Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy

[MaxGrit]

He's mentally challenged.

No Bubba, I NEVER vote Repubs

ok, you just are a dumbass idiot, aka a libtard

Got it, you don't have ANYTHING to refute FACTS so instead you'll follow your leader, Druggie down to the gutter

PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE tell me ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history in the US? Just one?

Lol nope not a chance. You libtards don't have any integrity. You idiots simply don't care about the truths and the facts.

Stop projecting Bubba

But thanks, I couldn't come up with even one policy conservatives were on the correct side of history either

Cons were the guys standing with King George in 1776 (Torry/Loyalists), They were the confederates, they were the isolationists during both WW's, they 'believed in' markets self correcting that gave US the GOP great depression, Ronnie's S&L and Dubya's subprime messes, they fought labor laws and labor rights that created the worlds largest middle class, said that SS and Medicare would ruin America, fought EVERY environmental or safety law that has been implemented for 100+ years!

Yeah, with a record like that, I'd high tale it too

What is your issue with all the lies?

 

[Dragonlady]

you don't seem to want to discuss JFK's advocating for tax cuts when HE wanted to stimulate the US economy back in the 60's.

J: Bush's 2003 supply side tax cuts produced biggest revenue gains for government in American History. When Charlie Gibson ask BO why he wanted to raise the Cap. gains tax when it always resulted in less revenue, BO said it had to with appearance, not revenue. A liberal lacks the intelligence to think clearly.

Stephen Moore: "from 2004 to 2007 federal tax cuts increased revenue by an enormous 785 billion., the largest increase in American History


individual and corporate tax were up 40% capital gains and dividend 71% in capital gains and 41% in dividends

NYTIMES: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy ids driving down the deficit this year"

" the latest IRS data through 2006 show a more than 120 billion increase in tax payments by the wealthy after the 2003 Bush tax cuts through 2006

There is a difference between cutting taxes from a 90% rate, and cutting taxes as Reagan and Bush did. Both tax cuts cost jobs, increased poverty and resulted in the transfer of wealth to the rich.

It wasn't Bush Jr.'s tax cut which increased federal revenues - it was his proflifigate spending. Both Reagan and Bush Jr. spent like drunken sailors after cutting taxes. With the government pouring that much money into the economy, huge amounts of it came back as taxes. Bush Jr. spent more than any other President who came before him. You'd have to be a perfect idiot not to figure that one out. Con

.

Yet more crap.
Bush and Reagan's unemployment numbers look far better than Obama's.
How does increased spending increase revenue? It makes no sense. Idiots who never took Econ 101 make crap up as they go.

When Reagan when on his Defence Department buying spree, the contractors who supplied the weapons went on a hiring spree. The contractors made big profits, and paid tax on the income, their workers paid taxes on their wages, and those tax dollars went to the federal government.

Really, anyone with a modicum of common sense can figure that out.

And the net, as you on the left are so fond of pointing out, was a larger credit card bill.

Didn't work out so well...did it ?

I never suggested that it did, but it created a lot of jobs, and the illusion of nation-wide prosperity, which Republicans to this day claim as Ronnie's great success.

 

[The Rabbi]

J: Bush's 2003 supply side tax cuts produced biggest revenue gains for government in American History. When Charlie Gibson ask BO why he wanted to raise the Cap. gains tax when it always resulted in less revenue, BO said it had to with appearance, not revenue. A liberal lacks the intelligence to think clearly.

Stephen Moore: "from 2004 to 2007 federal tax cuts increased revenue by an enormous 785 billion., the largest increase in American History


individual and corporate tax were up 40% capital gains and dividend 71% in capital gains and 41% in dividends

NYTIMES: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy ids driving down the deficit this year"

" the latest IRS data through 2006 show a more than 120 billion increase in tax payments by the wealthy after the 2003 Bush tax cuts through 2006

There is a difference between cutting taxes from a 90% rate, and cutting taxes as Reagan and Bush did. Both tax cuts cost jobs, increased poverty and resulted in the transfer of wealth to the rich.

