Why are conservatives always on the wrong side of history?

[Dad2three]

Not a single rebuttal. Good job, dad2three.

A rebuttal to what? Partisan talking points using messaged data by someone much smarter than the OP? What is there to refute?

Calling his points partisan doesn't actually refute them.

First, they are NOT his points. Which then leads you to conclude that there is nothing he has said that needs refuting. He is parroting his betters.

Second.....Post the raw data (not the sanitized data) and then maybe an actual debate can occur. Simply posting data with no context of methodology is meaningless.

So what if they are not his points? They're still valid.

The validity is in dispute based upon what I said.

You need to comprehend a discussion better.

Go get the raw data from each of his little graphs, and then provide the methodology that was used to arrive at the conclusion.

Remove any methodology by anyone who collects a government check for their research on the topic under discussion. Their objectivity is nonexistent.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dads2 is a pathological liar

I've never seen anything like him. Progressives tend to lie a large part of the time, but Dads2 lies about EVERYTHING

 

[Dad2three]

JFK was the most liberal President in my lifetime. He was very much into assisting the poor, increasing social programs, improving housing and education for the poor.

JFK gave the U.S. The food stamp program in 1961, and laid the foundation for Medicaid, but died before it was passed. JFK was HATED by conservatives, so much so that conspiracy theorists continue to believe that conservatives had him killed and pinned the blame on commie Oswald.

Every time the facts show conservatives are wrong, they try to rewrite history.

Come on, EVERYONE knows cutting taxes from a top marginal rate from that evil Republican Ike's 90%+ rate to 70% makes JFK (LBJ) a huge frkking conservative. I mean we see all the time conservatives clamoring to push us back to those 'liberal' rates!

 

[Dad2three]

Dads2 is a pathological liar

I've never seen anything like him. Progressives tend to lie a large part of the time, but Dads2 lies about EVERYTHING

 

[Dad2three]

A Conservative History of the United States

1607: First welfare state collapses: “Jamestown colony, when it was first founded as a socialist venture, dang near failed with everybody dead and dying in the snow.”—Dick Armey (ANYONE?), (BTW, THAT WAS CALLED CAPITILSMN BY THE CORPS)...




2009: The $3,128 light switch tax begins: “…a series of new taxes, including a light switch tax that would cost every American household $3,128 a year.”—House Republican Conference



2009: Obama strikes traditional motto from America’s coins: “ ‘In God We Trust’ is Gone!”—Patriot Action Network


1861: Civil War breaks out over pitting “individual rights as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence against collective rights.”—The Weekly Standard (COME ON, SOME OF YOU GUYS HAVE TO SUPPORT THE TRAITOROUS CONFEDERATES ON THIS STILL?)


1908: The real Pledge of Allegiance is written: “I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag, and to the Savior, for whose Kingdom it stands, one Savior, crucified, risen, and coming again, with life and liberty for all who believe.”—Dan Quayle (THAT THING WRITTEN BY THE SOCIALIST???)

 

[Dad2three]

September 27, 2010

So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?


The 2008 income tax data are now in, so we can assess the fulfillment of the Republican promise that tax cuts would produce widespread prosperity by looking at all the years of the George W. Bush presidency.

Just as they did in 2000, the Republicans are running this year on an economic platform of tax cuts, especially making the tax cuts permanent for the richest among us. So how did the tax cuts work out? My analysis of the new data, with all figures in 2008 dollars:

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

That much additional income would have more than made up for the lack of demand that keeps us mired in the Great Recession.

Tax Analysts -- So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy


The Bush Era Tax Cuts Didn't Create The Wealth They Were Supposed To

The Bush tax cuts were a test of these claims about supply-side economic policies. To justify the tax cuts the nation was, in effect, given a business prospectus from the Republican Party.

We were promised that cutting taxes on the wealthy would result in much higher economic growth and broadly shared prosperity. For those who wondered how we would pay for such a large cut to the government’s revenue stream, the Republican prospectus had a remarkable claim.

The tax cuts wouldn’t cost us anything. Growth would be so strong that the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. Even those who admitted that the tax cuts might not be fully self-financing still made strong claims about faster economic growth offsetting much of the lost revenue from the tax cuts.


