Republicans Own Detroit Bankruptcy

[Pop23]

Are you claiming that Kennedy didn't primary Carter?

Or are you claiming that the Democrats weren't divided?

We're laughing your lack of knowledge

Only an idiot claims that the Dems were SO divided they allowed Reagan to win by one of the largest margins in history.

Obama beat McCain with more votes than Reagan beat Carter.

Therefore, Obama has won with a larger margin of victory - one of the largest in history!

Which doesn't justify your statement that Kennedy allowed Reagan to beat Carter.

If your going to make silly statements on this silly thread, try to keep up with yourself

Oh, and after 400 posts, Detroit still sucks and the Democrats still are to blame.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No, I am upset that Kennedy challenged Carter, giving the office to Reagan.

And why did you post percentage of popular vote instead of the vote totals?

tell us some more you don't know about political history

Are you claiming that Kennedy didn't primary Carter?

Or are you claiming that the Democrats weren't divided?

Ted Kennedy has ZERO to do with Carter being trounced by Reagan. Carter alone bears that cross.
BTW, there was no way this country was going to have a drunken, philandering, disconnected, ultra wealthy New England liberal as president.
Carter...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Are you claiming that Kennedy didn't primary Carter?

Or are you claiming that the Democrats weren't divided?

We're laughing your lack of knowledge

Only an idiot claims that the Dems were SO divided they allowed Reagan to win by one of the largest margins in history.

Obama beat McCain with more votes than Reagan beat Carter.

Therefore, Obama has won with a larger margin of victory - one of the largest in history!

Are you sure you want to leave up that post?
Tell ya what, I will give you a chance to take it down ti save yourself the embarrassment of the ridicule that is about to follow.
BTW,m Detroit is a piss pool and the democrats which have been running that city for 50 years OWN it.

 

[westwall]

tell us some more you don't know about political history

Yep, synthy doesn't know much...and what he does know is wrong!

Then prove me wrong if you can. (SPOILER ALERT: you can't!)

Dude, you've been bitchslapped so many times in this one thread I'm surprised you keep slinking back. Just reinforces my theory that to be a libtard (at least a pro like you) you have to be intellectually dishonest, brainless, and have no sense of shame or propriety.
You qualify in all areas.

 

[Avatar4321]

tell us some more you don't know about political history

Yep, synthy doesn't know much...and what he does know is wrong!

Then prove me wrong if you can. (SPOILER ALERT: you can't!)

Im pretty sure they already have.

 

[Pop23]

We're laughing your lack of knowledge

Only an idiot claims that the Dems were SO divided they allowed Reagan to win by one of the largest margins in history.

Obama beat McCain with more votes than Reagan beat Carter.

Therefore, Obama has won with a larger margin of victory - one of the largest in history!

Are you sure you want to leave up that post?
Tell ya what, I will give you a chance to take it down ti save yourself the embarrassment of the ridicule that is about to follow.
BTW,m Detroit is a piss pool and the democrats which have been running that city for 50 years OWN it.

I love it. Don't worry, Synth won't take the post down

That's no how he rolls

See, when you prove he's a silly tool he does this. ......

"You know that's not what I meant" then try's to divert attention elsewhere

It's funny because he zigs and zags so much he can't even keep up with himself after awhile. Proof is just a few posts up.

 

[Faun]

So, what you're telling us is you are incapable of telling the truth. Reagan obliterated Carter and inflation under good old Jimmy got to a high of 18% as Time magazine reported....

"He promises budget cuts and credit curbs, but more is needed

As Jimmy Carter stepped before the television cameras in the East Room of the White House last Friday, his task was not just to proclaim another new anti-inflation program but to calm a national alarm that had begun to border on panic. Inflation and interest rates, both topping 18%, are so far beyond anything that Americans have experienced in peacetime—and so far beyond anything that U.S. financial markets are set up to handle—as to inspire a contagion of fear. Usually confident businessmen and bankers have begun..."


Read more: Jimmy Carter vs. Inflation - TIME

"hovered around 12% at the time of the 1980 election campaign"

Jimmy Carter on Budget & Economy

Yes, I suppose 18% is "around" 12%. I love how they cherry picked the times they did. The lowest for those particular quarters. Those of us who lived at that time know the truth however. 17% inflation killed the housing market...among other things.

17% inflation????

You must be one of them, low information voters.

