Please explain why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

[Intense]

simple minded people have bought into this myth that they have a chance to be rich. you have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than you do of becoming a millionaire.

20 years of earning a measly $50k is a million.

Leftists are leftists because they aren't very bright....

Yeah, and assuming they didn't spend any of it on necessities like shelter, food, and clothing or any of life's little pleasures they'd have a million dollars after 20 years.

Righties are righties because they don't live in the real world.

That's a strong opinion, and you are entitled to it. I'm entitled to disagree. Live within your means.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, you're into crony capitalism...a partnership between government and business. That's just great.

Let's take a look at where government is MOST in partnership with business and how those segments of the economy are doing. Healthcare and education are shining examples of crony fascism and look what we have, runaway costs. When government attempts to artificially boost demand while restricting competition, that's what you get every time.

I've studied Keynes and the Austrian school. Keynes was wrong and so are you.

In all fairness though, SAT is not an accurate representation of Keynes theories.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Being an extremist, your mind immediately assumes crony capitalism is what I'm talking about.

What makes Eflat an "extremist?" His views of economics are fairly classical, the rational views that have been proven over the last 400 years.

Being a reasonable person, I understand the difference between crony capitalism and capitalism with worker and consumer protections and government support of business through necessary infrastructure.

You advocate far more than roads and sewer systems. While Eflat rightly points out your leaning toward crony capitalism, I give it the more accurate name of fascism.

Keynes was observing reality. Think about it.

Keynes was attempting to alter the business cycle. His theories proved unsound, but science is based on the testing hypothesis. I don't fault Keynes; but I do fault those who cling to a failed theory long after the evidence reveals it flawed.

 

[eflatminor]

Keynes ideas work only on paper with certain assumptions in place. It never works in reality or at best, it delays the inevitable direction the market is taking...increasing debt making things all the worse when the market does correct.

Keynes developed a theory of how economies work, based on the real world.

Taxpayer-backed loans to solar panel companies, running ALL loans for education, backing nearly all mortgages, determining maximum interest rates, making people buy health insurance...THOSE kind of "protections and infrastructure"??? It's not fascism when you do it, eh?

It's not fascism, period. Not when you do it, or I do it, or when anybody does it. You might want to read up on some of what you're talking about.

If you can get back to the real world and drop the idea that building bridges and subsidizing new energy development is fascism, let me know.

Call it whatever you want, it's unconstitutional, ineffective and financially unsustainable. So, as yet ANOTHER solar panel company goes bankrupt with taxpayer money...just this morning...let's have a look at what your approach to government meddling in business has wrought:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Hey, almost $133,000 of debt PER TAXPAYER...and you call ME extreme?!

 

[Foxfyre]

Keynes ideas work only on paper with certain assumptions in place. It never works in reality or at best, it delays the inevitable direction the market is taking...increasing debt making things all the worse when the market does correct.

Taxpayer-backed loans to solar panel companies, running ALL loans for education, backing nearly all mortgages, determining maximum interest rates, making people buy health insurance...THOSE kind of "protections and infrastructure"??? It's not fascism when you do it, eh?

Most credible economists agree that that in very specific and targeted circumstances, Keynesian economics, applied as Keynes envisioned it, can jump start a sluggish economy. But it isn't just massive government spending but rather spending as Keynes envisioned it--a very short term limited government outlay carefully calculated to generate tax returns that will allow the money to be returned to the treasury quickly where it will be allowed to stay.

Compare that to Obama keynesian economics in which massive government outlays are poured into black holes, many for which there is no expectation of any return of the money, and any money that is returned is treated as a petty cash fund to spend again and again until it is exhausted. No intention of any kind to reimburse the people's treasury with any monies from anywhere. Every dime that comes in, plus two more that will be borrowed, will be spent to increase the power and scope of government.

It is positively nuts.

If I may make one correction: Obama is pouring money into his "corporate buddies" pockets (not black holes) where the money is laundered back into campaign coffers, where the cycle repeats.

LOL, okay a fine distinction. But since there is no accountability for how the money is used but it seems to just 'disappear' with no mark other than bigger and more crushing debt on the economy, I don't think my 'black hole' metaphor is that far off base.

