Why are conservatives clueless about our Constitution?

[Dad2three]

Conservatives wrap themselves in the Constitution and act like they are the only ones concerned with the founders principles in crafting this great document

The key component of our Constitution that Conservatives have declared war on is the idea of compromise. Our founders created a form of governent that was built on the assumption that there would be compromise. Congressmen and Senators must compromise with each other to craft a bill and get it passed....

I will give you this if you will give me that

That is how our government has functioned for hundreds of years. Instead, Conservatives have instituted a policy of....If I don't get my way, nothing will get done

That attitude is an insult to our founders who formed our very government out of compromise

Dumbass, Conservatives have always been the biggest protector of the Constitution overall ! Geeez!

Except that entire Civil war thing by the Southern conservatives, or the guys who want to secede, or pushing GOD into the Constitution or voting rights to WHITE, MALE property owners or the direct election of Senators or the 16th giving Gov't the authority on tax collection or the biggie, NATURAL BORN rights of citizenship upon BIRTH!

 

[Dad2three]

Know who's famous for being unwilling to compromise politically? Ayn Rand.

"There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction."

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."

Yep. She rightly pointed out that those who are continually calling for compromise are almost always scumbags.

The woman who spoke out against Gov't programs such as SS/Medicare then turned around and used them?

 

[Dad2three]

Far right jihadists in the Middle East refuse to compromise too.

One far-right wacko is much like another, regardless of geography.

Wow! So now Republicans are akin to terrorists??????

Thank you for proving me right.

Didn't I tell you liberals demonize their opposition to give a rationale of why THEY don't have to compromise?

"So now Republicans are akin to terrorists??????"

Yep, it used to be just the FARRR right conservatives, but the past 20+ years, the GOP has harbored the the terrorists under 'freedom loving' misogynists like Rushblo

 

[Uncensored2008]

Abortion is the law of the land. If you want someone to compromise what they already have, you have to offer up something in return

How about some gun control?

Yeah shitflinger, abortion is found in the Constitution, unlike the right to keep and bear arms.

Your honesty and integrity are consistent.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The woman who spoke out against Gov't programs such as SS/Medicare then turned around and used them?

I have a neighbor who speaks out against pot holes, yet still drives on roads.

Shocking, isn't it?

 

[Dad2three]

NO serious economists thinks Reagan tax cuts for the rich and increasing federal SS taxes by 60% on the middle class brought in more revenues. NONE

Economists measure it via percent of GDP

Carter had US at 19.1% his last F/Y

Ronnie took US to 17%

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

So when Reagan said;

{Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.}

he was lying?

Oh wait, that was John F. Kennedy, not Reagan..

As for revenues;

{Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).}

Historic Tax Cuts and Economic Growth Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

And while the 18.5% revenue to GDP for Carteer (you just couldn't resist lying.) verses the 17.6% for Reagan - both for final year in office, gets uneducated trolls like you hard, it is of little meaning, given the heavy manipulation of the calculation of GDP.

Here is a sample of what real economists - rather than partisan hacks have to say on the subject.

EconomicPolicyJournal.com Peter Schiff on the New GDP Number Manipulation

Got it, YOU are an ignorant tool (repetitive as you are conservative)

CARTERS LAST F/Y BUDGET STARTED OCT 1980 WHICH WAS THE F/Y 1981 BUDGET WHICH HAD 19.1% OF GDP IN REVENUES!!!


Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

You meant LBJ who got JFK's DEMAND side tax cuts through that BY DESIGN, GOT RID OF LOOPHOLES AND LOWERED THE RATES FROM 91% TO 70%? LOL
'
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.

Weird, taking US from 19.1% to 17% is an increase? Even though the VAST majority of Ronnie's NEW revenues were SS which he increased 60%? lol


AND RONNIE HAVING A 50% TAX RATE AT THE TOP FOR HIS FIRST 6 YEARS? DAMN SOCIALIST!!!


