What do liberals want the US to be?

[Dad2three]

I should be able to take care of myself, but if god forbid, something were to happen to me I like the idea that the government is there to take care of me

Your family should take care of you, not the rest of us. If you have no family then look to a church or other charity. The government is not your caretaker.

Conservatives dream for AmeriKa is to be a third world nation, again!

We are definitely declining into a Third World Nation, because the GOP and Democrat Leadership are bought off by corporate donors who want to flood us with immigration from the Third World. The Democrats want more immigrants for votes and because they believe in "diversity and multiculturalism", the GOP Leadership wants cheap labor for their Chamber of Commerce buddies.

MORE false premises, distortions and lies from the new right winger. I'm shocked


Yeah, Dems want more "diversity and multiculturalism", *shaking head*


lol, Tooo funny Bubba. Not like if we stopped immigration that's not happening anyways or the FACT that you can't stop drugs and phones getting into US prisons, but you expect to keep out 100% of the 'illegals' who we've decimated their nations with policies like the war on drugs, NAFTA and the Monroe doctrine? lol

Are you denying that liberals "celebrate" diversity and brag about as the more "diverse" it becomes through immigration the easier they will win elections? You need to get with the program. Harry Reid called the Democrats the "party of diversity". I don't know how many times I have heard the leftist media disparagingly call the GOP the "party of white people" and how the GOP will lose once Whites become a minority in our country. Why do we need mass immigration? Why do we need "more diversity"?

Just because you can't stop 100% of illegal immigration, doesn't mean you shouldn't enforce laws. By that logic, we shouldn't enforce murder laws, rape laws, or drug laws, since we can't prevent 100% of them. Talk about a destructive and nihilistic attitude. This is the essence of leftism.

As far as NAFTA, conservatives like Pat Buchanan have consistently opposed Free Trade and the displacement of American workers. NAFTA was another disastrous Clinton policy passed with the support of neo-conservative republicans, Obama continues these policies. Once again, the leaders of both parties oppose the interests of constituents in favor of their donors.

False premises, distortions and lies from the newest right winger. Shocking. You keep saying stuff about Dem leaders who are just Corp stooges, why should I care about them?


Your premise on immigration isn't worth a reply. PERIOD

Clinton? NAFTA? Oh no Bubba, that was Heritage Foundations baby, Ronnie Reagan announced it the day he announced his run for Prez in 1979


Buchanan ? lol. I guess you must be a Bircher too. Shock

 

[Dad2three]

this is a serious question, please only reply with serious comments.

what specifically do liberals want the US to become?
Tell us exactly what you want changed, and why.

Seriously?

Liberals want a country that provides a level playing field for all people regardless of race, sex, sexuality or social class
Liberals want to help those who need helping

We pretty much have this... what you guys want though, is equality if outcome; which of course will never happen.

It could happen though. Equality of outcome can be ensured if you lower the possible high outcome to a sufficiently low level that you can raise anyone to that level. Of course that requires punishing achievement and success. It requires rewarding need and inability. This doesn't lead to the imagined utopia where everyone's wants and needs are spontaneously met. It leads to failure and stagnation. It leads to a grey mediocrity where nobody succeeds because everyone can't.

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue

1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP

1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%

Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue

1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%

Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High

'corporate profits are at an all-time high as a percentage of the economy, wages are at an all-time low.'

'Last year, corporations made a record $824 billion, which didn’t stop conservatives from continually claiming that President Obama is anti-business.'
Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High ThinkProgress

The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.

another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.

The fortunate 400 David Cay Johnston Reuters

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).

 

[Dad2three]

Again you rant about the "equality of outcome" conservative myth

You have yet to provide a single source where anyone is requesting equality of outcome

What exactly do you have in mind then when you say things like the rich need to pay more? What are your rants about minimum wage about if not equalizing income?

of course you libs want equality of outcome, every post from a lib in this thread validates that that is one of your goals.

OK lets look at "equality of outcome"
That means everyone receives the same outcome

How does advocating that the wealthy pay slightly more force the rich to a level where they end up with the same as everyone else?
How does increasing a minimum wage by a few dollars move these workers up to a point where they are making the same as every other worker?

You are talking in absurdity and hyperbole

Second question: what do you propose that the government do with the "slightly more" that would be taken from the wealthy?

