Why can't conservatives/GOP learn from history?

[Dad2three]

clinton signed the law putting time limits on welfare recipients. at the time you moron Progs insisted people would starve in the streets. didnt happen
obama gutted the clinton welfare reform

libs are losers who lie to themselves

clinton wouldnt be allowed in your Party today dummy

Your false premises, distortions and LIES, are again noted Bubba,

Nothing in his post was any of that.

YOu are the one lying.

And doing it badly.

Your projection noted Bubba

 

[Dad2three]

Have you self examined the failures of socialism? There are plenty to look at and none that are successful.

EXCEPT the US, Germany, UK, Ireland, Sweden, etc...

Which one is successful? All you have listed are inches away from failure. Which one is thee innovator and has a long term gain?

Now we know why all the great empires in history failed, liberals came to power.

The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster

......and yet Liberals still want Jesus banned from the Courthouse, Statehouse, and Schoolhouse. They'll quote Him to use his Rules against His Followers as per Alinsky. BTW, Jesus never said anything about the State taking money from the People to do His work. Instead, Jesus focused on His Church.

You're cherry picking.

Talk about cherry picking, lol

Yes, Jesus said PAY YOUR DAMN TAXES!

 

[bedowin62]

It was clinton that moved those jobs with nafta

I'd link it, but you have been given those links before and are still lying about it.


obama didn't build anything, he wasted money, that's all

You mean the best conservative Prez since Ike, BJ Bill agreed with Heritages Foundations NAFTA that Ronnie Reagan announced he was for the day he ran for Prez? Yep

You did not address the fact that much of that job loss occurred under Clinton.

That was dishonest of you.

You mean BJ Bill's 22+ million jobs created was really job losses? Talk about being totally screwed up Bubba!




Yes, Clinton was the best Conservative Prez since Ike, YES BJ Bill got Ronnie's NAFTA passed. Yes 60% of Dems in Congress voted against NAFTA AND every other "free trade" agreement.

HONEST ENOUGH DUMMY?

still blaming progresssive failures on others i see?

what will be the excuse for the free trade bills obama's supporting?

Really? Heritage Foundation or Ronnie Reagan are "progressive"?



Hint Obama is the second best conservative Prez since Ike, only BJ Bill is better, but yes even though the majority of Dems oppose "free trade" deals, Obama will get a majority of GOPers to support it!

nice chasing your tail stupid! YOU were the one that said since Clinton raised the top tax rates then "trickle-down" didnt apply on his watch; when i noted you were crying about "35 years" of supply-side economics

try again

 

[bedowin62]

clinton signed the law putting time limits on welfare recipients. at the time you moron Progs insisted people would starve in the streets. didnt happen
obama gutted the clinton welfare reform

libs are losers who lie to themselves

clinton wouldnt be allowed in your Party today dummy

Your false premises, distortions and LIES, are again noted Bubba,

Nothing in his post was any of that.

YOu are the one lying.

And doing it badly.

Your projection noted Bubba

your deflection is noted dummy. you said i lied and distorted things. what part in what i posted earlier is a lie, false premise, or distortion?

 

[Dad2three]

From 2001 to 2008, millions of jobs were moved to China and over 40,000 factories closed. Those jobs are gone and those factories are gone. How do you recover from such a blow to the country? That was what was handed to Obama from the GOP. It's way easier to fix something if it's still there to be fixed. If it's gone, you can't fix it. You need to rebuild from scratch.

It was clinton that moved those jobs with nafta

I'd link it, but you have been given those links before and are still lying about it.


obama didn't build anything, he wasted money, that's all

You mean the best conservative Prez since Ike, BJ Bill agreed with Heritages Foundations NAFTA that Ronnie Reagan announced he was for the day he ran for Prez? Yep

You did not address the fact that much of that job loss occurred under Clinton.

That was dishonest of you.

You mean BJ Bill's 22+ million jobs created was really job losses? Talk about being totally screwed up Bubba!




Yes, Clinton was the best Conservative Prez since Ike, YES BJ Bill got Ronnie's NAFTA passed. Yes 60% of Dems in Congress voted against NAFTA AND every other "free trade" agreement.

HONEST ENOUGH DUMMY?

.


arent you the idiot that says the fact that Clinton hiked taxes means "trickle-down" wasnt in effect on h is watch?

now you're saying he was a conservative?

contradicting yourself again

idiot

weird how tiny your brain is Bubba. Seriously...

 

[bedowin62]

It was clinton that moved those jobs with nafta

I'd link it, but you have been given those links before and are still lying about it.


obama didn't build anything, he wasted money, that's all

You mean the best conservative Prez since Ike, BJ Bill agreed with Heritages Foundations NAFTA that Ronnie Reagan announced he was for the day he ran for Prez? Yep

You did not address the fact that much of that job loss occurred under Clinton.

That was dishonest of you.

You mean BJ Bill's 22+ million jobs created was really job losses? Talk about being totally screwed up Bubba!




Yes, Clinton was the best Conservative Prez since Ike, YES BJ Bill got Ronnie's NAFTA passed. Yes 60% of Dems in Congress voted against NAFTA AND every other "free trade" agreement.