The reality, of course, has been quite different

Bush Era Tax Cuts Didn t Fix Economy - Business Insider

 

[Dad2three]

The legacy of the Bush tax cuts, in four charts

The legacy of the Bush tax cuts in four charts - The Washington Post



Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

 

[Dad2three]

15 Things The GOP Doesn't Want You To Know About Taxes And The Debt


(Click a link to jump to the details for each below):

1. President Obama Cut Taxes for Almost All Working Americans
2. Ronald Reagan Tripled the National Debt
3. George W. Bush Doubled the National Debt
4. Reagan Raised Debt Ceiling 17 Times, Bush Seven
5. Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves
6. Almost All Working Americans Pay Taxes
7. The GOP's "Job Creators" Don't Create Jobs
8. Low Capital Gains Taxes Fuel Income Inequality...
9. ...But Not Investment
10. The Estate Tax Has Virtually No Impact on Family Farms and Businesses
11. Income Inequality Has Reached an 80 Year High...
12. ...While the Federal Tax Burden Has Hit a 60 Year Low
13. Romney-Ryan Plan Another Massive Tax Cut Windfall for the Wealthy
14. Romney, Ryan Won't Say Which of the $1 Trillion in Tax Breaks GOP Will End
15. Romney-Ryan Will Add More Debt Than President Obama

 

[Dad2three]

Jan 9, 2015

The private sector has added 11.2 million jobs over 58 straight months of job growth, extending the longest streak on record

Dubya LOST 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years. Even stopping in Dec 2008, PRE his great recession, it was a pathetic 4 million. That 'loser' Carter had 9+ million in a MUCH smaller economy... Weird right?

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dads2 is a pathological liar

I've never seen anything like him. Progressives tend to lie a large part of the time, but Dads2 lies about EVERYTHING

You

Lie

About

Everything

 

[Dad2three]

Jan 9, 2015

The private sector has added 11.2 million jobs over 58 straight months of job growth, extending the longest streak on record

Dubya LOST 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years. Even stopping in Dec 2008, PRE his great recession, it was a pathetic 4 million. That 'loser' Carter had 9+ million in a MUCH smaller economy... Weird right?

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

But let’s take a quick look at the truth about jobs and President Obama.

In the 12 months prior to President Obama taking office, we had lost 4.5 million jobs.

Over half of the 4.35 million jobs we lost while President Obama has been in office came within the first 3 months of his first term.

Let’s look at a 9 month span of job losses covering the 3 months prior to President Obama taking office and the 6 months after:

• Nov: 800,000
• Dec: 650,000
• Jan: 840,000 (Didn’t take office till end of Jan, these go to Bush)
• Feb: 725,000 (Stimulus signed)
• Mar: 787,000 (Announced assistance to the auto industry, aka the auto bailout)
• Apr: 802,000
• May: 312,000
• Jun: 426,000
• Jul: 296,000

So let me put these numbers into perspective, something I know is difficult for many Republicans.

In the 2 months following the signing of the 2009 stimulus, job losses went from monthly losses of 700-800K to 300-400K. For the mathematically challenged, that’s over a 50% decrease in job losses just 2 months after the stimulus was signed.

But I thought the stimulus didn’t work?

In other words, over half of President Obama’s 4.5 million job losses happened his first 3 months in office—when none of his economic policies had enough time to make any kind of impact.

Fun Facts Republicans Don t Want You to Know About Obama s Record on Jobs - Forward Progressives

 

[Dad2three]

Dads2 is a pathological liar

I've never seen anything like him. Progressives tend to lie a large part of the time, but Dads2 lies about EVERYTHING

You

Lie

About

Everything

 

[Faun]

Not a single rebuttal. Good job, dad2three.

A rebuttal to what? Partisan talking points using messaged data by someone much smarter than the OP? What is there to refute?

Calling his points partisan doesn't actually refute them.

First, they are NOT his points. Which then leads you to conclude that there is nothing he has said that needs refuting. He is parroting his betters.

Second.....Post the raw data (not the sanitized data) and then maybe an actual debate can occur. Simply posting data with no context of methodology is meaningless.

So what if they are not his points? They're still valid.

The validity is in dispute based upon what I said.

You need to comprehend a discussion better.

Go get the raw data from each of his little graphs, and then provide the methodology that was used to arrive at the conclusion.

Remove any methodology by anyone who collects a government check for their research on the topic under discussion. Their objectivity is nonexistent.

Sounds more like you're trying avoid topics you know he's right about.

Let's take his first point ... Conservative Christians were on the wrong side of slavery ....

That's kind of hard to deny. The Bible promoted slavery and the Bible belt states seceded from the nation, leading to the Civil war, to keep their slaves.

 

[Dad2three]

The Spectacular Myth of Obama's Part-Time America—in 5 Graphs

Feb 7 2014

A falsifiable claim, falsified

The first thing you would expect to see from a Part-Time America is that the number of part-time jobs added would rival the number of full-time jobs added. But in the last year, new full-time jobs outnumbered part-time jobs by 1.8 million to 8,000. For every new part-time job, we're creating 225 full-time positions.

The Spectacular Myth of Obama s Part-Time America mdash in 5 Graphs - The Atlantic


Jul 14 2014

Here's What Obama's 'Part-Time America' Really Looks Like

The president's critics love this talking point. But since 2010, full-time jobs are up 7.6 million (now at 11+ million private sector jobs) , and part-time jobs have declined by more than 900,000.