You think I am going to say give cash handouts to the poor? No way

I would use the additional revenue to fund more healthcare for poor and working poor. Provide more assistance in education. Provide low rate small business loans. Invest in Americas infrastructure that will provide more jobs

How about paying down the debt first? "invest" to you libs means "spend". We do not "invest" in infrastructure, we "spend" tax collections on it. Yes, in creates jobs, but you libs don't want that now do you?

Can you say Keystone?

Republicans are always the biggest spenders when they have control of the Federal Government; the spend tens of billions in corporate welfare by borrowing the money from China to do it.


tax cuts and hundreds of billions in new subsidies and big corporate welfare checks, and at the same time, record numbers of American factories closed and shipped to China along with millions of American jobs. All that spending and cutting did was send our national debt out of control and give the greedy corporate CEOs like Mitt Romney more money to spend in China and his tax records show, that's exactly what he did. The sad thing is that Bushonomics is still alive and well in Washington.


Those big corporate tax cuts that were draining the economy and forceing borrowing from China when Bush was in office are still there. Those big corporate welfare checks are still going out and we're still borrowing money to cover them

 

[Dad2three]

OK lets look at "equality of outcome"
That means everyone receives the same outcome

How does advocating that the wealthy pay slightly more force the rich to a level where they end up with the same as everyone else?
How does increasing a minimum wage by a few dollars move these workers up to a point where they are making the same as every other worker?

You are talking in absurdity and hyperbole

How much income is too much?
How much income is too little?

Does Oprah make too much? How about Beyonce? Pelosi? Reid? Obama? The clintons? How much of their incomes should they be allowed to keep? Give us the answer as a %.

How much income is too little?
I would say that if someone works fulltime to support his family that he should be able to support his family without government assistance. Low skilled workers used to be able to do that

I don't care how much Oprah, Beyonce or Pelosi make as long as they are contributing back to our society. At a 39% upper tax rate, I do not believe thay are
Pelosi, Reid, Clinton and Obama are all willing to increase that upper tax rate

throughout the history of this great nation, people who had trouble making ends meet either got a second job, more education, more training, learned a skill or somehow made their labor more valuable to an employer. Instead or trying to buy a house or live in an expensive apartment, find a boarding house or rent a room from a relative. Damn, you libs want a free ride. I say **** that.

It is not the role of government to ensure that everyone has an income from a single job to support the lifestyle that he chooses for himself.

Once again you are offering up second jobs and better paying jobs that our current job market is unable to provide. There are 30 million working Americans that need government assistance to support their families. There are nowhere close to 30 million second jobs out there
Boarding houses, low rent apartments, renting a room, living with relatives....where do you think our working poor live? Park Avenue?

Its called being responsible for your own life. Being a slave creates obligations that you may not like.

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

 

[Steinlight]

Your family should take care of you, not the rest of us. If you have no family then look to a church or other charity. The government is not your caretaker.

Conservatives dream for AmeriKa is to be a third world nation, again!

We are definitely declining into a Third World Nation, because the GOP and Democrat Leadership are bought off by corporate donors who want to flood us with immigration from the Third World. The Democrats want more immigrants for votes and because they believe in "diversity and multiculturalism", the GOP Leadership wants cheap labor for their Chamber of Commerce buddies.

MORE false premises, distortions and lies from the new right winger. I'm shocked


Yeah, Dems want more "diversity and multiculturalism", *shaking head*


lol, Tooo funny Bubba. Not like if we stopped immigration that's not happening anyways or the FACT that you can't stop drugs and phones getting into US prisons, but you expect to keep out 100% of the 'illegals' who we've decimated their nations with policies like the war on drugs, NAFTA and the Monroe doctrine? lol

Are you denying that liberals "celebrate" diversity and brag about as the more "diverse" it becomes through immigration the easier they will win elections? You need to get with the program. Harry Reid called the Democrats the "party of diversity". I don't know how many times I have heard the leftist media disparagingly call the GOP the "party of white people" and how the GOP will lose once Whites become a minority in our country. Why do we need mass immigration? Why do we need "more diversity"?

Just because you can't stop 100% of illegal immigration, doesn't mean you shouldn't enforce laws. By that logic, we shouldn't enforce murder laws, rape laws, or drug laws, since we can't prevent 100% of them. Talk about a destructive and nihilistic attitude. This is the essence of leftism.

