"U.S. Government FOR SALE"....Koch Brothers are the buyers

[sealybobo]

Convicted felon George Soros says thanks!

Stupid assertion (about "convicted felon")....an assertion made by Pajamas Media and other ultra right wing rags/blogs who are hoping to be sued by Soros for some much-needed notoriety

Let me guess. In 2 seconds you're going to rant the NY Times is a RW rag.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/soros-loses-challenge-to-insider-trading-conviction/

Bfd.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Again, you aren't following history, you are cherry picking. The Democrats sold you out causing Citizens United to take a case to the Supreme Court. Had the Democrats not passed the bill to begin with, Citizens United would not of had a case.

That's not really true. At issue was McCain Feingold, which first of all was a bipartisan bill signed by W. Citizens United also overruled prior law holding that corp money could be restricted in politics.

The bill was supported by a large majority of Democrats and the majority Republicans voted against it. Bush signed it and at that time said he wasn't sure about the Constitutionality of the bill. Stupid for,him to do. But to say it was Bipartisan when only 52 Republicans voted yes and over 200 voted against it?

Really? How is that bipartisan?

You're so naive. Knowing they didn't need to vote for it to have it pass 200 Republicans didn't vote for it. I notice you're big on making excuses for the GOP. Sounds like you lean right just about as much as I lean left.

Anyway, tonight GOP Governor of Michigan had his state of the state and apologized for poisoning us with lead. All to save a buck. That's how the GOP runs things.

Governor is responsible for testing water?
Oh good, we have Jerry Brown (Dim) who owns the worst environmental disaster since the BP oil spill with no end in sight to get it contained.

Snyder's emergency managers poisoned us. God damn right Snyder's responsible. Oh now please tell me this is someone else's fault.

Or that you'd be so gracious if it were a democratic governor. No one desputes this is Rick Snyder's fault.

Like bush appointed buddies who didn't know what they were doing to important positions like the head of FEMA rick Snyder appointed an emergency manager to the city of flint who didn't know what he was doing and poisoned those people.

If hillary is guilty of ben ghazi Snyder is absolutely guilty

I don't know how screwed up Michigan is, but here we have water districts that are responsible for water testing. Was in a meeting with a water board member when a test showed the water failed EPA requirements. He was on edge for the next 2 hours until follow up tests showed it was a false positive. Next step would have had him declaring an emergency if the water had proven to be contaminated. All that happens about a hundred levels below the Governor.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Convicted felon George Soros says thanks!

Stupid assertion (about "convicted felon")....an assertion made by Pajamas Media and other ultra right wing rags/blogs who are hoping to be sued by Soros for some much-needed notoriety

Let me guess. In 2 seconds you're going to rant the NY Times is a RW rag.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/soros-loses-challenge-to-insider-trading-conviction/

Bfd.

Obama has more lobbyists kissing his arse than anyone else whoever lived in the White House.

 

[Indeependent]

Convicted felon George Soros says thanks!

Stupid assertion (about "convicted felon")....an assertion made by Pajamas Media and other ultra right wing rags/blogs who are hoping to be sued by Soros for some much-needed notoriety

Let me guess. In 2 seconds you're going to rant the NY Times is a RW rag.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/soros-loses-challenge-to-insider-trading-conviction/

Bfd.

Obama has more lobbyists kissing his arse than anyone else whoever lived in the White House.

Are you inferring that Obama is more difficult to bribe?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Convicted felon George Soros says thanks!

Stupid assertion (about "convicted felon")....an assertion made by Pajamas Media and other ultra right wing rags/blogs who are hoping to be sued by Soros for some much-needed notoriety

Let me guess. In 2 seconds you're going to rant the NY Times is a RW rag.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/soros-loses-challenge-to-insider-trading-conviction/

Bfd.

Obama has more lobbyists kissing his arse than anyone else whoever lived in the White House.

Are you inferring that Obama is more difficult to bribe?

Yeah, that's it. Chicago Jesus does not accept outside influence.

