What do liberals want the US to be?

[Dad2three]

Bottom 50% who made 12% of ALL US income? lol


Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent


Overall, the poorest 20 percent of households paid an average 10.9 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2007, while the top 1 percent on average paid just 5.2 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes, according to the study.


Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

The less wealthy have access to the same local and state facilities and services as the rich (and make use of them far more often). Thanks to our progressive tax system, they pay far less for them than do the rich.

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated


Total U.S. taxes are barely progressive, as shown in this table and chart from Citizens for Tax Justice. The bottom 99 percent pays a 27.5 percent total tax rate on average, while the top 1 percent pays an average 29 percent tax rate, according to 2011 data from Citizens for Tax Justice.

Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

I know the pain intimately ... my real estate holdings (I'm a developer) took a hit in 2006/2007 (about $2mil) from which I will never recover. Nevertheless I am not willing to kill the goose which laid the golden egg - something you seem eager to do - just to assuage my pain.

KILL THE GOOSE? Oh you mean the Banksters who hosed US via the GOP in 1920's, 1980's (Ronnie ignored regulator warnings just like Dubya) and 2008?


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You should get better material, or perhaps grow a brain?

The majority of Democrats and Republicans voted for the bailouts(minus conservative and democratic socialist opposition on the wings of the parties. And Glass Steagall was repealed by Clinton, which was responsible for allowing commercial banks to merge with investment banks and threaten the solvency of regular depositors accounts. To reduce every problem to blaming Bush or the Republicans is dishonest.

"The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence." William K. Black Sr. regulator during S&L debacle



“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.


FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times



Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005


The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.



"Those selling the CDS's would not have been able to sell them if they had been required by regulators to maintain standard insurance reserves."


2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street


BUSH REGULATORS ON WALL STREET IN 2004 WITH A CHAINSAW 'CUTTING' REGULATIONS

 

[Dad2three]

It also has an arrogance associated with it that assumes the elite know what's best for everyone. Like all 310,000,000 people in the U.S. are cut from the same cloth.

LOL! But that's just the same old crap the Left has been pushing since the heady days of the overt Progressive Eugenicists.

The Left is a lie... from soup to Liberals. There's not an iota of truth represented in so much as a single facet of Left-think.

Stop projecting

ANY policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? LOL

Can you clarify your question?

ANY policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US?

pol·i·cy1
ˈpäləsē/
noun
noun: policy; plural noun: policies
a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual.

How do you define correct? Do you mean your side? Do you mean the progressive side? The winning side, electorally speaking?

That is a rather loaded question that could be interpreted several ways.

What's interesting is the use of such language. The "right side" of history. The Marxists used this language as well. Didn't turn out so well for them. But I also think this represents a false conception of history. The Left views history as linear, constantly "moving forward". Whereas history shows history is cyclical, civilizations rise and fall.

So NO, you CAN'T give me ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on

They were the Torries standing with King George, Confederates, Isolationists during both WW's, fought labor laws, union rights, civil rights, min wage, etc...

 

[Dad2three]

The truth is that 86% of Americans pay taxes. In one recession strapped year (2009), less than half of single filer taxpayers paid federal income taxes.


The 47% statistic is not all Americans pay no taxes, but single filers who will pay no federal income taxes. According to the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities the real reason why 47%-51% of Americans paid no federal income taxes in 2009 is,

The 51 percent figure is an anomaly that reflects the unique circumstances of 2009, when the recession greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes and when temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 Recovery Act — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect. Together, these developments removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.

Only a Libtard that loves taxes so much would be satisfied with a trillion a year income tax being paid by only half the people in the US. Where is the equity in that?

When the greedy shitheads that get their government welfare checks for free by not paying their share of an income tax then they have no incentive to vote in fiscally responsible government, which is the reason you have assholes like Obama being elected.

However, the inequity with a progressive income tax and not half the people paying it is not the real problem. The real problem is that the filthy ass combined government of the US (Fed, State and Local) takes over 40% of the GNP and that is a tremendous burden on everyone poor and rich and the reason why our economy sucks so much. Not only that but the big government shitheads are so greedy that 40% of the GNP is not enough so the combined governments have to borrow about $2 trillion additional each year.

The best way to stay out of poverty is not ever vote a Liberal.