Here s What Obama s Part-Time America Really Looks Like - The Atlantic

 

[Avorysuds]

I'm getting so tired of racist liberals posting hate on these boards. There are literally no differences in policy from Bush to Obama... Yet Obama has done wonders and Bush destroyed the world economy????

Not only are these liberals incredibly racist, hate filled but also just demonstrate ignorance to a level rarely seen.

Liberals today like to claim their "new ideas" are better yet they fail to see their "new ideas" are all old ideas that failed in the past. Tell us all your new bright ideas and we can point to periods in time over the last couple thousand years where these ideas were tried and failed. Go ahead!

 

[Dad2three]

On January 9, 2009, the Republican-friendly Wall Street Journal summed it up with an article titled simply, "Bush on Jobs: the Worst Track Record on Record." (The Journal's interactive table quantifies his staggering failure relative to every post-World War II president.) The meager one million jobs created under President Bush didn't merely pale in comparison to the 23 million produced during Bill Clinton's tenure. In September 2009, the Congressional Joint Economic Committee charted Bush's job creation disaster, the worst since Hoover.

That dismal performance prompted David Leonhardt of the New York Times to ask last fall, "Why should we believe that extending the Bush tax cuts will provide a big lift to growth?" His answer was unambiguous:

Those tax cuts passed in 2001 amid big promises about what they would do for the economy. What followed? The decade with the slowest average annual growth since World War II. Amazingly, that statement is true even if you forget about the Great Recession and simply look at 2001-7...

Is there good evidence the tax cuts persuaded more people to join the work force (because they would be able to keep more of their income)? Not really. The labor-force participation rate fell in the years after 2001 and has never again approached its record in the year 2000.

Is there evidence that the tax cuts led to a lot of entrepreneurship and innovation? Again, no. The rate at which start-up businesses created jobs fell during the past decade.

10 Things Republicans Don t Want You to Know About Taxes

 

[Darkwind]

A rebuttal to what? Partisan talking points using messaged data by someone much smarter than the OP? What is there to refute?

Calling his points partisan doesn't actually refute them.

First, they are NOT his points. Which then leads you to conclude that there is nothing he has said that needs refuting. He is parroting his betters.

Second.....Post the raw data (not the sanitized data) and then maybe an actual debate can occur. Simply posting data with no context of methodology is meaningless.

So what if they are not his points? They're still valid.

The validity is in dispute based upon what I said.

You need to comprehend a discussion better.

Go get the raw data from each of his little graphs, and then provide the methodology that was used to arrive at the conclusion.

Remove any methodology by anyone who collects a government check for their research on the topic under discussion. Their objectivity is nonexistent.

SIMPLY GIVE ONE POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF HISTORY ON? Just one PLEASE?

You do understand that simply because you disagree with a policy does not put it on the wrong side of history.

Get back to Me when you can fully explain your own posts.

 

[Avorysuds]

The Spectacular Myth of Obama's Part-Time America—in 5 Graphs

Feb 7 2014

A falsifiable claim, falsified

The first thing you would expect to see from a Part-Time America is that the number of part-time jobs added would rival the number of full-time jobs added. But in the last year, new full-time jobs outnumbered part-time jobs by 1.8 million to 8,000. For every new part-time job, we're creating 225 full-time positions.

The Spectacular Myth of Obama s Part-Time America mdash in 5 Graphs - The Atlantic


Jul 14 2014

Here's What Obama's 'Part-Time America' Really Looks Like

The president's critics love this talking point. But since 2010, full-time jobs are up 7.6 million (now at 11+ million private sector jobs) , and part-time jobs have declined by more than 900,000.

Here s What Obama s Part-Time America Really Looks Like - The Atlantic

So did the do nothing Republican congress cock block Obama or help him create all these jobs you claim appeared despite less actual people working? Pick a talking point and realize that if you use to many you will find yourself with conflicting talking points because they are bullshit lies meant to mislead the public in that moment, not a fact based on reality.

 

[toxicmedia]

If Presidential debates, or for that matter, political punditry, was done in the old west...

Summing up the Obama Presidency would be easy.

The Democratic cowboy would say: "That Obama is a fine feller", then spit.

The Republican cowboy would say: "He ain't", then he would spit too

So fast forward to 2015...

If you find yourselves unconditionally supporting Obama, or unconditionally opposing Obama, you may have been better of living in simpler times.

I'm all for spirited debate on this site, but some original thought would spice things up around here

 

[Avorysuds]

Is the OP really just copy and paste shit in spam form as a way to "debate"?

You can't really get mad at people calling you names when you just spam the hate mail you get onto political debate forums.