Obama has increased government spending less than any president in at least a generation.

[Redfish]

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street

BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008

Why Prosecutors Don t Go After Wall Street NPR

“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
'
The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis William K. Black

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times

Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI mdash Financial Crimes Report 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

BOOOOOOOOSH you are predictable as the sun rising. lol

Nah, Dubya didn't do ANYTHING, it was that evil guy Barney right? lol

You should get down on one knee and thank former president Bush for his service.

Rushblo's to busy blowing him Bubba

Bush is a real man I could see how you libs would be intimidated.

same reason they are intimidated by Putin and Netanyahu. Real men intimidate liberal pussies.

 

[Kosh]

More proof that they far left drones can be bought with illegal slave labor to look the other way on Obama's illegal wars..

Does this mean you don't want to work on that new roof job? Damn. I thought you wanted some work?

As the far left proves they can be bought with illegal slave labor to push the far left religious propaganda not connected to reality..

 

[zeke]

9/11 for one thing
the housing crisis for another (was no housing crisis at the time)
dodd/frank (Republican had been pushing for that for many years. Look it up)
not taking OBL when he could have ( ******* weak right there)
lying under oath ( OMG that caused a financial collapse LMAO)
the false dot com bubble ( Clinton did THAT? Are you sure?)
disgracing the oval office

(OMG that must of been the reason for the Bush economic collapse)

You are pitiful.

Your fucked up opinions are not proof of anything other than you are Obama Deranged. I WANT THE REAL DEAL. Like the stuff D23 posts.

You know, articles from reputable sources that indicate that Bush should have blamed Clinton for something.
Can you do that? Or is all you have an opinion?

 

[Kosh]

9/11 for one thing
the housing crisis for another (was no housing crisis at the time)
dodd/frank (Republican had been pushing for that for many years. Look it up)
not taking OBL when he could have ( ******* weak right there)
lying under oath ( OMG that caused a financial collapse LMAO)
the false dot com bubble ( Clinton did THAT? Are you sure?)
disgracing the oval office

(OMG that must of been the reason for the Bush economic collapse)

You are pitiful.

Your fucked up opinions are not proof of anything other than you are Obama Deranged. I WANT THE REAL DEAL. Like the stuff D23 posts.

You know, articles from reputable sources that indicate that Bush should have blamed Clinton for something.
Can you do that? Or is all you have an opinion?

More prof the far left is not connected reality and how dangerous this religion truly is..

 

[zeke]

As the far left proves they can be bought with illegal slave labor to push the far left religious propaganda not connected to reality..

I got a feeling you need professional help. Seriously.

Either that or better material.to parrot. One or the other.

 

[Redfish]

there is only one statistic that is pertinent to this topic.

the national debt when obama took over was 10 trillion
today its 18 trillion
when obama leaves it will be over 20 trillion

obama will have added more to the national debt than all previous presidents COMBINED.

That is the only fact that matters. And before you libs start screaming. All presidents inherit some policies from their predecessors. Obama inherited the policies of his first term into his second term.

 

[Redfish]

As the far left proves they can be bought with illegal slave labor to push the far left religious propaganda not connected to reality..

I got a feeling you need professional help. Seriously.

Either that or better material.to parrot. One or the other.

Uhhh, I think that comment should be directed to dad23 since he is the one doing the copy/pasting of bullshit propaganda.

 

[Kosh]

As the far left proves they can be bought with illegal slave labor to push the far left religious propaganda not connected to reality..

I got a feeling you need professional help. Seriously.

Either that or better material.to parrot. One or the other.

The irony impaired racist/bigot far left and their comments!

 

[Kosh]

As the far left proves they can be bought with illegal slave labor to push the far left religious propaganda not connected to reality..

I got a feeling you need professional help. Seriously.

Either that or better material.to parrot. One or the other.

Uhhh, I think that comment should be directed to dad23 since he is the one doing the copy/pasting of bullshit propaganda.

And this drone is expecting others to prove dad23 wrong!

This drone (as all far left drones) has always shown not to be connected to reality.