More bullshit NOT based in reality from you. Shocking. Avg money made by the top 1% $1.+ million a family. Avg made by the bottom 50% of US, less than $15,000 PER FAMILY. But it's the bottom half of US that's the problem? lol

Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

Trickle down economics and lower taxes on the wealthy are synonymous with 'Banana Republic' which is exactly where we're headed with right wing republican policies. Banana Republics are also run by the 1% elite, not democracies. Given the opportunity that's exactly how the right wing would like it here in the USA and they'll do anything to get to that point - lie, cheat and steal. What baffles me is just how many of the American working class believe the republican rhetoric that they represent them when it couldn't be further from the truth. What a travesty!

Today's GOP is the inevitable consequence of their 35 years embracing anti-intellectualism as patriotic and willful ignorance as a virtue.



.

 

[Dad2three]

Iraq Resolution

United States House of Representatives

82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.

• 126 (~60.3%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.

The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)

United States Senate

58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution.
42% of Democratic senators (21 of 50) voted against the resolution.


AGAIN, 60% OF DEMS IN CONGRESS VOTED AGAINST DUBYA'S WARE OF CHOICE. You said Dems, not leadership

Clinton was one of them that did vote to fund the Iraq War and if she is the Democrat nominee I suspect Libtards like you would run to vote for her just as fast as your little cub feet would carry you.

You mean instead a a full blown retard that votes GOPer? Hell yes!

 

[Dad2three]

And YOU are being dishonest on Obamacares, the future payments aren't guaranteed AND the GOP used the same formula and TOOK the money out of Medicare and used it in Ryans budget which 100% of GOPers voted yes for in the House, BUT PUT THE MONEY TOWARDS TAX CUTS, LOL!

Why vote for any Democrat or Republican that supports in any way a stupid program like Obmacare? That is really dumb, isn't it?

We elect stupid representatives and then we cry about the consequences of getting bad government.

Oh right, 'Obamacares is bad' I forgot that. Forget that MILLIONS more have insurance and we have the slowest medical cost growth EVER recorded, for some reason, Obamacares is bad. Granted UHC would've been better...

 

[Steinlight]

The less wealthy have access to the same local and state facilities and services as the rich (and make use of them far more often). Thanks to our progressive tax system, they pay far less for them than do the rich.

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated


Total U.S. taxes are barely progressive, as shown in this table and chart from Citizens for Tax Justice. The bottom 99 percent pays a 27.5 percent total tax rate on average, while the top 1 percent pays an average 29 percent tax rate, according to 2011 data from Citizens for Tax Justice.

Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

I know the pain intimately ... my real estate holdings (I'm a developer) took a hit in 2006/2007 (about $2mil) from which I will never recover. Nevertheless I am not willing to kill the goose which laid the golden egg - something you seem eager to do - just to assuage my pain.

KILL THE GOOSE? Oh you mean the Banksters who hosed US via the GOP in 1920's, 1980's (Ronnie ignored regulator warnings just like Dubya) and 2008?


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You should get better material, or perhaps grow a brain?

The majority of Democrats and Republicans voted for the bailouts(minus conservative and democratic socialist opposition on the wings of the parties. And Glass Steagall was repealed by Clinton, which was responsible for allowing commercial banks to merge with investment banks and threaten the solvency of regular depositors accounts. To reduce every problem to blaming Bush or the Republicans is dishonest.

Got it, you have NO CLUE about Dubya's financial **** up or how it came about

Glass-Steagal? That GOP bill? Zero to do with Dubya's crash

If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”


As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse




"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

Your analysis is incorrect and narrow sighted. Absolutely lending standards contributed, and both parties supported reduced lending standards, The Comunity Reinvestment Act began in 1977 under Carter, and Both Clinton and Bush supported reduced lending standards to increase "minority home ownership" among other reasons. It isn't and either or thing. The artificially low interest rate policy of the Fed contributed as well, without cheap money, banks wouldn't have been able to give out subprime loans to begin with.