As far as NAFTA, conservatives like Pat Buchanan have consistently opposed Free Trade and the displacement of American workers. NAFTA was another disastrous Clinton policy passed with the support of neo-conservative republicans, Obama continues these policies. Once again, the leaders of both parties oppose the interests of constituents in favor of their donors.

False premises, distortions and lies from the newest right winger. Shocking. You keep saying stuff about Dem leaders who are just Corp stooges, why should I care about them?


Your premise on immigration isn't worth a reply. PERIOD

Clinton? NAFTA? Oh no Bubba, that was Heritage Foundations baby, Ronnie Reagan announced it the day he announced his run for Prez in 1979


Buchanan ? lol. I guess you must be a Bircher too. Shock

What false premises, distortions and lies did I make? List them specifically.

You should care because the point is both parties are inherently corrupt and aren't different at the top. Unless it doesn't bother you and you just like voting for Team D. Some people like politics as a sport, where they vote for their "team". I guess you are one of those people.

Is it not worth a reply because you don't have one. If your position is so right, and I am so off, you should be able to easily explain the benefits of mass immigration and diversity. Come on, enlighten me.

So the Heritage Foundation and Clinton made Clinton sign this bill? How did they do that? This should be an interesting answer.

No, I am not a "bircher". Does standing up for American workers and national sovereignty make one a "bircher" now?

 

[Dad2three]

So you see the Fairness Doctrine as a method for reducing the influence that wealthy people have on the legislative process.

Is that because you see it as a method for reducing the influence that wealthy station owners have on the message being broadcast? The hope being that a more balanced message will lead to a more informed voting population?That this will then change who the voters elect? That the legislators will then be more free from the influence of wealthy people?

Sorry just trying to follow your train of thought.

Back in the 50s and 60s, people were wise enough to realize that since A.M. bandwidth is limited, that in order to avoid monopolization, it was necessary to implement certain requirements that ensured it served the public interests instead of merely the interests of those owning the stations. The fairness doctrine was the way to preserve that long-standing American tradition of free speech and access to a wide range of ideas so as to enable an informed electorate rather than having such ideas hand-selected for us.

The influence of money as it relates to radio should be obvious. It takes a lot of the stuff to broadcast, and in the years since the 60s, the trend has been towards conglomeration. There are fewer and fewer independent radio stations all the time, having been replaced by giants such as clear channel and cumulus, which have now merged, thus allowing for the monopolization of opinion even further.

The re-implementation of this doctrine that acted to conserve our American valuesin regards to free speech would certainly not end the ability of enormous corporations to control the political climate of this country, but it would at least provide for a little balance in the way this media operates.

That would assume that broadcast is the method of choice for Americans in receiving their news and other content. I would argue that in this day and age that is no longer remotely accurate. I NEVER listen to radio and I am far from alone in that. I much more likely to listen to streaming media, podcasts, etc even in the car. I read news online.

As you said yourself, the Fairness Doctrine was about the limitations on available bandwidth and the avoidance of monopolization. There has been a significant increase in the available means of transmitting and receiving information since that time. Do you still see it as expedient for the government to mandate the content that is broadcast in the current situation?

You CAN'T be honest can you? Without the Fairness Doctrine, right wingers just get to lie. Yes, other media is out there, but fed off of mostly Faux and right wing hate radio bullshit!


Tax cuts will bring in more revenues? lol. Biggest lie. Tax cuts create jobs? Second biggest. Obama a 'leftist, Marxist, Commie, etc' (He's Corp) 3rd biggest ...

 

[Dad2three]

Bullshit. during those times the tax code was full of loopholes, deductions, and exemptions, no one paid 90% of his income to the govt. Most of those tax dodges have been eliminated now, so the actual amounts paid are very nearly the same.

Sorry but once again you are confused. You are confused a lot, aren't you? This sounds like a supply sider to me. Ronald Reagan would have agreed.

This administration intends to cut taxes in order to build the fundamental strength of our economy, to remove a serious barrier to long-term growth, to increase incentives by routing out inequities and complexities and to prevent the even greater budget deficit that a lagging economy would otherwise surely produce. The worst deficit comes from a recession, and if we can take the proper action in the proper time, this can be the most important step we could take to prevent another recession. That is the right kind of tax cut both for your family budget and the national budget…Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy. JFK Radio and Television Report to the American People on the State of the National Economy, August 13, 1962

FK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.

Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.
This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

JFK the demand-side tax cutter.

 

[Dad2three]

Conservatives dream for AmeriKa is to be a third world nation, again!

We are definitely declining into a Third World Nation, because the GOP and Democrat Leadership are bought off by corporate donors who want to flood us with immigration from the Third World. The Democrats want more immigrants for votes and because they believe in "diversity and multiculturalism", the GOP Leadership wants cheap labor for their Chamber of Commerce buddies.

MORE false premises, distortions and lies from the new right winger. I'm shocked


Yeah, Dems want more "diversity and multiculturalism", *shaking head*


lol, Tooo funny Bubba. Not like if we stopped immigration that's not happening anyways or the FACT that you can't stop drugs and phones getting into US prisons, but you expect to keep out 100% of the 'illegals' who we've decimated their nations with policies like the war on drugs, NAFTA and the Monroe doctrine? lol

Are you denying that liberals "celebrate" diversity and brag about as the more "diverse" it becomes through immigration the easier they will win elections? You need to get with the program. Harry Reid called the Democrats the "party of diversity". I don't know how many times I have heard the leftist media disparagingly call the GOP the "party of white people" and how the GOP will lose once Whites become a minority in our country. Why do we need mass immigration? Why do we need "more diversity"?

Just because you can't stop 100% of illegal immigration, doesn't mean you shouldn't enforce laws. By that logic, we shouldn't enforce murder laws, rape laws, or drug laws, since we can't prevent 100% of them. Talk about a destructive and nihilistic attitude. This is the essence of leftism.

As far as NAFTA, conservatives like Pat Buchanan have consistently opposed Free Trade and the displacement of American workers. NAFTA was another disastrous Clinton policy passed with the support of neo-conservative republicans, Obama continues these policies. Once again, the leaders of both parties oppose the interests of constituents in favor of their donors.

False premises, distortions and lies from the newest right winger. Shocking. You keep saying stuff about Dem leaders who are just Corp stooges, why should I care about them?


Your premise on immigration isn't worth a reply. PERIOD

Clinton? NAFTA? Oh no Bubba, that was Heritage Foundations baby, Ronnie Reagan announced it the day he announced his run for Prez in 1979


Buchanan ? lol. I guess you must be a Bircher too. Shock

What false premises, distortions and lies did I make? List them specifically.

You should care because the point is both parties are inherently corrupt and aren't different at the top. Unless it doesn't bother you and you just like voting for Team D. Some people like politics as a sport, where they vote for their "team". I guess you are one of those people.

Is it not worth a reply because you don't have one. If your position is so right, and I am so off, you should be able to easily explain the benefits of mass immigration and diversity. Come on, enlighten me.

So the Heritage Foundation and Clinton made Clinton sign this bill? How did they do that? This should be an interesting answer.

No, I am not a "bircher". Does standing up for American workers and national sovereignty make one a "bircher" now?

Which false premises, distortionbs or lies? Well Bubba we will start with this post, YOUR posit thatI am in favor or EVER advocated "mass immigration and diversity. "

Weird, you are the typical right winger with better writing but ZERO honesty. Shocking,.

If you support Pat Buchanan, you're a Bircher. Want nothing to do with you or your type, gawwwdman Teap party which is Bircher lite is bad enough!!!

 

[Dad2three]

this is a serious question, please only reply with serious comments.

what specifically do liberals want the US to become?
Tell us exactly what you want changed, and why.

We use to be the greatest country in the world. Upward mobility and good paying jobs. What got us there? High paying union jobs. It is no coincidence as union membership has declined, so have our wages. We have to be a more educated society. How many people voted in the last elections? Less than 40%? That's ridiculous. So I would like us to be a society of educated citizens who all realize that the best economy is/was a middle class first economy. The rich are always going to be rich. But what they have done, by us not voting, is turned our government into their government. They now rule/run our government. They changed the tax codes and laws and shifted the tax burden more onto us and they are making more than ever while our wages are stagnant for 30 years. I'd like to see the masses wake up and vote thus turning this country back over to We The People.

So more people voting so the country and our government goes back to working for all of us not just the rich and roll back all the bad tax breaks the conservatives have given the corporations and fix whatever is wrong with NAFTA. Tariffs sound good.