 

[Redfish]

9/11 for one thing
the housing crisis for another (was no housing crisis at the time)
dodd/frank (Republican had been pushing for that for many years. Look it up)
not taking OBL when he could have ( ******* weak right there)
lying under oath ( OMG that caused a financial collapse LMAO)
the false dot com bubble ( Clinton did THAT? Are you sure?)
disgracing the oval office

(OMG that must of been the reason for the Bush economic collapse)

You are pitiful.

Your fucked up opinions are not proof of anything other than you are Obama Deranged. I WANT THE REAL DEAL. Like the stuff D23 posts.

You know, articles from reputable sources that indicate that Bush should have blamed Clinton for something.
Can you do that? Or is all you have an opinion?

do you understand what "proving a negative" means?

Ok, lets try one: Love of elephants caused the fall of the Roman empire, prove me wrong.

 

[Redfish]

As the far left proves they can be bought with illegal slave labor to push the far left religious propaganda not connected to reality..

I got a feeling you need professional help. Seriously.

Either that or better material.to parrot. One or the other.

Uhhh, I think that comment should be directed to dad23 since he is the one doing the copy/pasting of bullshit propaganda.

And this drone is expecting others to prove dad23 wrong!

This drone (as all far left drones) has always shown not to be connected to reality.

we are really wasting our time here. Liberalism is a mental disease. It blocks rational logical thinking. The defective liberal gene has been identified (DRD4). Someday medical science may find a cure. What a great day for humanity that will be.

 

[gipper]

I'm on record on USMB holding Bush accountable for the 2009 deficit. Like I said, I'm not here to defend Republicans.

But, don't tell me that spending has decreased under Obama. The federal budget for fiscal year 2015 is projected to be $3.9 trillion. That's a 25% increase over 2008.

The $468 billion deficit projected this year is significantly more than the average of 2000-2007 (all but one were under $400 billion). The $468 billion deficit projected for 2015 is contingent on policy changes that will never happen. And, the CBO projects deficits to skyrocket after 2015 due to retirement of the baby boomers, Obamacare and mounting interest on the national debt.

"Despite A Reduction In The Short Term, Deficits Are Expected To Be Back Over $1 Trillion A Year By 2024. “CBO sees the deficit sliding to $478 billion next year before beginning a steady rise years through 2024 that would bring deficits back above $1 trillion a year.” (Andrew Taylor, “New Report: Budget Deficit To Drop To $514b,” Associated Press, 2/4/14)"

You mean IF we don't get revenues back to where Carter/Clinton had them? Why do you keep going back to 2008, when the deficit was directly related to Dubya's subprime meltdown AND Dubya/GOP gutting revenues from 20% to less than 15% of GDP, and the GOP's stated goal is to reduce it further? lol

I'm on record on USMB holding Bush accountable for the 2009 deficit. Like I said, I'm not here to defend Republicans.

But, don't tell me that spending has decreased under Obama. The federal budget for fiscal year 2015 is projected to be $3.9 trillion. That's a 25% increase over 2008.

The $468 billion deficit projected this year is significantly more than the average of 2000-2007 (all but one were under $400 billion). The $468 billion deficit projected for 2015 is contingent on policy changes that will never happen. And, the CBO projects deficits to skyrocket after 2015 due to retirement of the baby boomers, Obamacare and mounting interest on the national debt.

"Despite A Reduction In The Short Term, Deficits Are Expected To Be Back Over $1 Trillion A Year By 2024. “CBO sees the deficit sliding to $478 billion next year before beginning a steady rise years through 2024 that would bring deficits back above $1 trillion a year.” (Andrew Taylor, “New Report: Budget Deficit To Drop To $514b,” Associated Press, 2/4/14)"

AP? Oh you meant right wing big story who DISTORTED the CBO?

The baseline budget outlook has worsened slightly since May 2013, when CBO last published its 10-year projections.

At that time, deficits projected under current law totaled $6.3 trillion for the 2014–2023 period, or about 3 percent of GDP. Deficits are now projected to
be about $1 trillion larger. The bulk of that change occurred in CBO’s estimates of revenues: The agency has reduced its projection of total revenues by $1.6 trillion,
largely because of changes in the economic outlook

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/45010-Outlook2014_Feb_0.pdf

lol

Now the AP is a right wing think tank?