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis The American Spectator

The fact is, with Glass Steagall, this housing crisis would have been mitigated to the housing sector and a couple commercial banks. But since commercial banks merged with investment banks and were allowed to gamble with commercial depositors money, once these phoney derivatives went belly up, a "liquidity crisis" occurred where commercial lending was on the verge of drastically drying up in 2008. It is interesting that you support erasing one of the decent progressive policies of FDR, so you can carry water for neo-liberal hacks(and by extension neo-conservative hacks in the GOP as well) like Obama and Clinton who support bank deregulation. The fact is, you are an idiot who doesn't understand economics, you only know how to blindly defend a corrupt political party.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

Of course Obama will defend bank deregulation, his major donors are Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. He is a lackey of finance capital.

JPMorgan Employees Join Goldman Sachs Among Top Obama Donors - Bloomberg

 

[Dad2three]

Sure, the US will not fix it, like we have dozens of times *shaking head*

SS keeps 50% of seniors out of poverty. Conservatives want to go back to NO safety nets, lol

If Democrats care about entitlements, why did they support raiding Social Security to pay for the quagmire they voted for in Iraq, or support raiding Medicare to fund Obamacare?

They may talk like they care about preserving the social safety net, but they just use it as a third rail for votes.

ANOTHER lie. Shocking. WHEN and how did Dems 'raid' SS to pay for Dubya's war of choice which 60% of Dems in Congress voted against? Raid Medicare? lol

Obamacare 'raids' Medicare? Not exactly

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act slows the growth in Medicare spending in several ways, including smaller automatic increases in payment rates for treatment providers and lower subsidies for private insurers. These two changes account for the largest savings -- $571 billion over 10 years, by the Congressional Budget Office's estimate. Both of them operate on the theory that the recipients of Medicare dollars can and should deliver better value of the money.

Obamacare raids Medicare Not exactly - Los Angeles Times

To be clear, 58% of Democratic Senators voted for it, and 39% of Democrats in the House. Kerry voted for the resolution, Obama voted for its continued funding, and the current front runner Hilary Clinton supported the resolution. I don't deny the grasroots democrats opposed Iraq(though they were curiously silent on intervention in Yugoslavia, Somalia, Libya, Syria etc), but the leadership is hawkish and pro-intervention.

So, it isn't a "lol" matter. The fact that you overlook it just shows your narrow minded attitude and partisanship.

And now you are just playing word games with Obamacare. The bill takes money that was to go towards automatic increases in Medicare spending and put it towards Obamacare. That is raiding Medicare. They are redirecting future medicare spending. You just don't mind what they are redirecting towards.

BZZZ a FUKKKKKING LIE. Shocking

Iraq Resolution

United States House of Representatives

82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.

• 126 (~60.3%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.

The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)

United States Senate

58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution.
42% of Democratic senators (21 of 50) voted against the resolution.


AGAIN, 60% OF DEMS IN CONGRESS VOTED AGAINST DUBYA'S WARE OF CHOICE. You said Dems, not leadership


And YOU are being dishonest on Obamacares, the future payments aren't guaranteed AND the GOP used the same formula and TOOK the money out of Medicare and used it in Ryans budget which 100% of GOPers voted yes for in the House, BUT PUT THE MONEY TOWARDS TAX CUTS, LOL!

Your "evidence" just confirmed what I said, 58% of Democrats in the Senate voted for the Iraq War Resolution, and 39% of House Democrats.

I don't understand what you are ranting about here. Using caps makes you look crazy as well.

And your next point makes no sense. You support Obamacare cutting future Medicare payments because the GOP House Plan does as well? Again, what's your point?

Weird, MY posit was 60% of Dems VOTED AGAINST Dubya's war of choice, you came back with Dem 'leaders' voting for it? lol

Got it, On Obamacares you refuse to accept REALITY that the 'cut' to Medicare is actually just slowing down the rate of GROWTH of payment to Docs and hospitals and the same money that was 'cut' by Dems was ALSO cut by the GOP House version of their Ryan budget....

 

[Dad2three]

Almost half said their biggest problem was uncertainty about the future course of the economy — another way of saying a lack of customers and sales.

The Wall Street Journal’s July survey of business economists found, “The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand,

I don't think you are smart enough to understand this. Being a stupid Libtard you aren't very smart at all. Lack of customers and sales and scant demand is the result of six years (eight if you include the 2006 Democrat elected Congress) of Obama's unfriendly business polices that includes increased taxation, burdensome regulations, war on corporations, crony capitalism and uncertainty about the future. It is the whole enchilada you dumb ****!