The numbers are staggering:

From Page 131 of the GAO audit:

Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places

View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve(July 21st, 2011): GAO Fed Investigation
U.S. GAO - Report not Found PDF on GAO server: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf
Even Bernie Sanders, registered socialist from Vermont, is getting worried:
Senator Sander’s Article:
The Fed Audit - Newsroom: Bernie Sanders - U.S. Senator for Vermont

 

[Freedomlover]

I can tell you one thing as a retired middle class person that every time Democrats have "reformed" taxation it has cost me more. I certainly am not any where near being in the ficticous 1%!

 

[rdean]

I can tell you one thing as a retired middle class person that every time Democrats have "reformed" taxation it has cost me more. I certainly am not any where near being in the ficticous 1%!

Not really. Look at the big picture. The Bush tax cuts have gave us 11 trillion in debt. That will cost you more than any so called Democratic tax hike. How many times did Reagan raise taxes? Like 7 times in 8 years?

The truth is always so different than right wing "facts".

 

[rdean]

The reason the Republican base supports protecting the wealthy is that they believe they are all millionaires. Just currently without funds. Soon, their ship will "come in". They are simply protecting their future investment.

 

[eflatminor]

The Bush tax cuts have gave us 11 trillion in debt.

Complete and utter bullshit.

Care to back that number up with facts, logic or reason? And how exactly will you account for all those times when tax cuts resulted in increased revenues to government coffers?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not really. Look at the big picture. The Bush tax cuts have gave us 11 trillion in debt.

Look, I know that you're a partisan hack, everything you post is intended to either promote your shameful party or to slander the hated opposition - I realize this.

But why do you lie so much, and so blatantly?

When Bush took office, the debt was $5.7 trillion. When Bush left office the debt was $9.9 trillion.

Now those who argue $11 trillion because of TARP obligations may have a legitimate point, but that isn't what you did - you flat out lied.

Further, you claimed that this was driven by tax cuts, which is 180° from the facts. IF tax cuts contributed to the debt at all, it was a minor amount. To claim that tax cuts not only were responsible for TARP and general obligations as well as retroactively the Clinton debt is a shameless lie, of course you are a shameless liar, so that's expected.

That will cost you more than any so called Democratic tax hike. How many times did Reagan raise taxes? Like 7 times in 8 years?

The truth is always so different than right wing "facts".

Don't talk about "fact" Dean, you are a ******* liar and have no right to even say the word.

 

[MikeK]

I can tell you one thing as a retired middle class person that every time Democrats have "reformed" taxation it has cost me more. I certainly am not any where near being in the ficticous 1%!

Can you show documented facts (graphs, credible figures, etc.) to support that? Or is it possible you've been led to believe that by cleverly deceitful manipulation of statistics and figures?

 

[MikeK]

When Bush took office, the debt was $5.7 trillion. When Bush left office the debt was $9.9 trillion.

Now those who argue $11 trillion because of TARP obligations may have a legitimate point, but that isn't what you did - you flat out lied.

The effects of Bush's fiscal actions didn't end with his financially disastrous terms in Office. Are you ignoring the residual effects to date of his tax cuts, along with the constant costs of the major military engagement he lied us into and the Medicare Part D debacle?

That brain-damaged elitist bastard deliberately sabotaged the U.S. economy for the specific and insidious purpose of subjugating and gradually disassembling the middle class. And I should add that I fault Obama for not seeing to it that Bush and his platoon of conspirators were not investigated and prosecuted.

Bush belongs in Leavenworth for what he did to this and other countries. He should at least be turned over to the World Court.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The effects of Bush's fiscal actions didn't end with his financially disastrous terms in Office.

Irrelevant to Dean's blatant lies. Dean claimed that the Bush tax cuts created $11 trillion in debt.

That is a flat out lie.

Are you ignoring the residual effects to date of his tax cuts, along with the constant costs of the major military engagement he lied us into and the Medicare Part D debacle?

Why did Dear Leader renew the tax cuts?


Once Dear Leader did so, didn't these actually become the "Obama Tax Cuts?"

That brain-damaged elitist bastard deliberately sabotaged the U.S. economy for the specific and insidious purpose of subjugating and gradually disassembling the middle class. And I should add that I fault Obama for not seeing to it that Bush and his platoon of conspirators were not investigated and prosecuted.

Wouldn't you support summary execution for all who fail to swear a loyalty oath to Dear Leader?

Bush belongs in Leavenworth for what he did to this and other countries.

He is an enemy of the party and should serve as an example to any who dare defy the Glorious Peoples Party.

Da Comrade!

He should at least be turned over to the World Court.

What would the World court do? When did the U.S. cede sovereignty and become a vassal of the world dictatorship?