GOING FROM 9.1% INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES IN CARTERS LAST YEAR TO 8% IN RONNIE'S IS WHAT?
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP


No, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves


In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.

No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues No Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue - Bush Tax Cuts Reagan Tax Cuts - Facts Fact and Myth

 

[Dad2three]

The woman who spoke out against Gov't programs such as SS/Medicare then turned around and used them?

I have a neighbor who speaks out against pot holes, yet still drives on roads.

Shocking, isn't it?

She 'compromised' her values then?

YOU WROTE THIS ABOUT HER

"Yep. She rightly pointed out that those who are continually calling for compromise are almost always scumbags."

 

[Uncensored2008]

She 'compromised' her values then?

Nope, she was forced to buy an inferior product, only a fool would have refused to use what she had purchased.

YOU WROTE THIS ABOUT HER

"Yep. She rightly pointed out that those who are continually calling for compromise are almost always scumbags."

I did?

Just as with your ignorance on economics, what you post here bears little relation to reality.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Got it, YOU are an ignorant tool (repetitive as you are conservative)

CARTERS LAST F/Y BUDGET STARTED OCT 1980 WHICH WAS THE F/Y 1981 BUDGET WHICH HAD 19.1% OF GDP IN REVENUES!!!

Carter was no longer in office, a more accurate measure is the last year in office, not a budget imposed on a successor.

You meant LBJ who got JFK's DEMAND side tax cuts through that BY DESIGN, GOT RID OF LOOPHOLES AND LOWERED THE RATES FROM 91% TO 70%? LOL

This gobbledygook alone proves you have not a ******* clue what you're talking about, you cut and paste blindly with no clue.

"JFK's DEMAND side tax cuts"

Now just what the **** do you imagine yourself to be saying?

Let's start with some basics, demand side - does it even exist? LOL, hardly. A frustrated political hack in the 1990's named Krugman floated the term in some bizarre reaction to the supply side theories of Laffer, et al.

"demand side" is a stupid term, an absurdity which only the dolts sniffing the flatulence of Krugman would ever utter. BUT if we were to take seriously the concept that there ever was a "demand side" school of thought, instead of simply Krugmans hash of misstated Keynesian theory, then would tax cuts be demand side?

ROFL - no. Keynes postulated stimulus and capital turns resulting from deficit spending. Tax cuts are distinctly supply side concept, straight out of the playbook of Laffer or the Austrians.

'I'm not going to bother with your uncited cut & paste, because the two lines that were your original thoughts demonstrate the depth of the void in your understanding of basic economics.

You use terms with no clue as to what they mean, You are a partisan hack with a desire for the democratic party to ""win," though I cannot imagine that you could articulate what it is you think they should win.

Paul Krugman is a hack as well. Krugman perverts economic principle to manipulate the stupid. The difference is that Krugman actually knows the theories involved and distorts for effect. You OTH, have not a ******* clue what you're babbling about, relying on cut & paste from the hate sites to bluff your way through.

The problem is, you really fool no one.

 

[bripat9643]

Know who's famous for being unwilling to compromise politically? Ayn Rand.

"There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction."

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."

Yep. She rightly pointed out that those who are continually calling for compromise are almost always scumbags.

The woman who spoke out against Gov't programs such as SS/Medicare then turned around and used them?

Assuming she did, which is

The woman who spoke out against Gov't programs such as SS/Medicare then turned around and used them?

I have a neighbor who speaks out against pot holes, yet still drives on roads.

Shocking, isn't it?

She 'compromised' her values then?

YOU WROTE THIS ABOUT HER

"Yep. She rightly pointed out that those who are continually calling for compromise are almost always scumbags."

Actually, I wrote that, numskull.

 

[TooTall]

Yeah democrats have mastered compromisin with themselves.