When you have the lowest workforce participation rate since that idiot Carter was President then you don't have enough demand for goods and services.

Obama and the Democrats have screwed up this economy big time and can't run from that. Too bad the equally as shitty Republicans don't have the backbone to put a stop to Obama's destruction of this country.

Got it, you just keep showing how dumb you are. Weird I thought the Dems came tompower in Jan 2007? Care to point to those laws that repealed Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies? lol

You know how bad Dubya's economy was? He ran EVERYTHING on debt, allowing the US to borrow more than they made in 2006, first time ever...lol


In 2011, the Economics Policy Institute put out a couple of reports that indicated that while the GOP claims that taxes and regulation are the main concerns of business related to restraining production, when surveyed business managers and executives stated that lack of demand and not taxes or regulations was the biggest source of uncertainty.


Conservatives deny facts and never explain their positions because they can't. Their positions have no basis in reality and are unsustainable, so the only thing they can do is obfuscate, deny, attack and deflect.

"Regulatory uncertainty: A phony explanation for our jobs problem"



Libertarianism is one of those things that sounds good when you read about it in high school, or maybe your first year of college. But once you are out in the real world for say, five, or even six entire minutes, you quickly realize it's a narcissistic, child-like ideology that doesn't actually work and has no basis in reality


Conservative economic theories have never worked and never will. You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk.
Regulatory uncertainty A phony explanation for our jobs problem Economic Policy Institute

 

[Steinlight]

LOL! But that's just the same old crap the Left has been pushing since the heady days of the overt Progressive Eugenicists.

The Left is a lie... from soup to Liberals. There's not an iota of truth represented in so much as a single facet of Left-think.

Stop projecting

ANY policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? LOL

Can you clarify your question?

ANY policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US?

pol·i·cy1
ˈpäləsē/
noun
noun: policy; plural noun: policies
a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual.

How do you define correct? Do you mean your side? Do you mean the progressive side? The winning side, electorally speaking?

That is a rather loaded question that could be interpreted several ways.

What's interesting is the use of such language. The "right side" of history. The Marxists used this language as well. Didn't turn out so well for them. But I also think this represents a false conception of history. The Left views history as linear, constantly "moving forward". Whereas history shows history is cyclical, civilizations rise and fall.

So NO, you CAN'T give me ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on

They were the Torries standing with King George, Confederates, Isolationists during both WW's, fought labor laws, union rights, civil rights, min wage, etc...

Your characterization of what "conservative policy" is inaccurate. A left wing caricature more than anything else.

But lets take it issue by issue. My biggest objection out of the one's you mentioned is that WW1 is correct.

Why should we have gotten involved in the first place?

How did this war serve American interests?

I think non-interventionist conservatives and anti-war socialists alike who opposed the war were on the right side, and their position was vindicated by the bloody and disastrous result of WW1.

 

[bripat9643]

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

But I thought the Korean War was the golden age when marginal rates were 95%.

You mean BEFORE Reagan increased SS taxes by 60%? Before we had woman in the workforce? lol

WEIRD RIGHT?

So marginal tax rates aren't the only criteria affecting the economy? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Dad2three]

It also has an arrogance associated with it that assumes the elite know what's best for everyone. Like all 310,000,000 people in the U.S. are cut from the same cloth.

LOL! But that's just the same old crap the Left has been pushing from the Progressive days of the Eugenicists.

The Left is a lie... from soup to Liberals. There's not an iota of truth represented in so much as a single facet of Left-think.

To be fair, the right has it's fair share of disingenuous losers who hide behind ideology to achieve their goals.

I believe in the fundamentals of conservatism as I define it (not the morons like dudpeepee or rightwanker).

Within the scope of limited government is the human experience. When people are doing what they "should" as dictated by their conciences.....things go pretty well.

Not just a limited central government, but a decentralized government. There needs to be a devolution of powers to avoid the increasing political, economic and social costs of an artificially large state(see economies of scale, the same principle applies with governments). Simply put, America has far too many people to effectively and properly govern through a growing Federal Government. As our population grows, we will have to decentralize power from the federal bureaucracy to avoid the problems that the USSR faced and the EU is currently facing.