I understand your dream, but your dream is not a reality.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not really. Look at the big picture. The Bush tax cuts have gave us 11 trillion in debt.

Look, I know that you're a partisan hack, everything you post is intended to either promote your shameful party or to slander the hated opposition - I realize this.

But why do you lie so much, and so blatantly?

When Bush took office, the debt was $5.7 trillion. When Bush left office the debt was $9.9 trillion.

Now those who argue $11 trillion because of TARP obligations may have a legitimate point, but that isn't what you did - you flat out lied.

Further, you claimed that this was driven by tax cuts, which is 180° from the facts. IF tax cuts contributed to the debt at all, it was a minor amount. To claim that tax cuts not only were responsible for TARP and general obligations as well as retroactively the Clinton debt is a shameless lie, of course you are a shameless liar, so that's expected.

That will cost you more than any so called Democratic tax hike. How many times did Reagan raise taxes? Like 7 times in 8 years?

The truth is always so different than right wing "facts".

Don't talk about "fact" Dean, you are a ******* liar and have no right to even say the word.

The TARP legislation was supported equally by George W. Bush, Barack H. Obama, and John McCain, was well under a trillion dollars, and was intended to shore up failing financial institutions and be repaid to the U.S. treasury when the crisis passed. NONE of the funds allocated by the Bush admiinistration had any unusual strings or long range obligations built into them.

I believe George W. Bush did use his half of the TARP funds for the intended purpose and reserved the remainder for Barack Obama to use when he took office. Any TARP funds that were abused, misused, misallocated, or used to create addition debt would have been on Barack Obama's watch and by initiative promoted and authorized by his administration.

And the $5 trilion that has been added to the national debt since Obama took over has to include failure to pass any kind of budget, irresponsible appropriations bills, failure to control misuse of TARP monies, a stimulus package used mostly to pay off obligations for cronies and shore up administration support in the states, and legislation that will obligate the U.S. taxpayers for increasing trillions for decades to come.

 

[rdean]

Not really. Look at the big picture. The Bush tax cuts have gave us 11 trillion in debt.

Look, I know that you're a partisan hack, everything you post is intended to either promote your shameful party or to slander the hated opposition - I realize this.

But why do you lie so much, and so blatantly?

When Bush took office, the debt was $5.7 trillion. When Bush left office the debt was $9.9 trillion.

Now those who argue $11 trillion because of TARP obligations may have a legitimate point, but that isn't what you did - you flat out lied.

Further, you claimed that this was driven by tax cuts, which is 180° from the facts. IF tax cuts contributed to the debt at all, it was a minor amount. To claim that tax cuts not only were responsible for TARP and general obligations as well as retroactively the Clinton debt is a shameless lie, of course you are a shameless liar, so that's expected.

That will cost you more than any so called Democratic tax hike. How many times did Reagan raise taxes? Like 7 times in 8 years?

The truth is always so different than right wing "facts".

Don't talk about "fact" Dean, you are a ******* liar and have no right to even say the word.

The TARP legislation was supported equally by George W. Bush, Barack H. Obama, and John McCain, was well under a trillion dollars, and was intended to shore up failing financial institutions and be repaid to the U.S. treasury when the crisis passed. NONE of the funds allocated by the Bush admiinistration had any unusual strings or long range obligations built into them.

I believe George W. Bush did use his half of the TARP funds for the intended purpose and reserved the remainder for Barack Obama to use when he took office. Any TARP funds that were abused, misused, misallocated, or used to create addition debt would have been on Barack Obama's watch and by initiative promoted and authorized by his administration.

And the $5 trilion that has been added to the national debt since Obama took over has to include failure to pass any kind of budget, irresponsible appropriations bills, failure to control misuse of TARP monies, a stimulus package used mostly to pay off obligations for cronies and shore up administration support in the states, and legislation that will obligate the U.S. taxpayers for increasing trillions for decades to come.

Just curious. How did Obama create so much debt. What did he spend the money on?

 

[rdean]

Not really. Look at the big picture. The Bush tax cuts have gave us 11 trillion in debt.

Look, I know that you're a partisan hack, everything you post is intended to either promote your shameful party or to slander the hated opposition - I realize this.

But why do you lie so much, and so blatantly?

When Bush took office, the debt was $5.7 trillion. When Bush left office the debt was $9.9 trillion.

Now those who argue $11 trillion because of TARP obligations may have a legitimate point, but that isn't what you did - you flat out lied.