 

[Indeependent]

Stupid assertion (about "convicted felon")....an assertion made by Pajamas Media and other ultra right wing rags/blogs who are hoping to be sued by Soros for some much-needed notoriety

Let me guess. In 2 seconds you're going to rant the NY Times is a RW rag.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/soros-loses-challenge-to-insider-trading-conviction/

Bfd.

Obama has more lobbyists kissing his arse than anyone else whoever lived in the White House.

Are you inferring that Obama is more difficult to bribe?

Yeah, that's it. Chicago Jesus does not accept outside influence.

He is all knowing and all seeing.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Let me guess. In 2 seconds you're going to rant the NY Times is a RW rag.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/soros-loses-challenge-to-insider-trading-conviction/

Bfd.

Obama has more lobbyists kissing his arse than anyone else whoever lived in the White House.

Are you inferring that Obama is more difficult to bribe?

Yeah, that's it. Chicago Jesus does not accept outside influence.

He is all knowing and all seeing.

Yes, President Goldman Sachs is well connected.

List of Goldman Sachs employees in the White House

 

[Papageorgio]

McCain is an idiot, it didn't get bipartisan support, it was a Democratic bill.

oh bullshit. a third of the gopers in the freaking senate voted for it, and W signed it because it was bipartisan.

New math? 11 of 49 is a third? Interesting. Did I say Bush didn't sign it?

He made mention at the time questioning the Constitutionality of his bill. Had the Democrats not overwhelmingly passed the bill, it would have been history, Democrats wanted to secure their incumbency. Had it not been passed, there would have been no Citizens United.

Alito and Roberts, two bush appointees, got citizens united passed. Now you see how important 2000 was to Republicans and the rich. They implemented bushanomics and screwed the global economy and you blame pelosi. The Republicans are a joke but yet they've conned half the middle class. Amazing but I know we can live together. America needs cons and needs liberals. We need rich people and the world needs ditch diggers. I get it

The collapse of 2008 was forecasted in the mid-90s, it was going happen, no one could stop it. Companies were spending and expanding beyond their means, citizens were buying on credit and not saving money. They were living beyond their means. The dot com bubble burst in 2000 and we went to the housing bubble. Citizens United would never had come to the Supreme Court had CFR not of happened.

Nonsense. The DOT COM Bubble Burst and the economy died and GW's 1st term was DULL.
Upon commencement of his 2nd term, Derivatives, and thus Jumbo Mortgages for anyone who could breathe, went hog wild.

Nonsense, the dot com started to bust in the third quarter of 2000, in March of 2001 we went into a recession a month and a half after Bush took office. In September, October of 2000 and on into his inauguration he talked about the economy slowing.

Again, in the mid 90's a big recession/depression was talked about because of dot com companies valued way less than their stock prices, consumers were borrowing at 125% of their homes values. The spending was out pacing savings. It was inevitable, anyone with a brain saw 2008 coming. Also in the mid 90s Clinton started financial deregulation, which in many ways set the stage for the excesses. Among his biggest strokes Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation. He signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. Then in 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules with the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. Many of these helped spur the collapse. I also blame Bush for not clamping down on Fannie and Freddie. Plenty of blame to go around. To claim one person was responsible for 2008 is partisan bull shit.

 

[Papageorgio]

Again, you aren't following history, you are cherry picking. The Democrats sold you out causing Citizens United to take a case to the Supreme Court. Had the Democrats not passed the bill to begin with, Citizens United would not of had a case.

That's not really true. At issue was McCain Feingold, which first of all was a bipartisan bill signed by W. Citizens United also overruled prior law holding that corp money could be restricted in politics.

The bill was supported by a large majority of Democrats and the majority Republicans voted against it. Bush signed it and at that time said he wasn't sure about the Constitutionality of the bill. Stupid for,him to do. But to say it was Bipartisan when only 52 Republicans voted yes and over 200 voted against it?

Really? How is that bipartisan?

You're so naive. Knowing they didn't need to vote for it to have it pass 200 Republicans didn't vote for it. I notice you're big on making excuses for the GOP. Sounds like you lean right just about as much as I lean left.

