate subsidies (with the promise of a trickle down effect).
What of the trickle down in our new globalized universe? Indeed, what happened after the historic Bush tax cuts and his massive, concentrated 6 years of corporate subsidies? Bush proceeded over the lowest job growth in history. This is where we first heard the term "jobless recovery". It wasn't a jobless recovery, quite, because jobs were being created in 3rd labor markets, where labor is cheap. Regardless, the old Reagan model was no longer working as well as it did in the 80s. The world had changed. New thinking was needed. Remember: the American economy is based on a high level of middle class consumption, but profits are no longer cycling down to the consumer, who lost his job and benefits to the cheaper 3rd world competition. This structural flaw cannot be addressed by the brain-dead platforms of either party, who now simply sell legislation for money.
Obama is correct about the FOX news economic stance. It will not lead to job growth. We've been practicing Reaganomics (i.e., taking care of corporations and letting middle class demand fend for itself) for 30 years. Reaganomics has been the dominant policy approach of both parties since the 80s -- with cosmetic variations in the top tax rate (from 35% to 39%). Clinton lowered the capital gains tax, cut welfare, and deregulated more than Reagan -- and Obama surrounded himself with a pro free market economic team, i.e., there is no Left. When Obama says FOX is wrong, he is merely giving some candy to his base. He isn't going to change a thing about how power works in Washington. He isn't going to challenge the corporate control of government. He is going to protect the status quo and take care of the people who fund our elections. If he does anything else -- if he tries to make government work for non-wealthy Americans like it did during the postwar years -- he will be destroyed. Government is officially gone. The United States is run by a collection of very powerful corporations. Reaganomics succeeded in concentrating power beyond the Left's wildest dreams. The game is over.
Last edited:
Another strawman argument.
no, thats not it
ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,731
- 1,830
It has to be Dive...I clicked the "search all cycles" option and 18 records were found. This is the only one from Greta on that site. Was it on another site maybe?
no, it was open secrets
and it was a hell of a lot more money than that
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Are We On the Verge of a Breakthrough on the SAVE America Act?- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 1
-
Bessent makes excuses for trump, saying he was glad Mueller is dead- Started by JimH52
- Replies: 26