It wasn't Bush Jr.'s tax cut which increased federal revenues - it was his proflifigate spending. Both Reagan and Bush Jr. spent like drunken sailors after cutting taxes. With the government pouring that much money into the economy, huge amounts of it came back as taxes. Bush Jr. spent more than any other President who came before him. You'd have to be a perfect idiot not to figure that one out. Con

.

Yet more crap.
Bush and Reagan's unemployment numbers look far better than Obama's.
How does increased spending increase revenue? It makes no sense. Idiots who never took Econ 101 make crap up as they go.

When Reagan when on his Defence Department buying spree, the contractors who supplied the weapons went on a hiring spree. The contractors made big profits, and paid tax on the income, their workers paid taxes on their wages, and those tax dollars went to the federal government.

Really, anyone with a modicum of common sense can figure that out.

And the net, as you on the left are so fond of pointing out, was a larger credit card bill.

Didn't work out so well...did it ?

I never suggested that it did, but it created a lot of jobs, and the illusion of nation-wide prosperity, which Republicans to this day claim as Ronnie's great success.

Illusion?
snicker.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What illusion? The rest of the 80s and 90s was great thanks to Ronnie

I Remember listening to Jimmys failed rescue attempt in Iran on WGN radio, I thought we were so done. That was my lowest point as an American, we sucked.

Then along came The Man

 

[The Rabbi]

What illusion? The rest of the 80s and 90s was great thanks to Ronnie

I Remember listening to Jimmys failed rescue attempt in Iran on WGN radio, I thought we were so done. That was my lowest point as an American, we sucked.

Then along came The Man

I remember an article called "Does America Make Anything Good Anymore" about 1980. The Japanese were eating our lunch in every manufacturing category. Steel mills were closing. Chrysler needed a bailout. NYC was bankrupt. The Arabs were buying everything in sight. The Russians were beating us like a red headed step child across the world. Inflation was high. Unemployment was high.
Then Reagan announced it was morning in America and it all became better.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yea people respond to a great leader, he is like a coach, the Chicago bears Had one of the Best offensive in the NFL this year, but had obama as a coach

 

[Oldstyle]

you don't seem to want to discuss JFK's advocating for tax cuts when HE wanted to stimulate the US economy back in the 60's.

J: Bush's 2003 supply side tax cuts produced biggest revenue gains for government in American History. When Charlie Gibson ask BO why he wanted to raise the Cap. gains tax when it always resulted in less revenue, BO said it had to with appearance, not revenue. A liberal lacks the intelligence to think clearly.

Stephen Moore: "from 2004 to 2007 federal tax cuts increased revenue by an enormous 785 billion., the largest increase in American History


individual and corporate tax were up 40% capital gains and dividend 71% in capital gains and 41% in dividends

NYTIMES: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy ids driving down the deficit this year"

" the latest IRS data through 2006 show a more than 120 billion increase in tax payments by the wealthy after the 2003 Bush tax cuts through 2006

There is a difference between cutting taxes from a 90% rate, and cutting taxes as Reagan and Bush did. Both tax cuts cost jobs, increased poverty and resulted in the transfer of wealth to the rich.

It wasn't Bush Jr.'s tax cut which increased federal revenues - it was his proflifigate spending. Both Reagan and Bush Jr. spent like drunken sailors after cutting taxes. With the government pouring that much money into the economy, huge amounts of it came back as taxes. Bush Jr. spent more than any other President who came before him. You'd have to be a perfect idiot not to figure that one out. Con

.

Yet more crap.
Bush and Reagan's unemployment numbers look far better than Obama's.
How does increased spending increase revenue? It makes no sense. Idiots who never took Econ 101 make crap up as they go.

When Reagan when on his Defence Department buying spree, the contractors who supplied the weapons went on a hiring spree. The contractors made big profits, and paid tax on the income, their workers paid taxes on their wages, their suppliers make big profits and paid tax on the profits, and those tax dollars went to the federal government. Any time the government goes on a spending spree hiring outside contractors, a portion of the money spent will flow back to the government in the form of taxes.

Really, anyone with a modicum of common sense can figure that out.

You never took Economics in college...did you Dragonlady? Might I suggest picking up a copy of Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy? A "modicum" of time spent reading THAT and you might actually understand enough about the topic to make an intelligent argument!