Anyway, tonight GOP Governor of Michigan had his state of the state and apologized for poisoning us with lead. All to save a buck. That's how the GOP runs things.

No I tire of your excuses for the left. I'm smart enough to know both parties are whores, you seem to think the democrats are above all that.

I think if we're going to take this country back its going to be through the democratic party. Then maybe the gop's behavior will change. I don't think the GOP have anything to offer the middle class. If you believe their talking points or that they are sincere then we will have to agree to disagree.

You can't convince me that the Republican Party is the party for me. The only way I'm going to ever be convinced is for them to take control back and lead well. the last time it didn't work out so well. And if you think the Bush years were good that's another one we're just going to have to agree to disagree on

The democrats have offered the middle class lots of words and nothing else.

 

[Indeependent]

oh bullshit. a third of the gopers in the freaking senate voted for it, and W signed it because it was bipartisan.

New math? 11 of 49 is a third? Interesting. Did I say Bush didn't sign it?

He made mention at the time questioning the Constitutionality of his bill. Had the Democrats not overwhelmingly passed the bill, it would have been history, Democrats wanted to secure their incumbency. Had it not been passed, there would have been no Citizens United.

Alito and Roberts, two bush appointees, got citizens united passed. Now you see how important 2000 was to Republicans and the rich. They implemented bushanomics and screwed the global economy and you blame pelosi. The Republicans are a joke but yet they've conned half the middle class. Amazing but I know we can live together. America needs cons and needs liberals. We need rich people and the world needs ditch diggers. I get it

The collapse of 2008 was forecasted in the mid-90s, it was going happen, no one could stop it. Companies were spending and expanding beyond their means, citizens were buying on credit and not saving money. They were living beyond their means. The dot com bubble burst in 2000 and we went to the housing bubble. Citizens United would never had come to the Supreme Court had CFR not of happened.

Nonsense. The DOT COM Bubble Burst and the economy died and GW's 1st term was DULL.
Upon commencement of his 2nd term, Derivatives, and thus Jumbo Mortgages for anyone who could breathe, went hog wild.

Nonsense, the dot com started to bust in the third quarter of 2000, in March of 2001 we went into a recession a month and a half after Bush took office. In September, October of 2000 and on into his inauguration he talked about the economy slowing.

Again, in the mid 90's a big recession/depression was talked about because of dot com companies valued way less than their stock prices, consumers were borrowing at 125% of their homes values. The spending was out pacing savings. It was inevitable, anyone with a brain saw 2008 coming. Also in the mid 90s Clinton started financial deregulation, which in many ways set the stage for the excesses. Among his biggest strokes Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation. He signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. Then in 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules with the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. Many of these helped spur the collapse. I also blame Bush for not clamping down on Fannie and Freddie. Plenty of blame to go around. To claim one person was responsible for 2008 is partisan bull shit.

WTF?...You just started in 2001 and reversed engineered into the 90s!

 

[sealybobo]

oh bullshit. a third of the gopers in the freaking senate voted for it, and W signed it because it was bipartisan.

New math? 11 of 49 is a third? Interesting. Did I say Bush didn't sign it?

He made mention at the time questioning the Constitutionality of his bill. Had the Democrats not overwhelmingly passed the bill, it would have been history, Democrats wanted to secure their incumbency. Had it not been passed, there would have been no Citizens United.

Alito and Roberts, two bush appointees, got citizens united passed. Now you see how important 2000 was to Republicans and the rich. They implemented bushanomics and screwed the global economy and you blame pelosi. The Republicans are a joke but yet they've conned half the middle class. Amazing but I know we can live together. America needs cons and needs liberals. We need rich people and the world needs ditch diggers. I get it

The collapse of 2008 was forecasted in the mid-90s, it was going happen, no one could stop it. Companies were spending and expanding beyond their means, citizens were buying on credit and not saving money. They were living beyond their means. The dot com bubble burst in 2000 and we went to the housing bubble. Citizens United would never had come to the Supreme Court had CFR not of happened.