Oh, and Tesla's car went from over $100,000 to $70K now. It will go even lower. But Tesla will have to fight the Oil Lobbyists and the GOP. I would like the Coal Company GOP to stop fighting Global Warming.

And go after illegal employers. Stop trying to close the border. That's impossible and not the solution. They can just come on a visitors visa and stay. The USA has 2 sings on the border. Small one says stay out and big one says HELP WANTED. Illegal employers are never talked about.

More people voting won't change anything if they make as poor as choice as the ones that do vote make.

No real change will be made at the ballot box. There are too many greedy people that benefit from having this bloated government and too many people are simply confused about the role of government and don't understand the consequences.

This country is beyond the pint of being able to be fixed.

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson



Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote.

"Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

 

[Steinlight]

We are definitely declining into a Third World Nation, because the GOP and Democrat Leadership are bought off by corporate donors who want to flood us with immigration from the Third World. The Democrats want more immigrants for votes and because they believe in "diversity and multiculturalism", the GOP Leadership wants cheap labor for their Chamber of Commerce buddies.

MORE false premises, distortions and lies from the new right winger. I'm shocked


Yeah, Dems want more "diversity and multiculturalism", *shaking head*


lol, Tooo funny Bubba. Not like if we stopped immigration that's not happening anyways or the FACT that you can't stop drugs and phones getting into US prisons, but you expect to keep out 100% of the 'illegals' who we've decimated their nations with policies like the war on drugs, NAFTA and the Monroe doctrine? lol

Are you denying that liberals "celebrate" diversity and brag about as the more "diverse" it becomes through immigration the easier they will win elections? You need to get with the program. Harry Reid called the Democrats the "party of diversity". I don't know how many times I have heard the leftist media disparagingly call the GOP the "party of white people" and how the GOP will lose once Whites become a minority in our country. Why do we need mass immigration? Why do we need "more diversity"?

Just because you can't stop 100% of illegal immigration, doesn't mean you shouldn't enforce laws. By that logic, we shouldn't enforce murder laws, rape laws, or drug laws, since we can't prevent 100% of them. Talk about a destructive and nihilistic attitude. This is the essence of leftism.

As far as NAFTA, conservatives like Pat Buchanan have consistently opposed Free Trade and the displacement of American workers. NAFTA was another disastrous Clinton policy passed with the support of neo-conservative republicans, Obama continues these policies. Once again, the leaders of both parties oppose the interests of constituents in favor of their donors.

False premises, distortions and lies from the newest right winger. Shocking. You keep saying stuff about Dem leaders who are just Corp stooges, why should I care about them?


Your premise on immigration isn't worth a reply. PERIOD

Clinton? NAFTA? Oh no Bubba, that was Heritage Foundations baby, Ronnie Reagan announced it the day he announced his run for Prez in 1979


Buchanan ? lol. I guess you must be a Bircher too. Shock

What false premises, distortions and lies did I make? List them specifically.

You should care because the point is both parties are inherently corrupt and aren't different at the top. Unless it doesn't bother you and you just like voting for Team D. Some people like politics as a sport, where they vote for their "team". I guess you are one of those people.

Is it not worth a reply because you don't have one. If your position is so right, and I am so off, you should be able to easily explain the benefits of mass immigration and diversity. Come on, enlighten me.

So the Heritage Foundation and Clinton made Clinton sign this bill? How did they do that? This should be an interesting answer.

No, I am not a "bircher". Does standing up for American workers and national sovereignty make one a "bircher" now?

Which false premises, distortionbs or lies? Well Bubba we will start with this post, YOUR posit thatI am in favor or EVER advocated "mass immigration and diversity. "

Weird, you are the typical right winger with better writing but ZERO honesty. Shocking,.

If you support Pat Buchanan, you're a Bircher. Want nothing to do with you or your type, gawwwdman Teap party which is Bircher lite is bad enough!!!

I never said you were, I said the Democrat Party was.

So you oppose mass immigration and diversity? Is this your position?

 

[Dad2three]

Nothing wrong with a government that provides services to the people for the taxes it takes in. It isn't greedy to want something from your government. That's the rich brainwashing you. Meanwhile, they want everything and you go along.