In October, 1980, the inflation rate was 12.77%

Historical Inflation Rate | InflationData.com

 

[Faun]

Oh boy, another liberal meltdown. What could Bush do for Liberals constantly standing in his way? What you fail to recognize is that Bush saw the housing crisis coming and introduced legislation to create a committee to reign Fannie and Freddie in. Democrats rejected it. Some of the main figures and obstructs to this were none other than Hillary, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama; among other liberals. There was a Democratic Governor (I believe her name was Jennifer Granholm) in Michigan from 2003 to 2011. It takes a while to undo the damage. Tell me where I've heard this line before.

As compared to New York, Michigan is only $77 billion in debt. Detroit's debt was literally 1/8th of the state's entire debt total. So, what does that have to do with anything? If a colossal failure happens, by default you blame it on the other side. Detroit had 51 years to change it's ways. You sat there ignoring reality. Oh yeah, it's gonna hit you New Yorkers harder than it hit Detroit.

Tell Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Blooming idiot hello for me. Your argument is nothing but a tantrum. Come at me bro!

I always get a good laugh when retards blame members of the minority party for the failure of the majority party to pass legislation which could have prevented the financial meltdown.

Here, on planet Earth, Republicans had no less than 3 bills that could have achieved that.

S.1508 (2003)
S.190 (2005)
H.R.1461 (2005)

All 3 died in the Republican-led Senate and not one was held up with a filibuster.

Sorry. Not going to pull that crap on me. During the 107th Congress, the Senate switched majorities three times before the end of the term in 2003. It held a Democratic majority in 2003. The House remained Republican throughout. No wonder the 2003 bill died. It died in a Democratically held Senate!

You're a ******* rightard, there's just no other way around it. Democrats control of the Senate ended on January 4th, 2003, 7 months before S.1508 was even introduced. To claim that bill died under Democrat control is announce to the world that you're not playing with a full deck.

In the 108th Congress, which ended in 2005, the Senate was held by Republicans, but only by a 51-49 margin. This means that the threat of a filibuster was always constant. Republicans did not have a filibuster proof majority in the senate. That explains why the two 2005 bills died.

S.190 was introduced in 2007 as S.1100, which again died in a Democratically held Senate during the 110th Congress. HR 1461 passed the house by a 331 to 90 margin in October of 2005 during the 109th Congress. The bill was referred to committee, and never touched again by the Senate. If anything, this is the only bill that could be passed off as the one Republicans let get away. So, again if anything Democrats had key roles in preventing legislation from passing, twice.

That's as idiotic as your statement above. Democrats did not block any of those bills. All three died because Republican leadership didn't want them. At least one of them was even bashed by Bush. So to blame Democrats is rightarded. And your nonsense that they wouldn't put it to a vote because they cowered in fear over a filibuster makes no sense. There were 61 filibusters during the 108th Congress. Clearly, Republicans had no qualms about putting legislation up for a vote even if they feared it would go nowhere. Hell, how many times have Republicans voted on repealing ObamaCare, knowing full well any such bill will go nowhere.

I know you worked hard to try and pin me with that one, but it was a futile effort. I love when people like you try to pin everything on the majority party, without first considering the political atmosphere in which the bills were introduced.

Have a seat.

Sure, the minority party can block legislation, but you can't blame the minority party for the policies that come out of Washington. And of course, we have Bush accepting the blame ...

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech​

 

[TemplarKormac]

I always get a good laugh when retards blame members of the minority party for the failure of the majority party to pass legislation which could have prevented the financial meltdown.

Here, on planet Earth, Republicans had no less than 3 bills that could have achieved that.

S.1508 (2003)
S.190 (2005)
H.R.1461 (2005)

All 3 died in the Republican-led Senate and not one was held up with a filibuster.

Sorry. Not going to pull that crap on me. During the 107th Congress, the Senate switched majorities three times before the end of the term in 2003. It held a Democratic majority in 2003. The House remained Republican throughout. No wonder the 2003 bill died. It died in a Democratically held Senate!

You're a ******* rightard, there's just no other way around it. Democrats control of the Senate ended on January 4th, 2003, 7 months before S.1508 was even introduced. To claim that bill died under Democrat control is announce to the world that you're not playing with a full deck.

In the 108th Congress, which ended in 2005, the Senate was held by Republicans, but only by a 51-49 margin. This means that the threat of a filibuster was always constant. Republicans did not have a filibuster proof majority in the senate. That explains why the two 2005 bills died.