Nonsense. The DOT COM Bubble Burst and the economy died and GW's 1st term was DULL.
Upon commencement of his 2nd term, Derivatives, and thus Jumbo Mortgages for anyone who could breathe, went hog wild.

Nonsense, the dot com started to bust in the third quarter of 2000, in March of 2001 we went into a recession a month and a half after Bush took office. In September, October of 2000 and on into his inauguration he talked about the economy slowing.

Again, in the mid 90's a big recession/depression was talked about because of dot com companies valued way less than their stock prices, consumers were borrowing at 125% of their homes values. The spending was out pacing savings. It was inevitable, anyone with a brain saw 2008 coming. Also in the mid 90s Clinton started financial deregulation, which in many ways set the stage for the excesses. Among his biggest strokes Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation. He signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. Then in 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules with the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. Many of these helped spur the collapse. I also blame Bush for not clamping down on Fannie and Freddie. Plenty of blame to go around. To claim one person was responsible for 2008 is partisan bull shit.

This is definitely the right wing narrative. You've left sooooo much out. You completely omit every bad policy bush delay and hastert pushed through after 9/11

 

[sealybobo]

That's not really true. At issue was McCain Feingold, which first of all was a bipartisan bill signed by W. Citizens United also overruled prior law holding that corp money could be restricted in politics.

The bill was supported by a large majority of Democrats and the majority Republicans voted against it. Bush signed it and at that time said he wasn't sure about the Constitutionality of the bill. Stupid for,him to do. But to say it was Bipartisan when only 52 Republicans voted yes and over 200 voted against it?

Really? How is that bipartisan?

You're so naive. Knowing they didn't need to vote for it to have it pass 200 Republicans didn't vote for it. I notice you're big on making excuses for the GOP. Sounds like you lean right just about as much as I lean left.

Anyway, tonight GOP Governor of Michigan had his state of the state and apologized for poisoning us with lead. All to save a buck. That's how the GOP runs things.

No I tire of your excuses for the left. I'm smart enough to know both parties are whores, you seem to think the democrats are above all that.

I think if we're going to take this country back its going to be through the democratic party. Then maybe the gop's behavior will change. I don't think the GOP have anything to offer the middle class. If you believe their talking points or that they are sincere then we will have to agree to disagree.

You can't convince me that the Republican Party is the party for me. The only way I'm going to ever be convinced is for them to take control back and lead well. the last time it didn't work out so well. And if you think the Bush years were good that's another one we're just going to have to agree to disagree on

The democrats have offered the middle class lots of words and nothing else.

What do the GOP offer?

 

[Papageorgio]

New math? 11 of 49 is a third? Interesting. Did I say Bush didn't sign it?

He made mention at the time questioning the Constitutionality of his bill. Had the Democrats not overwhelmingly passed the bill, it would have been history, Democrats wanted to secure their incumbency. Had it not been passed, there would have been no Citizens United.

Alito and Roberts, two bush appointees, got citizens united passed. Now you see how important 2000 was to Republicans and the rich. They implemented bushanomics and screwed the global economy and you blame pelosi. The Republicans are a joke but yet they've conned half the middle class. Amazing but I know we can live together. America needs cons and needs liberals. We need rich people and the world needs ditch diggers. I get it

The collapse of 2008 was forecasted in the mid-90s, it was going happen, no one could stop it. Companies were spending and expanding beyond their means, citizens were buying on credit and not saving money. They were living beyond their means. The dot com bubble burst in 2000 and we went to the housing bubble. Citizens United would never had come to the Supreme Court had CFR not of happened.

Nonsense. The DOT COM Bubble Burst and the economy died and GW's 1st term was DULL.
Upon commencement of his 2nd term, Derivatives, and thus Jumbo Mortgages for anyone who could breathe, went hog wild.

Nonsense, the dot com started to bust in the third quarter of 2000, in March of 2001 we went into a recession a month and a half after Bush took office. In September, October of 2000 and on into his inauguration he talked about the economy slowing.