 

[The Rabbi]

you don't seem to want to discuss JFK's advocating for tax cuts when HE wanted to stimulate the US economy back in the 60's.

J: Bush's 2003 supply side tax cuts produced biggest revenue gains for government in American History. When Charlie Gibson ask BO why he wanted to raise the Cap. gains tax when it always resulted in less revenue, BO said it had to with appearance, not revenue. A liberal lacks the intelligence to think clearly.

Stephen Moore: "from 2004 to 2007 federal tax cuts increased revenue by an enormous 785 billion., the largest increase in American History


individual and corporate tax were up 40% capital gains and dividend 71% in capital gains and 41% in dividends

NYTIMES: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy ids driving down the deficit this year"

" the latest IRS data through 2006 show a more than 120 billion increase in tax payments by the wealthy after the 2003 Bush tax cuts through 2006

There is a difference between cutting taxes from a 90% rate, and cutting taxes as Reagan and Bush did. Both tax cuts cost jobs, increased poverty and resulted in the transfer of wealth to the rich.

It wasn't Bush Jr.'s tax cut which increased federal revenues - it was his proflifigate spending. Both Reagan and Bush Jr. spent like drunken sailors after cutting taxes. With the government pouring that much money into the economy, huge amounts of it came back as taxes. Bush Jr. spent more than any other President who came before him. You'd have to be a perfect idiot not to figure that one out. Con

.

Yet more crap.
Bush and Reagan's unemployment numbers look far better than Obama's.
How does increased spending increase revenue? It makes no sense. Idiots who never took Econ 101 make crap up as they go.

When Reagan when on his Defence Department buying spree, the contractors who supplied the weapons went on a hiring spree. The contractors made big profits, and paid tax on the income, their workers paid taxes on their wages, their suppliers make big profits and paid tax on the profits, and those tax dollars went to the federal government. Any time the government goes on a spending spree hiring outside contractors, a portion of the money spent will flow back to the government in the form of taxes.

Really, anyone with a modicum of common sense can figure that out.

You never took Economics in college...did you Dragonlady? Might I suggest picking up a copy of Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy? A "modicum" of time spent reading THAT and you might actually understand enough about the topic to make an intelligent argument!

If leftist actually bothered to read the book instead of dismissing Sowell as an Uncle TOm their heads would explode.

 

[regent]

I think many Republicans have a good understanding of economics, how else could they create so many recessions and depressions. Republicans see those economic disasters as economic opportunities, and others see them as problems. All depends on one's perspective and goals. But business-Republicans understand.

 

[Oldstyle]

I think many Republicans have a good understanding of economics, how else could they create so many recessions and depressions. Republicans see those economic disasters as economic opportunities, and others see them as problems. All depends on one's perspective and goals. But business-Republicans understand.

I hate to point out the inconvenient truth, Regent...but the wealthy have made more money under our current Administration than they ever did under Bush. Why? Because unlike Barack Obama...they actually understand finance, economics, business and investment. While you progressives have been busy destroying the Middle Classes' savings and retirement accounts with your jobless recovery and an "Affordable" Care Act that is anything but...the wealthy have had access to almost interest free money to invest courtesy of the non-stop quantitative easing that the Fed has done since Barry took office.

 

[Oldstyle]

What's amusing to watch is your latest faux issue...income inequality...when it's been your policies that have created more income inequality.

 

[Oldstyle]

I think many Republicans have a good understanding of economics, how else could they create so many recessions and depressions. Republicans see those economic disasters as economic opportunities, and others see them as problems. All depends on one's perspective and goals. But business-Republicans understand.

This another "theme" from the Left that never ceases to amuse...

At the same time as you progressives declare that conservatives are less intelligent than liberals in one string...you accuse them of being Machiavellian puppet masters controlling the economy to make themselves wealthy in another.

Sorry, can't have it both ways...

 

[regent]

I think many Republicans have a good understanding of economics, how else could they create so many recessions and depressions. Republicans see those economic disasters as economic opportunities, and others see them as problems. All depends on one's perspective and goals. But business-Republicans understand.

This another "theme" from the Left that never ceases to amuse...

At the same time as you progressives declare that conservatives are less intelligent than liberals in one string...you accuse them of being Machiavellian puppet masters controlling the economy to make themselves wealthy in another.