S.190 was introduced in 2007 as S.1100, which again died in a Democratically held Senate during the 110th Congress. HR 1461 passed the house by a 331 to 90 margin in October of 2005 during the 109th Congress. The bill was referred to committee, and never touched again by the Senate. If anything, this is the only bill that could be passed off as the one Republicans let get away. So, again if anything Democrats had key roles in preventing legislation from passing, twice.

That's as idiotic as your statement above. Democrats did not block any of those bills. All three died because Republican leadership didn't want them. At least one of them was even bashed by Bush. So to blame Democrats is rightarded. And your nonsense that they wouldn't put it to a vote because they cowered in fear over a filibuster makes no sense. There were 61 filibusters during the 108th Congress. Clearly, Republicans had no qualms about putting legislation up for a vote even if they feared it would go nowhere. Hell, how many times have Republicans voted on repealing ObamaCare, knowing full well any such bill will go nowhere.

I know you worked hard to try and pin me with that one, but it was a futile effort. I love when people like you try to pin everything on the majority party, without first considering the political atmosphere in which the bills were introduced.

Have a seat.

Sure, the minority party can block legislation, but you can't blame the minority party for the policies that come out of Washington. And of course, we have Bush accepting the blame ...

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech​

Lol. You really are spinning that wheel, aren't you, you liberal hamster you.

Okay then I'll give you that, but it still died, because the threat of a filibuster by Democrats was there in the 108th. You're pretty clueless Faun.

 

[Faun]

Sorry. Not going to pull that crap on me. During the 107th Congress, the Senate switched majorities three times before the end of the term in 2003. It held a Democratic majority in 2003. The House remained Republican throughout. No wonder the 2003 bill died. It died in a Democratically held Senate!

You're a ******* rightard, there's just no other way around it. Democrats control of the Senate ended on January 4th, 2003, 7 months before S.1508 was even introduced. To claim that bill died under Democrat control is announce to the world that you're not playing with a full deck.


That's as idiotic as your statement above. Democrats did not block any of those bills. All three died because Republican leadership didn't want them. At least one of them was even bashed by Bush. So to blame Democrats is rightarded. And your nonsense that they wouldn't put it to a vote because they cowered in fear over a filibuster makes no sense. There were 61 filibusters during the 108th Congress. Clearly, Republicans had no qualms about putting legislation up for a vote even if they feared it would go nowhere. Hell, how many times have Republicans voted on repealing ObamaCare, knowing full well any such bill will go nowhere.

I know you worked hard to try and pin me with that one, but it was a futile effort. I love when people like you try to pin everything on the majority party, without first considering the political atmosphere in which the bills were introduced.

Have a seat.

Sure, the minority party can block legislation, but you can't blame the minority party for the policies that come out of Washington. And of course, we have Bush accepting the blame ...

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech​

Lol. You really are spinning that wheel, aren't you, you liberal hamster you.

Okay then I'll give you that, but it still died, because the threat of a filibuster by Democrats was there in the 108th. You're pretty clueless Faun.

Holy shit! You've got nothing to give me. You made the moronic claim that Democrats controlled the Senate in the summer of 2003. If nothing else, it reflects how ignorant you are on the matter. You don't even know which party was in charge, yet you believe that Republicans cowered in fear over a potential filibuster. Despite the fact that there were over 60 filibusters during that Senate. Despite the fact that Republicans (and Democrats) routinely vote for, and pass, legislation they know isn't going anywhere. Which may or may not have even been the case with any one of those bills.

And again, even Bush didn't like at least one of them. So just how retarded are you for blaming Democrats when even the Republican president panned his own party's bill??

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're a ******* rightard, there's just no other way around it. Democrats control of the Senate ended on January 4th, 2003, 7 months before S.1508 was even introduced. To claim that bill died under Democrat control is announce to the world that you're not playing with a full deck.


That's as idiotic as your statement above. Democrats did not block any of those bills. All three died because Republican leadership didn't want them. At least one of them was even bashed by Bush. So to blame Democrats is rightarded. And your nonsense that they wouldn't put it to a vote because they cowered in fear over a filibuster makes no sense. There were 61 filibusters during the 108th Congress. Clearly, Republicans had no qualms about putting legislation up for a vote even if they feared it would go nowhere. Hell, how many times have Republicans voted on repealing ObamaCare, knowing full well any such bill will go nowhere.


Sure, the minority party can block legislation, but you can't blame the minority party for the policies that come out of Washington. And of course, we have Bush accepting the blame ...

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech​

Lol. You really are spinning that wheel, aren't you, you liberal hamster you.