Yes, voting is the solution. We can only take back the country by voting or revolution. What is your solution? You want to revolt before even trying the vote?

Yes it does matter if 70% of the people vote instead of 39%. If you say it doesn't either you are a fool or liar.

It certainly is greed when you vote for shitheads that uses the force of government to steal money from other people to benefit you. That is the definition of greed. Tony Soprano would be proud of that scam.

If 70% of the people elect the same kind of people that get elected now and the country continues to have enormous debt, high taxation, limited economic growth, a welfare state, a lost of freedom, interventionism and corrupt government then they haven't accomplished any more that 39% that votes right now.

The American people are not smart enough or moral enough to have a working Republic.

When the citizen asked Ben Franklin "What kind of government have you given us?" and his reply was "A Republic if you can keep it" then he was commenting about the American people may not being smart or moral enough to have good government. He was right to have that concern as we are seeing now.

ANOTHER THING BEN FRANKLIN SAID:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."



"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

 

[Dad2three]

Gave the GOP a lot of what they wanted too. Don't forget we told you the GOP would stop being fiscally responsible the moment they got in charge. Reagan and Bush both doubled the debt too. The GOP only got fiscally tight when it was Obama and Pelosi and Reed in charge. The GOP spend even more just on defense contractors who hide their money abroad, not union workers who are going to spend that money in America.

It continues funding that shit Obamacare and gives the illegals a truckload of money. It allows Obama to continues his interventionist wars and continues the welfare state. Business as usual.

The Libtards made out pretty good.

Dude, any illegal that steps forward is going to pay a shit load in fines/penalties and then they'll be legal citizens paying taxes. I doubt all the poor Mexicans and Chinese people are even going to take advantage of Obama's offer. By the way, I heard there are more illegal Chinese immigrants in America than there are Mexican ones.

Conservatives are all atwitter about illegal immigrants. Some want to give them amnesty. Others want to reinstitute the old Bracero program. Others want to build a wall around America, like the communists did around East Berlin. Some advocate all of the above. But none will tell Americans the truth about why we have eleven million illegal aliens in this nation now (when it was fewer than 2 million when Reagan came into office), why they're staying, or why they keep coming. In a word, it's "jobs." In conservative lexicon, it's "cheap labor to increase corporate profits."

"In conservative lexicon, it's "cheap labor to increase corporate profits."


BINGO. THE GOP HAD CONGRESS MOST OF THE PAST 20 YEARS, SURPRISE THE 'ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS' FLOODED THE NATION...

 

[bripat9643]

We pretty much have this... what you guys want though, is equality if outcome; which of course will never happen.

Again you rant about the "equality of outcome" conservative myth

You have yet to provide a single source where anyone is requesting equality of outcome

the minimum wage argument is a prime example.

Seattle venture capitalist Nick Hanauer

Hanauer said he doesn't consider himself a "job creator." If no one can afford to buy what he's selling, the jobs his companies create will evaporate, he reasons. In his view, what the nation needs is more money in the hands of regular consumers.

"A higher minimum wage is a very simple and elegant solution to the death spiral of falling demand that is the signature feature of our economy,"

How does the minimum wage create more money?

Take an economics course Bubba. It's called a multiplier effect! Or we just keep giving it to the top 1/10th of 1% of US who hold it offshore out of circulation?

The so-called "multiplier effect" is keynesian Voo Doo. It's obvious horseshit. Politicians love it because it allows them to delude themselves and the public that they are doing something beneficial when they spend us into bankruptcy. It's like getting an award for peeing in the punch bowl.

 

[Dad2three]

It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives have twisted "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" into a JFK condemnation of social programs

JFK was making a plea for public service in advance of his Peace Corps initiative. JFK fought hard for social programs that became LBJs war on poverty

JFK also believed in trickled down economics. He felt if the filthy government taxed the people less everybody would be better off. Libtards nowadays hate the idea of less taxes and putting more money into the hands of the people that earned it.

Kennedy was on his way in Dallas to give a speech about further reducing taxes in the US when he was assassinated, by the way. That is ironic. An avowed Marxist whacked a President that wanted to reduce taxes in America.

Another rightwing myth

During WWII we raised income taxes on the rich to 90% at the highest level. 15 years after the war, JFK advocated lowering the upper tax rate from 90% down to 70%.
The current upper tax rate is 39%

Rightwing claims that JFK was a supply side economist are ridiculous. Are you willing to return to the 70% tax rate that JFK wanted?