Democrats filled their bills with options to appeal to Republicans....tax cuts, the GOP health bill from 92, individual mandate

100% of Republicans voted no

I don't think you understand what the word compromise means. Here's a hint: it doesn't mean telling the other side what their opinions are and then agreeing with them.

They were Republican ideas until they were supported by Obama

Republicans have taken a position that anything Obama supports, they will oppose out of principle. Even their own ideas
Bush proposes TARP....Republicans AND Democrats supported it for the good of the country
Obama proposes additional TARP and EVERY Republican votes against it

That is what constitutes compromise for Republicans

TARP didn't include a Keynesian stimulus and the American Recovery Act did

TARP did not include stimulus
The stimulus bill did

Two seperate bills....both with 100% Republican opposition

Answer the question: Why did Republicans vote for TARP when Bush needs it and be 100% opposed when Obama needs it?

Maybe the Republicans had a crystal ball and knew that Obama would piss away taxpayers money on green companies owned by his donors that would go bankrupt. Or maybe they knew there were no 'shovel ready jobs'

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, YOU are an ignorant tool (repetitive as you are conservative)

CARTERS LAST F/Y BUDGET STARTED OCT 1980 WHICH WAS THE F/Y 1981 BUDGET WHICH HAD 19.1% OF GDP IN REVENUES!!!

Carter was no longer in office, a more accurate measure is the last year in office, not a budget imposed on a successor.

You meant LBJ who got JFK's DEMAND side tax cuts through that BY DESIGN, GOT RID OF LOOPHOLES AND LOWERED THE RATES FROM 91% TO 70%? LOL

This gobbledygook alone proves you have not a ******* clue what you're talking about, you cut and paste blindly with no clue.

"JFK's DEMAND side tax cuts"

Now just what the **** do you imagine yourself to be saying?

Let's start with some basics, demand side - does it even exist? LOL, hardly. A frustrated political hack in the 1990's named Krugman floated the term in some bizarre reaction to the supply side theories of Laffer, et al.

"demand side" is a stupid term, an absurdity which only the dolts sniffing the flatulence of Krugman would ever utter. BUT if we were to take seriously the concept that there ever was a "demand side" school of thought, instead of simply Krugmans hash of misstated Keynesian theory, then would tax cuts be demand side?

ROFL - no. Keynes postulated stimulus and capital turns resulting from deficit spending. Tax cuts are distinctly supply side concept, straight out of the playbook of Laffer or the Austrians.

'I'm not going to bother with your uncited cut & paste, because the two lines that were your original thoughts demonstrate the depth of the void in your understanding of basic economics.

You use terms with no clue as to what they mean, You are a partisan hack with a desire for the democratic party to ""win," though I cannot imagine that you could articulate what it is you think they should win.

Paul Krugman is a hack as well. Krugman perverts economic principle to manipulate the stupid. The difference is that Krugman actually knows the theories involved and distorts for effect. You OTH, have not a ******* clue what you're babbling about, relying on cut & paste from the hate sites to bluff your way through.

The problem is, you really fool no one.

Weird, you mean the guy in office Oct 1 NOW isn't expected to take credit or blame for the budget passed, it's the guy taking office Jan 20th? Weird EVERY past Prez took responsibility for the budget since NO US Prez has a functioning team and budget day 1!!!

CARTER HAD 19.1% OF REVENUES, YES RONNIE GUTTED REVENUES THAT YEAR TOO!!!

ONCE MORE WITH THE LINK YOU SAID WASN'T CITED, LOL

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.

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again—meaning the deficit would be short-lived.


At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."


THE LINK BUBBA

JFK the demand-side tax cutter.

EVERYTHING ELSE YOU POSIT IS RIGHT WING GARBAGE


ONE POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF HISTORY ON IN THE US? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, YOU are an ignorant tool (repetitive as you are conservative)

CARTERS LAST F/Y BUDGET STARTED OCT 1980 WHICH WAS THE F/Y 1981 BUDGET WHICH HAD 19.1% OF GDP IN REVENUES!!!