"But if current laws do not change, the period of shrinking deficits will soon come to an end. Between 2015 and 2024, annual budget shortfalls are projected to rise substantially—from a low of $469 billion in 2015 to about $1 trillion from 2022 through 2024"
Updated Budget Projections 2014 to 2024 Congressional Budget Office

Of course current laws are not going to change, partly due to how easy it is for one party to take cover by what the other party says. Republicans/Democrats said this, so it's all the Republicans/Democrats fault [insert opposite party affiliation].

How easy it is to divide and conquer public opinion, when what a politician says in front of a camera is taken as genuine. How easy it is for people to fall for the Warren Buffet line that billionaires should be taxed more, when behind the scenes his lawyers and lobbyists are working to prevent a tax increase on billionaires.

LOL right back at ya.

Good little rightie YOUR link wasn't AP Bubba, lol



ALL you have is the usual right wing nonsense. Don't try to refute the Dems got US revenues back to Carter's levels under Clinton OR the GOP blocking EVERY attempt by Obama to get more revenues, no it's 'both parties' BS

More talking points with Buffett, nothing more, next you'll trot out the meme on his Corp tax fight with the IRS, lol


Your link

"from a low of $469 billion in 2015 to about $1 trillion from 2022 through 2024—mainly because of the aging population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt."


Weird, I thought Ronnie saving SS took care of that and his tax cuts for the rich brought in more money? lol

The posit of the thread, one you haven't even attempted to refute, is Obama is having the slowest growth of any Prez in generations!



I KNOW, LET'S GO BACK TO THE TIME WHEN GREENSPAN TESTIFIED TO THE GOP CONGRESS THAT BILL CLINTON'S POLICIES WERE IN DANGER OF PAYING OFF THE DEBT TO FAST? YOU KNOW WHEN THEY HAD THEIR FIRST TAX CUT, BEFORE THEY WENT TO WAR AND GUTTED REVENUES EVEN MORE???

lol

My link provided in post #249 was AP. Click it, if you don't believe me. My next link in post #255 was CBO.

Your gigantic all cap paragraphs are annoying and mostly hyperbole.

Right wing, left wing, chicken wing, ring a ding... just flying around in circles. I'm not from any wing or clown club. I'm a slayer of sacred cows. I'm not a fan of Reagan, and I've written to dispel Reagan myths on USMB. I'm not a fan of Obama, and the idea that Obama has reduced spending is a fabrication. Clinton, Bush, Obama, Reagan, etc., all merely different new and improved packaging on the same old product.

The only thing I said about Clinton was that he signed the legislation to lift the Glass-Steagall Act.
"The big bank boosters and analysts [like Forbes] who should know better are repeating the falsehood that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the Panic of 2008."
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

I think that Clinton did some positive things to reduce the deficit (Omnibus Debt Reduction Act 1993). He also had a stingy Congress. But what raised revenues more than anything was the dot com and real estate boom. To argue otherwise is to be a daft clown.

"My link provided in post #249 was AP. Click it, if you don't believe me"

I did, it said 'big story' (which I thought was big Gov't R/W site, sorry)

It doesn't open to the entire story and was only talking about the H/C



"Your gigantic all cap paragraphs are annoying and mostly hyperbole."

Got it, YOU hate FACTUAL data supported by links that showed Dubya cheering on the Banksters Subprime bubble AS he gutted regulators



"I'm not a fan of Obama, and the idea that Obama has reduced spending is a fabrication"


Without false premises what would YOU right wingers EVER have?

The ACTUAL premise of this thread
"Obama has increased government spending less than any president in at least a generation."





"The only thing I said about Clinton was that he signed the legislation to lift the Glass-Steagall Act."


No ACTUALLY what you said RIGHT WINGER:


"And Clinton lifted the Glass Steigall Act, one of the root causes which led to the financial crisis of 2007-2009. Oh wait, don't tell me, the Reps held a gun to his head."

Nope, as shown by me, and the Ayn Randian guys, NOT true. This was a REGULATOR failure, not a regulation failure!

THEN you give me an OPINION NOT REFUTING WHAT I POSTED ABOUT G/S? I'm shocked. No really, I am, lol

Weird, did your hedge funder refute THIS:

If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions.

...As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.


Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes


Oh right, I didn't think so...