How on Earth can you justify taking 90% or even 70% of someone's property? Seriously...

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

 

[Dad2three]

Nothing wrong with a government that provides services to the people for the taxes it takes in. It isn't greedy to want something from your government. That's the rich brainwashing you. Meanwhile, they want everything and you go along.

Yes, voting is the solution. We can only take back the country by voting or revolution. What is your solution? You want to revolt before even trying the vote?

Yes it does matter if 70% of the people vote instead of 39%. If you say it doesn't either you are a fool or liar.

It certainly is greed when you vote for shitheads that uses the force of government to steal money from other people to benefit you. That is the definition of greed. Tony Soprano would be proud of that scam.

If 70% of the people elect the same kind of people that get elected now and the country continues to have enormous debt, high taxation, limited economic growth, a welfare state, a lost of freedom, interventionism and corrupt government then they haven't accomplished any more that 39% that votes right now.

The American people are not smart enough or moral enough to have a working Republic.

When the citizen asked Ben Franklin "What kind of government have you given us?" and his reply was "A Republic if you can keep it" then he was commenting about the American people may not being smart or moral enough to have good government. He was right to have that concern as we are seeing now.

You're so right. Bush and the GOP from 2000-2006 ruined the economy, lied us into wars, etc and look at how quickly and easily they put the GOP back into office in 2010 and 2014.

Oh, and it wasn't like they showed up TO VOTE for the GOP. They just didn't show up at all and that's how you won. Of course you like it that less people vote. But that makes you an intellectually dishonest idiot in my book to argue that it is good less people vote not more.

Oh Jesus... not this stupid shit again.

Do you want to pretend it didn't happen or wait for me to forget? This is why we'll get no where with fools like you who don't even know/remember what the **** happened to us once Bush got into office.

Remember he took Clinton's SURPLUS and squandered it. Him and his GOP party led by Tom Delay.

There's one huge problem here... Clinton did not leave Bush a surplus. And btw.... Obama has added more to the debt than all his predecessors.. combined.

YES, RONNIE TRIPLED THE DEBT OF HIS PREDECESSORS AND BOTH BUSH'S DOUBLED IT. AND???




How the Deficit Got This Big

In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies.

Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html

 

[Dad2three]

Nothing wrong with a government that provides services to the people for the taxes it takes in. It isn't greedy to want something from your government. That's the rich brainwashing you. Meanwhile, they want everything and you go along.

Yes, voting is the solution. We can only take back the country by voting or revolution. What is your solution? You want to revolt before even trying the vote?

Yes it does matter if 70% of the people vote instead of 39%. If you say it doesn't either you are a fool or liar.

It certainly is greed when you vote for shitheads that uses the force of government to steal money from other people to benefit you. That is the definition of greed. Tony Soprano would be proud of that scam.

If 70% of the people elect the same kind of people that get elected now and the country continues to have enormous debt, high taxation, limited economic growth, a welfare state, a lost of freedom, interventionism and corrupt government then they haven't accomplished any more that 39% that votes right now.

The American people are not smart enough or moral enough to have a working Republic.

When the citizen asked Ben Franklin "What kind of government have you given us?" and his reply was "A Republic if you can keep it" then he was commenting about the American people may not being smart or moral enough to have good government. He was right to have that concern as we are seeing now.

You're so right. Bush and the GOP from 2000-2006 ruined the economy, lied us into wars, etc and look at how quickly and easily they put the GOP back into office in 2010 and 2014.

Oh, and it wasn't like they showed up TO VOTE for the GOP. They just didn't show up at all and that's how you won. Of course you like it that less people vote. But that makes you an intellectually dishonest idiot in my book to argue that it is good less people vote not more.

Oh Jesus... not this stupid shit again.

Do you want to pretend it didn't happen or wait for me to forget? This is why we'll get no where with fools like you who don't even know/remember what the **** happened to us once Bush got into office.

Remember he took Clinton's SURPLUS and squandered it. Him and his GOP party led by Tom Delay.

If Clinton ran a "surplus" then why did the national debt go up every year he was in office?

I have a secret for you, Beav, politicians lie. Shocking, isn't it?