Okay then I'll give you that, but it still died, because the threat of a filibuster by Democrats was there in the 108th. You're pretty clueless Faun.

Holy shit! You've got nothing to give me. You made the moronic claim that Democrats controlled the Senate in the summer of 2003. If nothing else, it reflects how ignorant you are on the matter. You don't even know which party was in charge, yet you believe that Republicans cowered in fear over a potential filibuster. Despite the fact that there were over 60 filibusters during that Senate. Despite the fact that Republicans (and Democrats) routinely vote for, and pass, legislation they know isn't going anywhere. Which may or may not have even been the case with any one of those bills.

And again, even Bush didn't like at least one of them. So just how retarded are you for blaming Democrats when even the Republican president panned his own party's bill??

Lovely, the "Bush did it" argument. It doesn't take that many words to tell me how helplessly misinformed you are. First you blame Republicans, now you blame Bush. Did I not acknowledge that republicans were in power in the 108th Congress? Or do we lack proper reading comprehension skills? Move along.

 

[Faun]

Lol. You really are spinning that wheel, aren't you, you liberal hamster you.

Okay then I'll give you that, but it still died, because the threat of a filibuster by Democrats was there in the 108th. You're pretty clueless Faun.

Holy shit! You've got nothing to give me. You made the moronic claim that Democrats controlled the Senate in the summer of 2003. If nothing else, it reflects how ignorant you are on the matter. You don't even know which party was in charge, yet you believe that Republicans cowered in fear over a potential filibuster. Despite the fact that there were over 60 filibusters during that Senate. Despite the fact that Republicans (and Democrats) routinely vote for, and pass, legislation they know isn't going anywhere. Which may or may not have even been the case with any one of those bills.

And again, even Bush didn't like at least one of them. So just how retarded are you for blaming Democrats when even the Republican president panned his own party's bill??

Lovely, the Bush did it argument. It doesn't take that many words to tell me how helplessly misinformed you are. Move along.

You have any idea how stoopid it looks to call someone misinformed after you said Democrats controlled the Senate in the summer of 2003???



At any rate, your ignorance knows no boundaries. Republicans had nothing to lose by putting any one of those bills up for a full vote in the Senate. It's beyond ridiculous to even think they didn't because they were afraid Democrats might filibuster it.

If Republicans are afraid to vote on bills they fear might not make it to the president's desk, why on Earth would they vote to repeal ObamaCare 39 times???

Just like your absurd comment about Republicans not allowing a vote in the Senate on H.R. 1461 because they were afraid Democrats might filibuster it when in fact, it was the Bush administration who opposed it, you make absolutely no sense.

 

[Londoner]

The USA had its greatest economic growth during the postwar years when unions were at their strongest and taxes were at their highest. American jobs were protected by Washington despite the fact that the wealthy were begging for greater access to cheap Chinese Labor.

Enter Reagan. He worked with business to make it easier to ship manufacturing to COMMUNIST China where our corporations could benefit from ultra cheap sweat shop labor.

We spent 30 year shipping middle class jobs to places where our corporations could make more money...

Having lost the high wages and benefits that came with those jobs, we created the world's largest credit industrial complex to fund consumption. Starting with Reagan, household debt reached unprecedented levels.

We spent 30 years hollowing out the middle class with debt.

We ran out of ways to loan money into the economy. We turned to our houses, the last thing left with any value.

Now we having nothing.

California is running on fumes. Detroit is gone.

We are California. We are Detroit.

Welcome to the consequence of Reaganomics.

The middle class is dead.

We destroyed the goose that laid the golden egg.

We destroyed demand.

 

[zonly1]

Republicans should be thinking real hard about the future. Michigan real estate might be a real good investment. Detroit is about 580 feet above sea level - and could thrive again.

Due to Global Warming, End Is Virtually Certain for NYC, Boston, Miami, Holland | Eric Zuesse

you could be caught for libel in lower banner/ with your complaint, yet take it to the mod's

 

[TemplarKormac]

"hovered around 12% at the time of the 1980 election campaign"

Jimmy Carter on Budget & Economy

Yes, I suppose 18% is "around" 12%. I love how they cherry picked the times they did. The lowest for those particular quarters. Those of us who lived at that time know the truth however. 17% inflation killed the housing market...among other things.

17% inflation????

You must be one of them, low information voters.