Further, you claimed that this was driven by tax cuts, which is 180° from the facts. IF tax cuts contributed to the debt at all, it was a minor amount. To claim that tax cuts not only were responsible for TARP and general obligations as well as retroactively the Clinton debt is a shameless lie, of course you are a shameless liar, so that's expected.

That will cost you more than any so called Democratic tax hike. How many times did Reagan raise taxes? Like 7 times in 8 years?

The truth is always so different than right wing "facts".

Don't talk about "fact" Dean, you are a ******* liar and have no right to even say the word.

You want to see hilarious? Check out this chart showing the increase in debt to GDP under the presidents by term.

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take a close look. Under Republicans it rises and under Democrats it goes down. Now get this, the longer a Republican is in office, the worse it gets. In Bush's first term, it went up by 7%, but in his second term, it went up 20%. Now, Obama, at 9% is the worst among the Democrat, who are all in the negative. But except for that first term under Bush, he is better than every Republican term back to Reagan. And this was because Bush handed him more than 20%. Obama will be nowhere near Bush's 20% by the end of his term.

What does this show us besides Republicans are full of shit?

It shows us they are fiscally irresponsible and a bunch of liars and crooks.

And don't try to blame it on congress. Bush and the Republicans had control for 6 straight years and that one of the main reasons we are where we are. Republicans work for the wealthy and to stay in power. They care nothing for the middle class and have only contempt for the poor. That much is obvious.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You want to see hilarious? Check out this chart showing the increase in debt to GDP under the presidents by term.

So instead of explaining why you blatantly lied, you pick up more feces and fling it?

rdean, why do you lie so much?

If you have a legitimate point, why do you stoop to pathological lying?

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take a close look. Under Republicans it rises and under Democrats it goes down. Now get this, the longer a Republican is in office, the worse it gets. In Bush's first term, it went up by 7%, but in his second term, it went up 20%. Now, Obama, at 9% is the worst among the Democrat, who are all in the negative. But except for that first term under Bush, he is better than every Republican term back to Reagan. And this was because Bush handed him more than 20%. Obama will be nowhere near Bush's 20% by the end of his term.

What does this show us besides Republicans are full of shit?

It shows us they are fiscally irresponsible and a bunch of liars and crooks.

And don't try to blame it on congress. Bush and the Republicans had control for 6 straight years and that one of the main reasons we are where we are. Republicans work for the wealthy and to stay in power. They care nothing for the middle class and have only contempt for the poor. That much is obvious.

Answer the question, rather than deflecting, why do you lie so much?

 

[rdean]

You want to see hilarious? Check out this chart showing the increase in debt to GDP under the presidents by term.

So instead of explaining why you blatantly lied, you pick up more feces and fling it?

rdean, why do you lie so much?

If you have a legitimate point, why do you stoop to pathological lying?

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take a close look. Under Republicans it rises and under Democrats it goes down. Now get this, the longer a Republican is in office, the worse it gets. In Bush's first term, it went up by 7%, but in his second term, it went up 20%. Now, Obama, at 9% is the worst among the Democrat, who are all in the negative. But except for that first term under Bush, he is better than every Republican term back to Reagan. And this was because Bush handed him more than 20%. Obama will be nowhere near Bush's 20% by the end of his term.

What does this show us besides Republicans are full of shit?

It shows us they are fiscally irresponsible and a bunch of liars and crooks.

And don't try to blame it on congress. Bush and the Republicans had control for 6 straight years and that one of the main reasons we are where we are. Republicans work for the wealthy and to stay in power. They care nothing for the middle class and have only contempt for the poor. That much is obvious.

Answer the question, rather than deflecting, why do you lie so much?

You're an idiot and you are making me prove you're an idiot. So I will.

First, Obama extended the Bush tax cuts because millions of Americans were held hostage to make him agree to those cuts:

Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says - CSMonitor.com

This happened less than a year ago, so don't play dumb. And the Christian Science Monitor is hardly left wing. The Republican Party, the party of "let him die" who applauds executions would have ZERO problem with millions of Americans suffering just before Christmas. We both know that to be true. Not something that can be denied.

As far as the deficit, I was being kind. This "official" number for the Bush deficit is very low. Think about future debt that is being "left out". For instance, to take care of one paraplegic or quadriplegic for life is over a million dollars. Well over. And that's just from the age of 55. Start at 25 and the cost rises, a lot. There have been well over 30,000 Americans severely wounded in Iraq. That cost will be added to the Obama budget, but the injuries came from during the Bush administration.