DON'T KNOW WHAT A YEARLY BUDGET IS HUH? SHOCKING

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

 

[Wyatt earp]

Seriously? Lmao

 

[Dad2three]

It certainly is greed when you vote for shitheads that uses the force of government to steal money from other people to benefit you. That is the definition of greed. Tony Soprano would be proud of that scam.

If 70% of the people elect the same kind of people that get elected now and the country continues to have enormous debt, high taxation, limited economic growth, a welfare state, a lost of freedom, interventionism and corrupt government then they haven't accomplished any more that 39% that votes right now.

The American people are not smart enough or moral enough to have a working Republic.

When the citizen asked Ben Franklin "What kind of government have you given us?" and his reply was "A Republic if you can keep it" then he was commenting about the American people may not being smart or moral enough to have good government. He was right to have that concern as we are seeing now.

You're so right. Bush and the GOP from 2000-2006 ruined the economy, lied us into wars, etc and look at how quickly and easily they put the GOP back into office in 2010 and 2014.

Oh, and it wasn't like they showed up TO VOTE for the GOP. They just didn't show up at all and that's how you won. Of course you like it that less people vote. But that makes you an intellectually dishonest idiot in my book to argue that it is good less people vote not more.

Oh Jesus... not this stupid shit again.

Do you want to pretend it didn't happen or wait for me to forget? This is why we'll get no where with fools like you who don't even know/remember what the **** happened to us once Bush got into office.

Remember he took Clinton's SURPLUS and squandered it. Him and his GOP party led by Tom Delay.

If Clinton ran a "surplus" then why did the national debt go up every year he was in office?

I have a secret for you, Beav, politicians lie. Shocking, isn't it?

Clinton did reduce the deficits.. but he did it through intragovernmental borrowings, not through true debt reduction. It's like saying I made $100k, spent $125k, but I didn't put the additional $25k on credit cards, I took it from my 401k.

LOL

BZZ WRONG. He and the Dems in 1993 created 3 new tax brackets and took the top rate to 39.6%, and that eventually got US back to Carter level revenues, 20% of GDP. Of course Dubya/GOP took care of that and took it back down to 15% of GDP, Korean war levels, AS THEY RAMPED UP SPENDING!!

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

 

[Dad2three]

Again you rant about the "equality of outcome" conservative myth

You have yet to provide a single source where anyone is requesting equality of outcome

the minimum wage argument is a prime example.

Seattle venture capitalist Nick Hanauer

Hanauer said he doesn't consider himself a "job creator." If no one can afford to buy what he's selling, the jobs his companies create will evaporate, he reasons. In his view, what the nation needs is more money in the hands of regular consumers.

"A higher minimum wage is a very simple and elegant solution to the death spiral of falling demand that is the signature feature of our economy,"

How does the minimum wage create more money?

Take an economics course Bubba. It's called a multiplier effect! Or we just keep giving it to the top 1/10th of 1% of US who hold it offshore out of circulation?

The so-called "multiplier effect" is keynesian Voo Doo. It's obvious horseshit. Politicians love it because it allows them to delude themselves and the public that they are doing something beneficial when they spend us into bankruptcy. It's like getting an award for peeing in the punch bowl.

Got it, you don't like the field of economics, you prefer to live in myths and fairy tales of libertarian bullshit!

 

[bripat9643]

the minimum wage argument is a prime example.

Seattle venture capitalist Nick Hanauer

Hanauer said he doesn't consider himself a "job creator." If no one can afford to buy what he's selling, the jobs his companies create will evaporate, he reasons. In his view, what the nation needs is more money in the hands of regular consumers.

"A higher minimum wage is a very simple and elegant solution to the death spiral of falling demand that is the signature feature of our economy,"

How does the minimum wage create more money?

Take an economics course Bubba. It's called a multiplier effect! Or we just keep giving it to the top 1/10th of 1% of US who hold it offshore out of circulation?

The so-called "multiplier effect" is keynesian Voo Doo. It's obvious horseshit. Politicians love it because it allows them to delude themselves and the public that they are doing something beneficial when they spend us into bankruptcy. It's like getting an award for peeing in the punch bowl.

Got it, you don't like the field of economics, you prefer to live in myths and fairy tales of libertarian bullshit!

The multiplier effect is a myth. Keynesianism isn't economics. It's a con.