Carter was no longer in office, a more accurate measure is the last year in office, not a budget imposed on a successor.

You meant LBJ who got JFK's DEMAND side tax cuts through that BY DESIGN, GOT RID OF LOOPHOLES AND LOWERED THE RATES FROM 91% TO 70%? LOL

This gobbledygook alone proves you have not a ******* clue what you're talking about, you cut and paste blindly with no clue.

"JFK's DEMAND side tax cuts"

Now just what the **** do you imagine yourself to be saying?

Let's start with some basics, demand side - does it even exist? LOL, hardly. A frustrated political hack in the 1990's named Krugman floated the term in some bizarre reaction to the supply side theories of Laffer, et al.

"demand side" is a stupid term, an absurdity which only the dolts sniffing the flatulence of Krugman would ever utter. BUT if we were to take seriously the concept that there ever was a "demand side" school of thought, instead of simply Krugmans hash of misstated Keynesian theory, then would tax cuts be demand side?

ROFL - no. Keynes postulated stimulus and capital turns resulting from deficit spending. Tax cuts are distinctly supply side concept, straight out of the playbook of Laffer or the Austrians.

'I'm not going to bother with your uncited cut & paste, because the two lines that were your original thoughts demonstrate the depth of the void in your understanding of basic economics.

You use terms with no clue as to what they mean, You are a partisan hack with a desire for the democratic party to ""win," though I cannot imagine that you could articulate what it is you think they should win.

Paul Krugman is a hack as well. Krugman perverts economic principle to manipulate the stupid. The difference is that Krugman actually knows the theories involved and distorts for effect. You OTH, have not a ******* clue what you're babbling about, relying on cut & paste from the hate sites to bluff your way through.

The problem is, you really fool no one.

Demand side economics is an outgrowth from Keynesian economics, which is of course itself the economic theories espoused by John Maynard Keynes. Keynesian economics proposed a series of economic ideas that ran contrary to the classic economic formulations, notably the concept of counter-cyclical budget management as a means to mitigate the ebb and flow of economic cycles of glut and recession. For Keynes, aggregate demand from businesses, the government and consumers is a more important influencing economic activity than free market forces. Keynesian economics disagrees with the classical economics of Adam Smith and others by maintaining that unfettered free markets do not inevitably lead to full employment.

To accomplish this, Keynes proposed that, contrary to accepted economic theories, a government ought to cut taxes and increase infrastructure spending during an economic downturn, and focus on increasing tax revenue during an economic upturn.

Demand side economics comes into play when the increases in infrastructure spending and cuts in taxes results in an increase in the nominal wages of those who tend to spend the greatest portion of their income on consumables. Keynes viewed excessive saving and investment as a potential harm to the economy, since giving additional income to the rich gives them a low marginal incentive to spend, whereas giving additional income to the poor and middle class provides a high marginal incentive for additional spending -- which results in improved business income and grows the economy.

Since Keynes, worldwide governments have felt they have a duty to maintain employment at a high level
Demand side economics - RationalWiki

 

[Dad2three]

Democrats filled their bills with options to appeal to Republicans....tax cuts, the GOP health bill from 92, individual mandate

100% of Republicans voted no

I don't think you understand what the word compromise means. Here's a hint: it doesn't mean telling the other side what their opinions are and then agreeing with them.

They were Republican ideas until they were supported by Obama

Republicans have taken a position that anything Obama supports, they will oppose out of principle. Even their own ideas
Bush proposes TARP....Republicans AND Democrats supported it for the good of the country
Obama proposes additional TARP and EVERY Republican votes against it

That is what constitutes compromise for Republicans

TARP didn't include a Keynesian stimulus and the American Recovery Act did

TARP did not include stimulus
The stimulus bill did

Two seperate bills....both with 100% Republican opposition

Answer the question: Why did Republicans vote for TARP when Bush needs it and be 100% opposed when Obama needs it?