Sorry, can't have it both ways...

It isn't intelligence it's goals. When Jefferson changed property to happiness in the Declaration perhaps it may have been the realization that for some money is happiness and the money goalers spend their life trying to make money, and sometimes that goal of more-money becomes a risk for our economic system. In any case those with the money-goal never seem to have enough, and much of their life is spent acquiring more money than needed. As for intelligence, maybe we can agree that some smart Republicans have a money-goal and some smart Democrats become college professors.

 

[Oldstyle]

I think many Republicans have a good understanding of economics, how else could they create so many recessions and depressions. Republicans see those economic disasters as economic opportunities, and others see them as problems. All depends on one's perspective and goals. But business-Republicans understand.

This another "theme" from the Left that never ceases to amuse...

At the same time as you progressives declare that conservatives are less intelligent than liberals in one string...you accuse them of being Machiavellian puppet masters controlling the economy to make themselves wealthy in another.

Sorry, can't have it both ways...

It isn't intelligence it's goals. When Jefferson changed property to happiness in the Declaration perhaps it may have been the realization that for some money is happiness and the money goalers spend their life trying to make money, and sometimes that goal of more-money becomes a risk for our economic system. In any case those with the money-goal never seem to have enough, and much of their life is spent acquiring more money than needed. As for intelligence, maybe we can agree that some smart Republicans have a money-goal and some smart Democrats become college professors.

You don't seem to realize that the people you denigrate as "money goalers" are the people who in large part made America great. Did Henry Ford acquire more money than he needed? Probably. So why did he work as hard as he did and for as long as he did? I'll give you a hint, Regent...it wasn't for the money. People like Ford are driven to create something great because the challenge of doing so is it's own motivation.

I met very few "driven" professors in all the years I spend in college. Quite frankly I don't think people with that type of motivation find being a professor challenging enough.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think many Republicans have a good understanding of economics, how else could they create so many recessions and depressions. Republicans see those economic disasters as economic opportunities, and others see them as problems. All depends on one's perspective and goals. But business-Republicans understand.

This another "theme" from the Left that never ceases to amuse...

At the same time as you progressives declare that conservatives are less intelligent than liberals in one string...you accuse them of being Machiavellian puppet masters controlling the economy to make themselves wealthy in another.

Sorry, can't have it both ways...

It isn't intelligence it's goals. When Jefferson changed property to happiness in the Declaration perhaps it may have been the realization that for some money is happiness and the money goalers spend their life trying to make money, and sometimes that goal of more-money becomes a risk for our economic system. In any case those with the money-goal never seem to have enough, and much of their life is spent acquiring more money than needed. As for intelligence, maybe we can agree that some smart Republicans have a money-goal and some smart Democrats become college professors.

You don't seem to realize that the people you denigrate as "money goalers" are the people who in large part made America great. Did Henry Ford acquire more money than he needed? Probably. So why did he work as hard as he did and for as long as he did? I'll give you a hint, Regent...it wasn't for the money. People like Ford are driven to create something great because the challenge of doing so is it's own motivation.

I met very few "driven" professors in all the years I spend in college. Quite frankly I don't think people with that type of motivation find being a professor challenging enough.

What the **** is this "more money than he needed" shit? Who the hell is anyone to tell anyone else how much money he needs? If you listen to these assholes we should all be living in a cardboard box and eating oatmeal.

 

[Oldstyle]

Instead of criticizing the people who create the businesses that employ millions as "money goalers"...I would suggest that you thank them for providing employment to the many who are content just to punch a time clock and pick up a check.

 

[Oldstyle]

I think many Republicans have a good understanding of economics, how else could they create so many recessions and depressions. Republicans see those economic disasters as economic opportunities, and others see them as problems. All depends on one's perspective and goals. But business-Republicans understand.

This another "theme" from the Left that never ceases to amuse...

At the same time as you progressives declare that conservatives are less intelligent than liberals in one string...you accuse them of being Machiavellian puppet masters controlling the economy to make themselves wealthy in another.

Sorry, can't have it both ways...