Again, in the mid 90's a big recession/depression was talked about because of dot com companies valued way less than their stock prices, consumers were borrowing at 125% of their homes values. The spending was out pacing savings. It was inevitable, anyone with a brain saw 2008 coming. Also in the mid 90s Clinton started financial deregulation, which in many ways set the stage for the excesses. Among his biggest strokes Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation. He signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. Then in 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules with the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. Many of these helped spur the collapse. I also blame Bush for not clamping down on Fannie and Freddie. Plenty of blame to go around. To claim one person was responsible for 2008 is partisan bull shit.

This is definitely the right wing narrative. You've left sooooo much out. You completely omit every bad policy bush delay and hastert pushed through after 9/11

No I hold Bush and the Republicans as responsible as I do the Democrats.

Your narrative puts sole responsibility on the GOP and I pointed out it is also the he blame of the Democrats, just as CFR was the fault of both parties.

Partisans want to blame the other guy and with that attitude, we are all screwed. While they are busy blaming the other guy the politicians are going to write laws for the rich.

 

[Papageorgio]

The bill was supported by a large majority of Democrats and the majority Republicans voted against it. Bush signed it and at that time said he wasn't sure about the Constitutionality of the bill. Stupid for,him to do. But to say it was Bipartisan when only 52 Republicans voted yes and over 200 voted against it?

Really? How is that bipartisan?

You're so naive. Knowing they didn't need to vote for it to have it pass 200 Republicans didn't vote for it. I notice you're big on making excuses for the GOP. Sounds like you lean right just about as much as I lean left.

Anyway, tonight GOP Governor of Michigan had his state of the state and apologized for poisoning us with lead. All to save a buck. That's how the GOP runs things.

No I tire of your excuses for the left. I'm smart enough to know both parties are whores, you seem to think the democrats are above all that.

I think if we're going to take this country back its going to be through the democratic party. Then maybe the gop's behavior will change. I don't think the GOP have anything to offer the middle class. If you believe their talking points or that they are sincere then we will have to agree to disagree.

You can't convince me that the Republican Party is the party for me. The only way I'm going to ever be convinced is for them to take control back and lead well. the last time it didn't work out so well. And if you think the Bush years were good that's another one we're just going to have to agree to disagree on

The democrats have offered the middle class lots of words and nothing else.

What do the GOP offer?

The same as the Democrats, lots of words and nothing else, but you some how feel the Democrats are looking out for the middle class. What have they done or offered?

 

[sealybobo]

Alito and Roberts, two bush appointees, got citizens united passed. Now you see how important 2000 was to Republicans and the rich. They implemented bushanomics and screwed the global economy and you blame pelosi. The Republicans are a joke but yet they've conned half the middle class. Amazing but I know we can live together. America needs cons and needs liberals. We need rich people and the world needs ditch diggers. I get it

The collapse of 2008 was forecasted in the mid-90s, it was going happen, no one could stop it. Companies were spending and expanding beyond their means, citizens were buying on credit and not saving money. They were living beyond their means. The dot com bubble burst in 2000 and we went to the housing bubble. Citizens United would never had come to the Supreme Court had CFR not of happened.

Nonsense. The DOT COM Bubble Burst and the economy died and GW's 1st term was DULL.
Upon commencement of his 2nd term, Derivatives, and thus Jumbo Mortgages for anyone who could breathe, went hog wild.

Nonsense, the dot com started to bust in the third quarter of 2000, in March of 2001 we went into a recession a month and a half after Bush took office. In September, October of 2000 and on into his inauguration he talked about the economy slowing.

Again, in the mid 90's a big recession/depression was talked about because of dot com companies valued way less than their stock prices, consumers were borrowing at 125% of their homes values. The spending was out pacing savings. It was inevitable, anyone with a brain saw 2008 coming. Also in the mid 90s Clinton started financial deregulation, which in many ways set the stage for the excesses. Among his biggest strokes Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation. He signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. Then in 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules with the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. Many of these helped spur the collapse. I also blame Bush for not clamping down on Fannie and Freddie. Plenty of blame to go around. To claim one person was responsible for 2008 is partisan bull shit.