"He also had a stingy Congress"

Sure, sure, THAT'S why we saw what happened when Dubya got in office in 2001 right? lol. Clinton had surpluses, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut



"But what raised revenues more than anything was the dot com and real estate boom. To argue otherwise is to be a daft clown."


Weird so Carter getting near 20% of GDP was dotcom/housing too?


"Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity." — Business Week, May 19, 1997

I guess daft is a good word for BW




"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits." — Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994 (PRE GOP CONGRESS)




One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for the "best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit." — Goldman Sachs, March 1998


IF ONLY DUBYA HADN'T HAPPENED TO US RIGHT?

Let's see now...Progressives have taken total control of education, media, fine arts, literature, and pop culture. This of course, naturally leads to them taking control of politics and government. Yet, some think conservatives, who have little power, have caused the problems mentioned. How can one be so blind?

The cause of the problem is progressivism and yet, you want more of the very thing that caused the problem in the first place.

 

[Redfish]

You mean IF we don't get revenues back to where Carter/Clinton had them? Why do you keep going back to 2008, when the deficit was directly related to Dubya's subprime meltdown AND Dubya/GOP gutting revenues from 20% to less than 15% of GDP, and the GOP's stated goal is to reduce it further? lol

AP? Oh you meant right wing big story who DISTORTED the CBO?

The baseline budget outlook has worsened slightly since May 2013, when CBO last published its 10-year projections.

At that time, deficits projected under current law totaled $6.3 trillion for the 2014–2023 period, or about 3 percent of GDP. Deficits are now projected to
be about $1 trillion larger. The bulk of that change occurred in CBO’s estimates of revenues: The agency has reduced its projection of total revenues by $1.6 trillion,
largely because of changes in the economic outlook

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/45010-Outlook2014_Feb_0.pdf

lol

Now the AP is a right wing think tank?

"But if current laws do not change, the period of shrinking deficits will soon come to an end. Between 2015 and 2024, annual budget shortfalls are projected to rise substantially—from a low of $469 billion in 2015 to about $1 trillion from 2022 through 2024"
Updated Budget Projections 2014 to 2024 Congressional Budget Office

Of course current laws are not going to change, partly due to how easy it is for one party to take cover by what the other party says. Republicans/Democrats said this, so it's all the Republicans/Democrats fault [insert opposite party affiliation].

How easy it is to divide and conquer public opinion, when what a politician says in front of a camera is taken as genuine. How easy it is for people to fall for the Warren Buffet line that billionaires should be taxed more, when behind the scenes his lawyers and lobbyists are working to prevent a tax increase on billionaires.

LOL right back at ya.

Good little rightie YOUR link wasn't AP Bubba, lol



ALL you have is the usual right wing nonsense. Don't try to refute the Dems got US revenues back to Carter's levels under Clinton OR the GOP blocking EVERY attempt by Obama to get more revenues, no it's 'both parties' BS

More talking points with Buffett, nothing more, next you'll trot out the meme on his Corp tax fight with the IRS, lol


Your link

"from a low of $469 billion in 2015 to about $1 trillion from 2022 through 2024—mainly because of the aging population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt."


Weird, I thought Ronnie saving SS took care of that and his tax cuts for the rich brought in more money? lol

The posit of the thread, one you haven't even attempted to refute, is Obama is having the slowest growth of any Prez in generations!



I KNOW, LET'S GO BACK TO THE TIME WHEN GREENSPAN TESTIFIED TO THE GOP CONGRESS THAT BILL CLINTON'S POLICIES WERE IN DANGER OF PAYING OFF THE DEBT TO FAST? YOU KNOW WHEN THEY HAD THEIR FIRST TAX CUT, BEFORE THEY WENT TO WAR AND GUTTED REVENUES EVEN MORE???

lol

My link provided in post #249 was AP. Click it, if you don't believe me. My next link in post #255 was CBO.

Your gigantic all cap paragraphs are annoying and mostly hyperbole.

Right wing, left wing, chicken wing, ring a ding... just flying around in circles. I'm not from any wing or clown club. I'm a slayer of sacred cows. I'm not a fan of Reagan, and I've written to dispel Reagan myths on USMB. I'm not a fan of Obama, and the idea that Obama has reduced spending is a fabrication. Clinton, Bush, Obama, Reagan, etc., all merely different new and improved packaging on the same old product.