It isn't intelligence it's goals. When Jefferson changed property to happiness in the Declaration perhaps it may have been the realization that for some money is happiness and the money goalers spend their life trying to make money, and sometimes that goal of more-money becomes a risk for our economic system. In any case those with the money-goal never seem to have enough, and much of their life is spent acquiring more money than needed. As for intelligence, maybe we can agree that some smart Republicans have a money-goal and some smart Democrats become college professors.

You don't seem to realize that the people you denigrate as "money goalers" are the people who in large part made America great. Did Henry Ford acquire more money than he needed? Probably. So why did he work as hard as he did and for as long as he did? I'll give you a hint, Regent...it wasn't for the money. People like Ford are driven to create something great because the challenge of doing so is it's own motivation.

I met very few "driven" professors in all the years I spend in college. Quite frankly I don't think people with that type of motivation find being a professor challenging enough.

What the **** is this "more money than he needed" shit? Who the hell is anyone to tell anyone else how much money he needs? If you listen to these assholes we should all be living in a cardboard box and eating oatmeal.

With someone like Ford I would argue that it wasn't about the money. He had a vision about changing how people moved around on this planet and he dedicated his life to realizing that vision. The money he made along the way was simply the means to that end.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think many Republicans have a good understanding of economics, how else could they create so many recessions and depressions. Republicans see those economic disasters as economic opportunities, and others see them as problems. All depends on one's perspective and goals. But business-Republicans understand.

This another "theme" from the Left that never ceases to amuse...

At the same time as you progressives declare that conservatives are less intelligent than liberals in one string...you accuse them of being Machiavellian puppet masters controlling the economy to make themselves wealthy in another.

Sorry, can't have it both ways...

It isn't intelligence it's goals. When Jefferson changed property to happiness in the Declaration perhaps it may have been the realization that for some money is happiness and the money goalers spend their life trying to make money, and sometimes that goal of more-money becomes a risk for our economic system. In any case those with the money-goal never seem to have enough, and much of their life is spent acquiring more money than needed. As for intelligence, maybe we can agree that some smart Republicans have a money-goal and some smart Democrats become college professors.

You don't seem to realize that the people you denigrate as "money goalers" are the people who in large part made America great. Did Henry Ford acquire more money than he needed? Probably. So why did he work as hard as he did and for as long as he did? I'll give you a hint, Regent...it wasn't for the money. People like Ford are driven to create something great because the challenge of doing so is it's own motivation.

I met very few "driven" professors in all the years I spend in college. Quite frankly I don't think people with that type of motivation find being a professor challenging enough.

What the **** is this "more money than he needed" shit? Who the hell is anyone to tell anyone else how much money he needs? If you listen to these assholes we should all be living in a cardboard box and eating oatmeal.

With someone like Ford I would argue that it wasn't about the money. He had a vision about changing how people moved around on this planet and he dedicated his life to realizing that vision. The money he made along the way was simply the means to that end.

No I think he liked wealth and power, which goes with wealth. Bt look at all the stuff he did with the money, like the Ford Foundation. Oh, and sprreading the Protocals of the Elders of Zion. But we wont go there.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I find it almost hysterical that members of a party who just lost more house seats and 9 senate seats (almost 20% of their holdings), think that somehow the fickle electorate will come running back to them.

I would have found it more hysterical if Republicans HAD NOT retained and picked up seats after the "re drawing" of voting precincts to favor Republicans being re elected or elected.

When you've rigged the districts to assure a particular vote, I wouldn't crow about that as some sort of great accomplishment. Yea it was pretty slick to re draw that way, but still it's not like it is anything but playing politics.

You act like it really means something.

Why would anyone want to support a Republican? No ideas, no ideas and no accomplishments. No thanks.

I would have found it more hysterical if Republicans HAD NOT retained and picked up seats after the "re drawing" of voting precincts to favor Republicans being re elected or elected.

Exactly! It's not easy to redistrict Senate seats though.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, and sometimes that goal of more-money becomes a risk for our economic system.

and 99% of the time, under capitalism, it becomes the greatest anti poverty program the world ever dreamed of. All you have to do to make tons of money is invent and market products that raise a man's standard of living more than any other products made anywhere in the world.

I'm sure a stupid liberal could do that easily!