This is definitely the right wing narrative. You've left sooooo much out. You completely omit every bad policy bush delay and hastert pushed through after 9/11

No I hold Bush and the Republicans as responsible as I do the Democrats.

Your narrative puts sole responsibility on the GOP and I pointed out it is also the he blame of the Democrats, just as CFR was the fault of both parties.

Partisans want to blame the other guy and with that attitude, we are all screwed. While they are busy blaming the other guy the politicians are going to write laws for the rich.

I can dig that.

 

[sealybobo]

You're so naive. Knowing they didn't need to vote for it to have it pass 200 Republicans didn't vote for it. I notice you're big on making excuses for the GOP. Sounds like you lean right just about as much as I lean left.

Anyway, tonight GOP Governor of Michigan had his state of the state and apologized for poisoning us with lead. All to save a buck. That's how the GOP runs things.

No I tire of your excuses for the left. I'm smart enough to know both parties are whores, you seem to think the democrats are above all that.

I think if we're going to take this country back its going to be through the democratic party. Then maybe the gop's behavior will change. I don't think the GOP have anything to offer the middle class. If you believe their talking points or that they are sincere then we will have to agree to disagree.

You can't convince me that the Republican Party is the party for me. The only way I'm going to ever be convinced is for them to take control back and lead well. the last time it didn't work out so well. And if you think the Bush years were good that's another one we're just going to have to agree to disagree on

The democrats have offered the middle class lots of words and nothing else.

What do the GOP offer?

The same as the Democrats, lots of words and nothing else, but you some how feel the Democrats are looking out for the middle class. What have they done or offered?

In the run-up to the 2016 election, Republicans are trying to position themselves as the party of the middle class. It may well work, but not because Republicans are in fact reformist, but rather because voters and pundits blow off facts and instead focus on rhetoric. When it comes to actual empirical evidence, the answer is indisputable: Democrats preside over far more income growth for the middle class than Republicans.
Princeton University's Larry Bartels has two studies on politics and income distribution, and together they encompass almost a century. His finding: under Republicans, the poor and middle class see almost no income growth, while under Democrats, they see dramatic growth (see charts)
Every Republican president in the past 60 years has presided over increasing income inequality, including Dwight Eisenhower
In another recent study, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson find that on a number of economic indicators, the country fares far better when a Democrat is in office. GDP growth is 1.8 point higher under a Democratic presidency, unemployment is lower, corporate profits are higher, the S&P grows faster and wages grow faster.
[FONT=Georgia, Century, Times, serif]Democrats Help the Middle Class - Why Can't They Win Elections?

[/FONT]

 

[nat4900]

In the run-up to the 2016 election, Republicans are trying to position themselves as the party of the middle class. It may well work, but not because Republicans are in fact reformist, but rather because voters and pundits blow off facts and instead focus on rhetoric. When it comes to actual empirical evidence, the answer is indisputable: Democrats preside over far more income growth for the middle class than Republicans.
Princeton University's Larry Bartels has two studies on politics and income distribution, and together they encompass almost a century. His finding: under Republicans, the poor and middle class see almost no income growth, while under Democrats, they see dramatic growth (see charts)
Every Republican president in the past 60 years has presided over increasing income inequality, including Dwight Eisenhower
In another recent study, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson find that on a number of economic indicators, the country fares far better when a Democrat is in office. GDP growth is 1.8 point higher under a Democratic presidency, unemployment is lower, corporate profits are higher, the S&P grows faster and wages grow faster.

With my right wing friends, I've found that facts are often an anathema for them.

 

[Contumacious]

The amount of money promised by the Koch brothers to "buy" the next election cycle, is STAGGERING.......Can anyone (with a straight face) actually state that the Kochs will not be asking for anything back from those corrupted politicans whom they'll help gain office? Thanks to the Supreme Court, the brothel that is D.C. has gotten even sleazier......
Who will benefit? Cable stations and local channels, printers, conference halls, etc.
And who will lose? Common citizens, including the right wing, ultra conservative dimwits ....
Koch brothers set 889 million budget for 2016

WASHINGTON — Top officials in the Koch brothers' political organization Monday released a staggering $889 million budget to fund the activities of the billionaires' sprawling network ahead of the 2016 presidential contest.
The budget, which pays for everything from advertising and data-gathering technology to grass-roots activism, was released to donors attending the annual winter meeting of Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, according to an attendee.