MORE right wing nonsense. Shocking. We tried that with the Articles of Confederation remember?

YOU WANT TO COMPARE THE US, A NATION, TO MANY NATIONS OF THE EU? Or USSR (Failed system, that became Gangster Russia)? lol

I thought you might be serious, just another right wing Klown

Tried what? The Articles of Confederation effectively had no central governing body at all, and no one is advocating this. The Constitution most certainly calls for a Federal Government, but limited to strict and defined powers(See article I, II, and III of the Constitution), and the 10th Amendment explicitly reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the Federal Government. You need to read up on the concepts of Separation of Powers and Federalism.

Yes, I do, because the US is not immune to history. Heavily centralized bureaurcracies have failed throughout history and are never sustainable, economically or politically.

Oh, you're one of those morons, who believes the 21st century should be led bt 18th century guys. Good thing they were smarter than you and gave US Article I, Section 8..

You Tenthers are funny though

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not the one advocating a return to the tax structure of JFK. It is conservatives holding him up as one of their own

JFK was a Libturd shitass in many ways and a terrible President but he got one thing right. He understood that the economy does better when the people get to keep more of the money they make rather than giving it to the corrupt and incompetent government.

Do you want me to repost his quote to the American people on that?

As the rich get richer and store more of their loot off shore and out of the nation's economy


The truly rich don't spend the extra money, they send it to their money managers who invest it. It is a true GOP canard to say they 'create job'. The middle class are the job creators.

They "invest it?" We can't have that! Investment is so horrible for the economy!

If they spent it all, turds like you would be accusing them of living like oriental potentates and using that as a reason to loot them.

 

[Steinlight]

If Democrats care about entitlements, why did they support raiding Social Security to pay for the quagmire they voted for in Iraq, or support raiding Medicare to fund Obamacare?

They may talk like they care about preserving the social safety net, but they just use it as a third rail for votes.

ANOTHER lie. Shocking. WHEN and how did Dems 'raid' SS to pay for Dubya's war of choice which 60% of Dems in Congress voted against? Raid Medicare? lol

Obamacare 'raids' Medicare? Not exactly

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act slows the growth in Medicare spending in several ways, including smaller automatic increases in payment rates for treatment providers and lower subsidies for private insurers. These two changes account for the largest savings -- $571 billion over 10 years, by the Congressional Budget Office's estimate. Both of them operate on the theory that the recipients of Medicare dollars can and should deliver better value of the money.

Obamacare raids Medicare Not exactly - Los Angeles Times

To be clear, 58% of Democratic Senators voted for it, and 39% of Democrats in the House. Kerry voted for the resolution, Obama voted for its continued funding, and the current front runner Hilary Clinton supported the resolution. I don't deny the grasroots democrats opposed Iraq(though they were curiously silent on intervention in Yugoslavia, Somalia, Libya, Syria etc), but the leadership is hawkish and pro-intervention.

So, it isn't a "lol" matter. The fact that you overlook it just shows your narrow minded attitude and partisanship.

And now you are just playing word games with Obamacare. The bill takes money that was to go towards automatic increases in Medicare spending and put it towards Obamacare. That is raiding Medicare. They are redirecting future medicare spending. You just don't mind what they are redirecting towards.

BZZZ a FUKKKKKING LIE. Shocking

Iraq Resolution

United States House of Representatives

82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.

• 126 (~60.3%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.

The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)

United States Senate

58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution.
42% of Democratic senators (21 of 50) voted against the resolution.


AGAIN, 60% OF DEMS IN CONGRESS VOTED AGAINST DUBYA'S WARE OF CHOICE. You said Dems, not leadership


And YOU are being dishonest on Obamacares, the future payments aren't guaranteed AND the GOP used the same formula and TOOK the money out of Medicare and used it in Ryans budget which 100% of GOPers voted yes for in the House, BUT PUT THE MONEY TOWARDS TAX CUTS, LOL!

Your "evidence" just confirmed what I said, 58% of Democrats in the Senate voted for the Iraq War Resolution, and 39% of House Democrats.

I don't understand what you are ranting about here. Using caps makes you look crazy as well.

And your next point makes no sense. You support Obamacare cutting future Medicare payments because the GOP House Plan does as well? Again, what's your point?