In October, 1980, the inflation rate was 12.77%

Historical Inflation Rate | InflationData.com

It hovered around 13% for the first three quarters of 1980, no thanks to Carter's economic policies. Remember Stagflation? All during his administration in the late 1970s. In 1977, the inflation rate sat at 5%. The Federal Reserve Board in 1979 tried to combat this by clamping down on the money supply. That backfired. By February of 1980, it hit 14.73%. This coincided with high unemployment and increased government spending during his administration, along with the establishment of a "voluntary wage." It was indeed by October of 1980 that it began to drop to 12.77%. After Reagan's election and first year in office, the inflation rate had dropped to 8.92% in December of 1981.

1977:

Inflation United States 1977 ? CPI inflation United States 1977

1978:

Inflation United States 1978 ? CPI inflation United States 1978

1979:

Inflation United States 1979 ? CPI inflation United States 1979

1980:

Inflation United States 1980 ? CPI inflation United States 1980

1981:

Inflation United States 1981 ? CPI inflation United States 1981

 

[Faun]

Yes, I suppose 18% is "around" 12%. I love how they cherry picked the times they did. The lowest for those particular quarters. Those of us who lived at that time know the truth however. 17% inflation killed the housing market...among other things.

17% inflation????

You must be one of them, low information voters.

In October, 1980, the inflation rate was 12.77%

Historical Inflation Rate | InflationData.com

It hovered around 13% for the first three quarters of 1980, no thanks to Carter's economic policies. Remember Stagflation? All during his administration in the late 1970s. In 1977, the inflation rate sat at 5%. The Federal Reserve Board in 1979 tried to combat this by clamping down on the money supply. That backfired. By February of 1980, it hit 14.73%. This coincided with high unemployment and increased government spending during his administration, along with the establishment of a "voluntary wage." It was indeed by October of 1980 that it began to drop to 12.77%. After Reagan's election and first year in office, the inflation rate had dropped to 8.92% in December of 1981.

1977:

Inflation United States 1977 ? CPI inflation United States 1977

1978:

Inflation United States 1978 ? CPI inflation United States 1978

1979:

Inflation United States 1979 ? CPI inflation United States 1979

1980:

Inflation United States 1980 ? CPI inflation United States 1980

1981:

Inflation United States 1981 ? CPI inflation United States 1981

That's an awful lot of words just to agree, yeah, that poster was a moron for claiming the inflation rate was up to 17%.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Holy shit! You've got nothing to give me. You made the moronic claim that Democrats controlled the Senate in the summer of 2003. If nothing else, it reflects how ignorant you are on the matter. You don't even know which party was in charge, yet you believe that Republicans cowered in fear over a potential filibuster. Despite the fact that there were over 60 filibusters during that Senate. Despite the fact that Republicans (and Democrats) routinely vote for, and pass, legislation they know isn't going anywhere. Which may or may not have even been the case with any one of those bills.

And again, even Bush didn't like at least one of them. So just how retarded are you for blaming Democrats when even the Republican president panned his own party's bill??

Lovely, the Bush did it argument. It doesn't take that many words to tell me how helplessly misinformed you are. Move along.

You have any idea how stoopid it looks to call someone misinformed after you said Democrats controlled the Senate in the summer of 2003???



At any rate, your ignorance knows no boundaries. Republicans had nothing to lose by putting any one of those bills up for a full vote in the Senate. It's beyond ridiculous to even think they didn't because they were afraid Democrats might filibuster it.

If Republicans are afraid to vote on bills they fear might not make it to the president's desk, why on Earth would they vote to repeal ObamaCare 39 times???

Just like your absurd comment about Republicans not allowing a vote in the Senate on H.R. 1461 because they were afraid Democrats might filibuster it when in fact, it was the Bush administration who opposed it, you make absolutely no sense.

Well, it makes no sense that you switched from blaming Bush to blaming the Republicans in general.

So what was the actual point you were trying to make? If you don't have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and you have staunch opposition or threats of filibusters by any one member of the other side, you cannot hope to pass anything. How would Republicans have gotten 9 votes to stop a filibuster anyhow?

Political science. Learn it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

17% inflation????

You must be one of them, low information voters.

In October, 1980, the inflation rate was 12.77%

Historical Inflation Rate | InflationData.com

It hovered around 13% for the first three quarters of 1980, no thanks to Carter's economic policies. Remember Stagflation? All during his administration in the late 1970s. In 1977, the inflation rate sat at 5%. The Federal Reserve Board in 1979 tried to combat this by clamping down on the money supply. That backfired. By February of 1980, it hit 14.73%. This coincided with high unemployment and increased government spending during his administration, along with the establishment of a "voluntary wage." It was indeed by October of 1980 that it began to drop to 12.77%. After Reagan's election and first year in office, the inflation rate had dropped to 8.92% in December of 1981.