In the early 1900's the US became a "democracy" - an aristocracy of pull - since the parasites - ie, tax consumers - will always be the majority , they are the ones in the best position to buy influence.

 

[Papageorgio]

No I tire of your excuses for the left. I'm smart enough to know both parties are whores, you seem to think the democrats are above all that.

I think if we're going to take this country back its going to be through the democratic party. Then maybe the gop's behavior will change. I don't think the GOP have anything to offer the middle class. If you believe their talking points or that they are sincere then we will have to agree to disagree.

You can't convince me that the Republican Party is the party for me. The only way I'm going to ever be convinced is for them to take control back and lead well. the last time it didn't work out so well. And if you think the Bush years were good that's another one we're just going to have to agree to disagree on

The democrats have offered the middle class lots of words and nothing else.

What do the GOP offer?

The same as the Democrats, lots of words and nothing else, but you some how feel the Democrats are looking out for the middle class. What have they done or offered?

In the run-up to the 2016 election, Republicans are trying to position themselves as the party of the middle class. It may well work, but not because Republicans are in fact reformist, but rather because voters and pundits blow off facts and instead focus on rhetoric. When it comes to actual empirical evidence, the answer is indisputable: Democrats preside over far more income growth for the middle class than Republicans.
Princeton University's Larry Bartels has two studies on politics and income distribution, and together they encompass almost a century. His finding: under Republicans, the poor and middle class see almost no income growth, while under Democrats, they see dramatic growth (see charts)
Every Republican president in the past 60 years has presided over increasing income inequality, including Dwight Eisenhower
In another recent study, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson find that on a number of economic indicators, the country fares far better when a Democrat is in office. GDP growth is 1.8 point higher under a Democratic presidency, unemployment is lower, corporate profits are higher, the S&P grows faster and wages grow faster.
[FONT=Georgia, Century, Times, serif]Democrats Help the Middle Class - Why Can't They Win Elections?

[/FONT]

I don't see a real difference, this administration, the Clinton administration were great to help the rich, if the middle class benefited...it wasn't on purpose.

The rich pass laws to benefit the rich.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The amount of money promised by the Koch brothers to "buy" the next election cycle, is STAGGERING.......Can anyone (with a straight face) actually state that the Kochs will not be asking for anything back from those corrupted politicans whom they'll help gain office? Thanks to the Supreme Court, the brothel that is D.C. has gotten even sleazier......
Who will benefit? Cable stations and local channels, printers, conference halls, etc.
And who will lose? Common citizens, including the right wing, ultra conservative dimwits ....
Koch brothers set 889 million budget for 2016

WASHINGTON — Top officials in the Koch brothers' political organization Monday released a staggering $889 million budget to fund the activities of the billionaires' sprawling network ahead of the 2016 presidential contest.
The budget, which pays for everything from advertising and data-gathering technology to grass-roots activism, was released to donors attending the annual winter meeting of Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, according to an attendee.

82% of the Forbes 400 are far left democrats.

This includes billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg who could buy and sell either Koch brother. Most of the really big money in this nation is concentrated in the hands of an ultra-left elite.

So why the hatred of the Koch brothers by the Soros hate machine? Pretty simple, they are not following the script. Wealth is the domain of the far left, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Tim Cook, Oprah Winfrey, these are the only voices the left wants heard. That the Koch brothers not only support economic freedom for entrepreneurs, but in fact support the United States Constitution outrages the elitist left who seeks a society where they rule through proxies like Obama, and the rest beg for scraps from the table of Jeff Bezos or Larry Ellison.

The Soros hate machine is the most vicious since the Nazis, and like their mentors, they rarely bother with anything so mundane as the truth. This truly is the demagogue - sociopath party which offers the nation nothing but smear and lies in there quest to end the once proud nation of individual liberty.