Weird, MY posit was 60% of Dems VOTED AGAINST Dubya's war of choice, you came back with Dem 'leaders' voting for it? lol

Got it, On Obamacares you refuse to accept REALITY that the 'cut' to Medicare is actually just slowing down the rate of GROWTH of payment to Docs and hospitals and the same money that was 'cut' by Dems was ALSO cut by the GOP House version of their Ryan budget....

You are just repeating discredited points, even your link showed my point, that 58% of the Democrats in the Senate supported the war, and 39% of Democrats in the House, and the party leaders(including Kerry and Clinton), supported it as well. So I don't know what you are harping out about.

The fact is, you don't oppose the Iraq War, you just support carrying water for the pro-war Democrat Party. You have no honor or priniciple.

I get it, you support Obamacare cutting future medicare spending because Paul Ryan's plan did so to. You don't have to keep repeating yourself.

 

[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.

Reagan raised the debt 2 trillion in eight years and provided Clinton with a good economy to further reduce it.

I wished that Reagan had gotten more tight fisted near the end.

Obama will have raised it 10 trillion by the time he is done.

Reagan tripled the debt and crippled future president with his tax rates

He handed off to Bush not Clinton

Yeah, and Obama only doubled his.

You libs are way to funny.

Yes, he handed off to Bush....but the momentum of the economy worked for Billy Boy....who did a good job with it.

So the economy kinda skipped Bush then.......you guys can be so creative

Blather away......

Obama will double the debt before he leaves. 10 Trillion.

Obama's first budget (like all other Prez) begins

National Debt Oct 1, 2009 $11,920,519,164,319.42


Economic Downturn and Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Projected Deficits

Economic Recovery Measures, Financial Rescues Have Only Temporary Impact
Economic Downturn and Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Projected Deficits mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Steinlight]

LOL! But that's just the same old crap the Left has been pushing from the Progressive days of the Eugenicists.

The Left is a lie... from soup to Liberals. There's not an iota of truth represented in so much as a single facet of Left-think.

To be fair, the right has it's fair share of disingenuous losers who hide behind ideology to achieve their goals.

I believe in the fundamentals of conservatism as I define it (not the morons like dudpeepee or rightwanker).

Within the scope of limited government is the human experience. When people are doing what they "should" as dictated by their conciences.....things go pretty well.

Not just a limited central government, but a decentralized government. There needs to be a devolution of powers to avoid the increasing political, economic and social costs of an artificially large state(see economies of scale, the same principle applies with governments). Simply put, America has far too many people to effectively and properly govern through a growing Federal Government. As our population grows, we will have to decentralize power from the federal bureaucracy to avoid the problems that the USSR faced and the EU is currently facing.

MORE right wing nonsense. Shocking. We tried that with the Articles of Confederation remember?

YOU WANT TO COMPARE THE US, A NATION, TO MANY NATIONS OF THE EU? Or USSR (Failed system, that became Gangster Russia)? lol

I thought you might be serious, just another right wing Klown

Tried what? The Articles of Confederation effectively had no central governing body at all, and no one is advocating this. The Constitution most certainly calls for a Federal Government, but limited to strict and defined powers(See article I, II, and III of the Constitution), and the 10th Amendment explicitly reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the Federal Government. You need to read up on the concepts of Separation of Powers and Federalism.

Yes, I do, because the US is not immune to history. Heavily centralized bureaurcracies have failed throughout history and are never sustainable, economically or politically.

Oh, you're one of those morons, who believes the 21st century should be led bt 18th century guys. Good thing they were smarter than you and gave US Article I, Section 8..

You Tenthers are funny though

Article I Section 8 limits the power of Congress, it certainly doesn't give it unlimited power. Like I said, you need to read up on the principles of the the Founders and read about the Federalist Papers. Namely the ones on separation of powers, federalism, and checks and balances not only within the federal government but between state and federal government.

And yes, I believe in the Tenth Amendment. If you have a problem with it, than take it through the Amendments process to be repealed.

 

[Dad2three]

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?