The only thing I said about Clinton was that he signed the legislation to lift the Glass-Steagall Act.
"The big bank boosters and analysts [like Forbes] who should know better are repeating the falsehood that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the Panic of 2008."
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

I think that Clinton did some positive things to reduce the deficit (Omnibus Debt Reduction Act 1993). He also had a stingy Congress. But what raised revenues more than anything was the dot com and real estate boom. To argue otherwise is to be a daft clown.

"My link provided in post #249 was AP. Click it, if you don't believe me"

I did, it said 'big story' (which I thought was big Gov't R/W site, sorry)

It doesn't open to the entire story and was only talking about the H/C



"Your gigantic all cap paragraphs are annoying and mostly hyperbole."

Got it, YOU hate FACTUAL data supported by links that showed Dubya cheering on the Banksters Subprime bubble AS he gutted regulators



"I'm not a fan of Obama, and the idea that Obama has reduced spending is a fabrication"


Without false premises what would YOU right wingers EVER have?

The ACTUAL premise of this thread
"Obama has increased government spending less than any president in at least a generation."





"The only thing I said about Clinton was that he signed the legislation to lift the Glass-Steagall Act."


No ACTUALLY what you said RIGHT WINGER:


"And Clinton lifted the Glass Steigall Act, one of the root causes which led to the financial crisis of 2007-2009. Oh wait, don't tell me, the Reps held a gun to his head."

Nope, as shown by me, and the Ayn Randian guys, NOT true. This was a REGULATOR failure, not a regulation failure!

THEN you give me an OPINION NOT REFUTING WHAT I POSTED ABOUT G/S? I'm shocked. No really, I am, lol

Weird, did your hedge funder refute THIS:

If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions.

...As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.


Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes


Oh right, I didn't think so...


"He also had a stingy Congress"

Sure, sure, THAT'S why we saw what happened when Dubya got in office in 2001 right? lol. Clinton had surpluses, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut



"But what raised revenues more than anything was the dot com and real estate boom. To argue otherwise is to be a daft clown."


Weird so Carter getting near 20% of GDP was dotcom/housing too?


"Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity." — Business Week, May 19, 1997

I guess daft is a good word for BW




"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits." — Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994 (PRE GOP CONGRESS)




One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for the "best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit." — Goldman Sachs, March 1998


IF ONLY DUBYA HADN'T HAPPENED TO US RIGHT?

Let's see now...Progressives have taken total control of education, media, fine arts, literature, and pop culture. This of course, naturally leads to them taking control of politics and government. Yet, some think conservatives, who have little power, have caused the problems mentioned. How can one be so blind?

The cause of the problem is progressivism and yet, you want more of the very thing that caused the problem in the first place.

like I said, liberalism is a mental disease. There is no other explanation.

 

[zeke]

Let's see now...Progressives have taken total control of education, media, fine arts, literature, and pop culture. This of course, naturally leads to them taking control of politics and government. Yet, some think conservatives, who have little power, have caused the problems mentioned. How can one be so blind?

Lets see now. The Republican party is a party of incompetent, weak willed, poorly led and excuse riddled politicians and followers and you want people to vote FOR them?

Why in the **** would people do that? Seems like a waste of time and votes to me. After all, even you admit that the party you support is pretty much worthless.

 

[gipper]

Let's see now...Progressives have taken total control of education, media, fine arts, literature, and pop culture. This of course, naturally leads to them taking control of politics and government. Yet, some think conservatives, who have little power, have caused the problems mentioned. How can one be so blind?

Lets see now. The Republican party is a party of incompetent, weak willed, poorly led and excuse riddled politicians and followers and you want people to vote FOR them?

Why in the **** would people do that? Seems like a waste of time and votes to me. After all, even you admit that the party you support is pretty much worthless.

You have made incorrect conclusions about me. I am not an R or a con.

I agree with your post.

I do not vote for Rs.

However I recognize who and what is actually running and ruining the nation....it is progressivism.

Is it news to you that both parties are progressive?

 

[Kosh]

Let's see now...Progressives have taken total control of education, media, fine arts, literature, and pop culture. This of course, naturally leads to them taking control of politics and government. Yet, some think conservatives, who have little power, have caused the problems mentioned. How can one be so blind?