Just that could cost a couple of trillion more.

Then there is our depleted military. How much is that going to cost?

Then we have that "drugs for votes" bill that continues to pile on debt. Some estimates will be another 3 trillion.

These things will be added to the Obama Administration, BUT THEY CAME FROM BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS.

Everything the Republicans touch turns to shit. Just like Midas, but not gold.

It's difficult to think of much Republicans have done for this country since Eisenhower. Of course, THAT Republican Party hadn't lost all it's liberals and gained all those southern conservatives. No wonder.

 

[SAT]

You're truncating the quote from Smith, Uncensored.

Hardly.

The attempt to cast Adam Smith as a socialist is laughable.

Bullshit. My message is raise the taxes on those able to afford it, and that means me. I am willing to pay more in taxes. The nation needs tax dollars to run.

Then do it. The IRS will take any extra taxes you want to pay. If you want to pay more, write a check.

You're truncating the quote from Smith, Uncensored. You are leaving off a sentence.

Call it whatever you want, it's unconstitutional, ineffective and financially unsustainable. So, as yet ANOTHER solar panel company goes bankrupt with taxpayer money...just this morning...let's have a look at what your approach to government meddling in business has wrought:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Hey, almost $133,000 of debt PER TAXPAYER...and you call ME extreme?!

It's also not unconstitutional. No one claimed it was sustainable. It's a booster shot for the economy, not a permanent condition. Like a war, like disaster relief, it's a treatment for a crisis. And government spending in a crisis does stimulate the economy. This is not a theory, it's observable reality.

Your ideas are extreme. You have every right to be an extremist, it's a free country.

The reason the Republican base supports protecting the wealthy is that they believe they are all millionaires. Just currently without funds. Soon, their ship will "come in". They are simply protecting their future investment.

Just like these guys.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're an idiot and you are making me prove you're an idiot. So I will.

First, Obama extended the Bush tax cuts because millions of Americans were held hostage to make him agree to those cuts:

So, the fascist democrats held the house, senate and the Imperial Presidency - but the REPUBLICANS MADE HIS WORSHIP do it?

You fascists are something else.

This happened less than a year ago, so don't play dumb. And the Christian Science Monitor is hardly left wing.

The CSM is strongly left wing. They are not a whackjob hate site like most of your sources, but they are solidly left.

Regardless, the democrats had a substantial majority in both houses, the GOP couldn't make Dear Leader do ANYTHING.

The Republican Party, the party of "let him die" who applauds executions would have ZERO problem with millions of Americans suffering just before Christmas. We both know that to be true. Not something that can be denied.

What the **** are you yapping about, stupid?

Let "who" die, dickwad?

The subject is your lie that "Bush tax cuts created $11 trillion in debt." What the **** does the above have to do with your moronic lie?

Are you on drugs?

As far as the deficit, I was being kind.

No, you were being a ******* liar, like usual. As a partisan hack, you have zero integrity and openly lie to promote your shameful party or to slander the opposition.

This "official" number for the Bush deficit is very low.

First off dumbfuck, your claim was that "Bush tax cuts created $11 trillion in debt." That isn't the deficit, that is the national debt, stupid.

Think about future debt that is being "left out". For instance, to take care of one paraplegic or quadriplegic for life is over a million dollars.

Again, what the ****?

Are you so zoned out on crack that you simply cannot stay focused on the subject at hand, or are you so ******* stupid that you think pathetic straw man arguments will make you look less like a liar and a fool?

Well over. And that's just from the age of 55. Start at 25 and the cost rises, a lot. There have been well over 30,000 Americans severely wounded in Iraq. That cost will be added to the Obama budget, but the injuries came from during the Bush administration.

Just that could cost a couple of trillion more.

Yawn

Pathetic moron.

Then there is our depleted military. How much is that going to cost?

Irrelevant to your lie. "Bush tax cuts created $11 trillion in debt."

You lied, I called you on it, you pathetic hack.

Then we have that "drugs for votes" bill that continues to pile on debt. Some estimates will be another 3 trillion.

These things will be added to the Obama Administration, BUT THEY CAME FROM BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS.

Everything the Republicans touch turns to shit. Just like Midas, but not gold.

It's difficult to think of much Republicans have done for this country since Eisenhower. Of course, THAT Republican Party hadn't lost all it's liberals and gained all those southern conservatives. No wonder.

Are you the best the fascist party can come up with? Seriously?