Weird, you complain about ME pigeon holing you as a Rushblo, but you pigeon hole the "Democrat Party" (yeah, NOT the Democratic party) as in favor of "mass immigration"

PLEASE link to them (WHOEVER THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS) or their policies proving that? lol


You wing nutters are just crazy. Knowing you can't deport 11-14+ million people, recognizing the problem is and ALWAYS has been EMPLOYERS, you want to blame people who are trying to survive or the mythical 'Democrat party'???

 

[Dad2three]

To be fair, the right has it's fair share of disingenuous losers who hide behind ideology to achieve their goals.

I believe in the fundamentals of conservatism as I define it (not the morons like dudpeepee or rightwanker).

Within the scope of limited government is the human experience. When people are doing what they "should" as dictated by their conciences.....things go pretty well.

Not just a limited central government, but a decentralized government. There needs to be a devolution of powers to avoid the increasing political, economic and social costs of an artificially large state(see economies of scale, the same principle applies with governments). Simply put, America has far too many people to effectively and properly govern through a growing Federal Government. As our population grows, we will have to decentralize power from the federal bureaucracy to avoid the problems that the USSR faced and the EU is currently facing.

MORE right wing nonsense. Shocking. We tried that with the Articles of Confederation remember?

YOU WANT TO COMPARE THE US, A NATION, TO MANY NATIONS OF THE EU? Or USSR (Failed system, that became Gangster Russia)? lol

I thought you might be serious, just another right wing Klown

Tried what? The Articles of Confederation effectively had no central governing body at all, and no one is advocating this. The Constitution most certainly calls for a Federal Government, but limited to strict and defined powers(See article I, II, and III of the Constitution), and the 10th Amendment explicitly reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the Federal Government. You need to read up on the concepts of Separation of Powers and Federalism.

Yes, I do, because the US is not immune to history. Heavily centralized bureaurcracies have failed throughout history and are never sustainable, economically or politically.

Oh, you're one of those morons, who believes the 21st century should be led bt 18th century guys. Good thing they were smarter than you and gave US Article I, Section 8..

You Tenthers are funny though

Article I Section 8 limits the power of Congress, it certainly doesn't give it unlimited power. Like I said, you need to read up on the principles of the the Founders and read about the Federalist Papers. Namely the ones on separation of powers, federalism, and checks and balances not only within the federal government but between state and federal government.

And yes, I believe in the Tenth Amendment. If you have a problem with it, than take it through the Amendments process to be repealed.

Got it, you prefer to read the propaganda of the day to get the meaning of the US Constitutions? You do reallizee that's what the Federalists (and Anti) was right? Advertisement to swing NYers?

James Madison “Godfather of the Constitution”

Which is not to say that he was always thrilled at the results of those “deliberations.” On the contrary, Madison was thwarted on a wide range of minor and not-so-minor points, including two issues — a federal “negative” (veto) over the states and proportional representation in both houses of Congress — that he considered crucial to his dream of a government that would safeguard private rights and still promote the public good.

James Madison Godfather of the Constitution - Archiving Early America

CARE TO POINT TO ANY UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS? I love the SS, Medicare and soon to be ACA crybabies...

 

[Dad2three]

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.

I think you are thinking 'supply side' Bubba

 

[Steinlight]

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?

Weird, you complain about ME pigeon holing you as a Rushblo, but you pigeon hole the "Democrat Party" (yeah, NOT the Democratic party) as in favor of "mass immigration"

PLEASE link to them (WHOEVER THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS) or their policies proving that? lol


You wing nutters are just crazy. Knowing you can't deport 11-14+ million people, recognizing the problem is and ALWAYS has been EMPLOYERS, you want to blame people who are trying to survive or the mythical 'Democrat party'???

I didn't pigeon hole the Democrats, I stated the fact that both parties are in favor of mass immigration and amnesty. Are you hallucinating or something?




I support deportation and e-verify for employers and fines for those who don't comply. It isn't an either or situation. You won't have to physically deport 14 million. Operation ******* for example was successful in deporting over a million illegal immigrants. Once the law would be put into effect. Many would self deport, just look at what happened in Arizona a couple years ago for example after Brewer signed into law a couple years ago.
Co-author of Arizona immigration law says self-deportation working TheHill

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I think you are thinking 'supply side' Bubba

I'm no believer in the "supply side" mantra. However, Keynesianism is pure Voo Doo. Legitimate economists have known this since Keynes published his various assaults on logic and facts.