1977:

Inflation United States 1977 ? CPI inflation United States 1977

1978:

Inflation United States 1978 ? CPI inflation United States 1978

1979:

Inflation United States 1979 ? CPI inflation United States 1979

1980:

Inflation United States 1980 ? CPI inflation United States 1980

1981:

Inflation United States 1981 ? CPI inflation United States 1981

That's an awful lot of words just to agree, yeah, that poster was a moron for claiming the inflation rate was up to 17%.

I don't agree. Carter's own economic adviser reported inflation as high as 18 to 20 percent!

The word that comes to mind in describing economic events in 1980 is "bizarre." The inflation rate soared to the highest level since the early 1950s. Charles Schultze, Carter's chief economic adviser, reported to the president that the inflation rate in January and February was in the 18 to 20 percent range.[12] Unemployment rose, cresting at just under 8 percent in mid-summer and much higher in key industrial areas crucial in an election year. Of these two major ailments that afflict modern economies, inflation and unemployment, inflation is more subtle in its impact and more pervasive in terms of numbers affected.

-Jimmy Carter's Economy - Policy in an Age of Limits, by W. Carl Biven; p. 218

You do read books, don't you?

And according to an excerpt in the Spokesman-Review, (Spokane, Washington) from March 27, 1980:

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Carter's chief economic adviser said Wednesday that soaring inflation, once limited to energy and mortgage interest costs, is now spreading out to the rest of the U.S. Economy. "For the first time, inflation began to spill out ... into the economy more broadly" during January and February of this year, said Charles L. Schultze, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. "Its a very, very dangerous development," he told a political action conference of the Communication Workers of America. Schultze addressed the union delegates one day after the government reported that consumer prices in February rose 1.4 percent for a second month in a row, an increase that translates into an 18 percent annual rate. With inflation at 13.3 percent last year, Schultze acknowledged that the rate so far this year has accelerated to between 18 percent and 20 percent on an annual basis. In 1979, most of the high inflation rate was the result of large price increases for gasoline and other energy products and surging interest rates, according to government economists, who estimate that inflation for other items was well under 10 percent last year.

The Spokesman-Review - Google News Archive Search

[MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION]: is right. Shut the **** up, Faun. I grow tired of your lies. You would do well to try and do your homework next time. Don't call west a liar either. You are the moron who didn't do his research.

 

[DiamondDave]

The USA had its greatest economic growth during the postwar years when unions were at their strongest and taxes were at their highest. American jobs were protected by Washington despite the fact that the wealthy were begging for greater access to cheap Chinese Labor.

Enter Reagan. He worked with business to make it easier to ship manufacturing to COMMUNIST China where our corporations could benefit from ultra cheap sweat shop labor.

We spent 30 year shipping middle class jobs to places where our corporations could make more money...

Having lost the high wages and benefits that came with those jobs, we created the world's largest credit industrial complex to fund consumption. Starting with Reagan, household debt reached unprecedented levels.

We spent 30 years hollowing out the middle class with debt.

We ran out of ways to loan money into the economy. We turned to our houses, the last thing left with any value.

Now we having nothing.

California is running on fumes. Detroit is gone.

We are California. We are Detroit.

Welcome to the consequence of Reaganomics.

The middle class is dead.

We destroyed the goose that laid the golden egg.

We destroyed demand.

Yes.. lowering taxes hurt demand

Your argument makes about as much sense as tits on a bull

Perhaps, before posting the liberal talking points.. you should actually look at everything behind taxes.... for example what was considered income, what was deductible, etc during your 'highest taxes' years.. and you will find that the effective rate was RIGHT IN LINE WITH TODAY

Government spending is a HUGE part of the problem.. what unions brought about when they were useful is now covered by employment law... unions had their time and purpose, and if you wish to join one, join one (but don't make it a requirement for employment and FORCE others into them), but their main goal now is political pandering and favoring the lazy over the achiever...

 

[Pop23]

Question

Why would the Republicans in the house pass anything the Democrats want when recently they did, the Senate gutted the bill completely and replaced it with the ACA?

Hell, the senate and Obama took the Houses roll in taxation completely away from them.

Kinda sounds like Taxation without Representation

And, Detroit still sucks and that fact is owned by the Democrats