Maybe the Republicans had a crystal ball and knew that Obama would piss away taxpayers money on green companies owned by his donors that would go bankrupt. Or maybe they knew there were no 'shovel ready jobs'

Solyndra=1% of DOE energy money


Reuters: Venture Capitalists Point To Solyndra As One Of The Top 10 Companies "Ripest" To Go Public. Reuters reported in August 2009:
Investors eye top startups as IPO market awakens - Aug. 19 2009


Market Conditions Shifted Significantly from 2009 to 2011


"advantages that were more important in 2009 when it received a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee to build a factory" than they are now, noting that the price of the silicon-based panels with which Solyndra was competing "has fallen 46 percent since then."
Obama s Solar Bets May Avoid Solyndra s Fate With Low Costs - Bloomberg

Bush Admin. Advanced16 Projects, Including Solyndra, Out Of 143 Submissions
Hearings and Votes Energy Commerce Committee

DOE Under Bush Admin. Set Out Timeline For Completing Solyndra Review
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/Solar Background Document 1.pdf

In March, The Same Credit Committee Of Career Civil Servants recommended Approval
Exclusive Timeline Bush Administration Advanced Solyndra Loan Guarantee for Two Years Media Blow the Story ThinkProgress

 

[protectionist]

This thread has outlived its usefulness. And not one word about the huge concession made by conservatives for 225 years, on the Supremacy Clause and Muslims.

 

[Listening]

Conservatives wrap themselves in the Constitution and act like they are the only ones concerned with the founders principles in crafting this great document

The key component of our Constitution that Conservatives have declared war on is the idea of compromise. Our founders created a form of governent that was built on the assumption that there would be compromise. Congressmen and Senators must compromise with each other to craft a bill and get it passed....

I will give you this if you will give me that

That is how our government has functioned for hundreds of years. Instead, Conservatives have instituted a policy of....If I don't get my way, nothing will get done

That attitude is an insult to our founders who formed our very government out of compromise

The short answer to the question that is the title of this thread is that a great many Conservatives are simply just plain old ignorant, hate-filled assholes.

There, that pretty much covers it.

There is an analysis that Statistikdork can be proud of.

 

[Listening]

I guess I had to stop ROTFLMAO when I saw RightWinger talking about others being clueless on the USC.

Man that was funny.

 

[rightwinger]

Democrats filled their bills with options to appeal to Republicans....tax cuts, the GOP health bill from 92, individual mandate

100% of Republicans voted no

I don't think you understand what the word compromise means. Here's a hint: it doesn't mean telling the other side what their opinions are and then agreeing with them.

They were Republican ideas until they were supported by Obama

Republicans have taken a position that anything Obama supports, they will oppose out of principle. Even their own ideas
Bush proposes TARP....Republicans AND Democrats supported it for the good of the country
Obama proposes additional TARP and EVERY Republican votes against it

That is what constitutes compromise for Republicans

TARP didn't include a Keynesian stimulus and the American Recovery Act did

TARP did not include stimulus
The stimulus bill did

Two seperate bills....both with 100% Republican opposition

Answer the question: Why did Republicans vote for TARP when Bush needs it and be 100% opposed when Obama needs it?

Maybe the Republicans had a crystal ball and knew that Obama would piss away taxpayers money on green companies owned by his donors that would go bankrupt. Or maybe they knew there were no 'shovel ready jobs'

Maybe they were more interested in partisan politics than helping the country

 

[rightwinger]

I guess I had to stop ROTFLMAO when I saw RightWinger talking about others being clueless on the USC.

Man that was funny.

I'm game

Go for it....dazzle me

 

[rightwinger]

This thread has outlived its usefulness. And not one word about the huge concession made by conservatives for 225 years, on the Supremacy Clause and Muslims.

What "concession" did conservatives make on Muslims?