Lets see now. The Republican party is a party of incompetent, weak willed, poorly led and excuse riddled politicians and followers and you want people to vote FOR them?

Why in the **** would people do that? Seems like a waste of time and votes to me. After all, even you admit that the party you support is pretty much worthless.

Far left posting more propaganda not connected to reality..

 

[zeke]

However I recognize who and what is actually running and ruining the nation....it is progressivism.

We live in a plutocracy. You know what that is? Of, by and for the rich.

Thing is, we have two types of plutocrats.
One that wants to **** you in the ass and give you nothing. (Republicans)
and one that wants to at least kiss you before they **** you in the ass. (Democrats)

So the real choice is; do you wanna get kissed before you get fucked?
You make the call.

 

[Kosh]

However I recognize who and what is actually running and ruining the nation....it is progressivism.

We live in a plutocracy. You know what that is? Of, by and for the rich.

Thing is, we have two types of plutocrats.
One that wants to **** you in the ass and give you nothing. (Republicans)
and one that wants to at least kiss you before they **** you in the ass. (Democrats)

So the real choice is; do you wanna get kissed before you get fucked?
You make the call.

More far left propaganda based on the far left religious programming..

Next this drone will be expecting someone to prove their far left propaganda wrong!

 

[RKMBrown]

Blaming all this on Rs, most of whom are progressives, is absurd.

No doubt income inequality is a problem, but it is a problem because both parties are owned by the elites and as such, do the elite's bidding. To blame conservatives SOLELY for income inequality and deficit spending, fails on so many levels.

You mean the GOP ISN'T conservative? Hasn't gone sooooo fukking right wing the past 20+ years, Goldwater called them nuts???


Yeah, it's the Dems/Liberals who fight tax increases right? lol

Hint that's the number 1 reason for income inequality. In days where they LITERALLY took 70%+ of someones wages in taxes IF they made about $4 million today, kept corps from GIVING the exec's such outrageous salaries, if Gov't would take most of it.

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent


"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. "They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."

The staggering economic inequality that has led Americans across the country to take to the streets in protest is no accident. It has been fueled to a large extent by the GOP's all-out war on behalf of the rich. Since Republicans rededicated themselves to slashing taxes for the wealthy in 1997, the average annual income of the 400 richest Americans has more than tripled, to $345 million – while their share of the tax burden has plunged by 40 percent. Today, a billionaire in the top 400 pays less than 17 percent of his income in taxes – five percentage points less than a bus driver earning $26,000 a year. "Most Americans got none of the growth of the preceding dozen years," says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. "All the gains went to the top percentage points."


How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich Rolling Stone


DON'T WORRY ABOUT ADDRESSING ANY OF THE POINTS I POSIT, AS YOU NEVER DO, JUST CREATING A FALSE PREMISE AND ARGUE FROM THAT POINT INSTEAD, lol

total horseshit. No one ever paid 70% of his income in taxes. In those days there were hundreds of exemptions and deductions. The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today.

No, your statement is horseshit.

It's not hard to get to 70% when you add up cumulative taxes at the federal, state, and local levels, fines, fees, winnings, then double taxes like corporate taxes.

the chart is federal income taxes, not total of all taxes. read before posting, then you don't look stupid.

Let's recap. You said, "No one ever paid 70% of his income in taxes." I said that's not true, and provided an explanation. Then in response you say I look stupid and point to a chart that shows some people paying 70% of their income in federal income taxes as proof of my stupidity. Uhmm... maybe if you learned how to read a chart you would not be making yourself look so stupid.

 

[gipper]

t

However I recognize who and what is actually running and ruining the nation....it is progressivism.

We live in a plutocracy. You know what that is? Of, by and for the rich.

Thing is, we have two types of plutocrats.
One that wants to **** you in the ass and give you nothing. (Republicans)
and one that wants to at least kiss you before they **** you in the ass. (Democrats)

So the real choice is; do you wanna get kissed before you get fucked?
You make the call.

That is most absurd.

I agree with the plutocracy part, but thinking Ds are better than Rs, is not thinking. It is partisan BS. Ds love people like you...who can be easily duped.