HONEST ENOUGH DUMMY?

.


arent you the idiot that says the fact that Clinton hiked taxes means "trickle-down" wasnt in effect on h is watch?

now you're saying he was a conservative?

contradicting yourself again

idiot

weird how tiny your brain is Bubba. Seriously...

is this what you do when caught in your own bullshit? you know you said it lol!

 

[Dad2three]

You mean the best conservative Prez since Ike, BJ Bill agreed with Heritages Foundations NAFTA that Ronnie Reagan announced he was for the day he ran for Prez? Yep

You did not address the fact that much of that job loss occurred under Clinton.

That was dishonest of you.

You mean BJ Bill's 22+ million jobs created was really job losses? Talk about being totally screwed up Bubba!




Yes, Clinton was the best Conservative Prez since Ike, YES BJ Bill got Ronnie's NAFTA passed. Yes 60% of Dems in Congress voted against NAFTA AND every other "free trade" agreement.

HONEST ENOUGH DUMMY?

still blaming progresssive failures on others i see?

what will be the excuse for the free trade bills obama's supporting?

Really? Heritage Foundation or Ronnie Reagan are "progressive"?



Hint Obama is the second best conservative Prez since Ike, only BJ Bill is better, but yes even though the majority of Dems oppose "free trade" deals, Obama will get a majority of GOPers to support it!

nice chasing your tail stupid! YOU were the one that said since Clinton raised the top tax rates then "trickle-down" didnt apply on his watch; when i noted you were crying about "35 years" of supply-side economics

try again

Hint just because Clinton took a BITE out of "trickle down", even under him, the EFFECTIVE tax rates for the top 1/10th of 1% were HALF of what they were pre Reaganomics (1932-1980)

Learn WHAT supply side is Bubba

 

[Dad2three]

clinton signed the law putting time limits on welfare recipients. at the time you moron Progs insisted people would starve in the streets. didnt happen
obama gutted the clinton welfare reform

libs are losers who lie to themselves

clinton wouldnt be allowed in your Party today dummy

Your false premises, distortions and LIES, are again noted Bubba,

Nothing in his post was any of that.

YOu are the one lying.

And doing it badly.

Your projection noted Bubba

your deflection is noted dummy. you said i lied and distorted things. what part in what i posted earlier is a lie, false premise, or distortion?

What do you post that isn't Bubba?

 

[bedowin62]

clinton signed the law putting time limits on welfare recipients. at the time you moron Progs insisted people would starve in the streets. didnt happen
obama gutted the clinton welfare reform

libs are losers who lie to themselves

clinton wouldnt be allowed in your Party today dummy

Your false premises, distortions and LIES, are again noted Bubba,

Nothing in his post was any of that.

YOu are the one lying.

And doing it badly.

Your projection noted Bubba

your deflection is noted dummy. you said i lied and distorted things. what part in what i posted earlier is a lie, false premise, or distortion?

What do you post that isn't Bubba?

another deflection. white flag noted

YAWN

 

[bedowin62]

IT'S SO HARD TO GET A LEFT-WINGER TO BE A MAN. you're a dad, but are you a man who can admit when he's wrong?

now arent you all over this board and every board whining about "30 years of failed Reagan policies" or something to that effect? you know you are

now when i asked you what it was in the clinton years that produced the great economy if not the same trickle-down since YOU said "30 years" you said the clinton years didnt count isnt that right?

 

[bedowin62]

............................SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

then i noted that you were whining about trade agreements and you still are here that were made in the clinton years.
i said so TO YOU all that is required to not be "trickle-down" is to raise taxes on the richest?
nevermind that clinton also lowered the capital gains tax which is how the richest make their money, which you also noted.
nevermind that he limited welfare; something you progs scream about nowadays?

then how can you say you didnt contradict yourself?

it was either trickle-down or it wasnt
it was either a good time economically or it wasnt

 

[Billy000]

Lol why can't any RWs address the actual facts in the OP?

 

[bedowin62]

Lol why can't any RWs address the actual facts in the OP?

yawn; what are you afraid of now son?

 

[bedowin62]

Lol why can't any RWs address the actual facts in the OP?

yawn

the OP made in his OP a bunch of idiotic statements that are more demonization than issues one can debate. he didnt even back up most of them himself, just whined about learning from history..............

for example the minimum wage. has it been hiked all that much? we both know it hasnt, we both know the left wants it higher. but he cites IDIOT, in his OP. about "LEARNING FROM HISTORY". WELL THEN WHAT HISTORY is he talking about since it STILL isnt where you guys want it to be?

 

[bedowin62]

Lol why can't any RWs address the actual facts in the OP?

you have nothing of substance to post. i cant believe you have a picture of a brain in your avatar.

i want yours if i ever need another one though, i know yours has NEVER BEEN USED.

 

[Dad2three]

IT'S SO HARD TO GET A LEFT-WINGER TO BE A MAN. you're a dad, but are you a man who can admit when he's wrong?

now arent you all over this board and every board whining about "30 years of failed Reagan policies" or something to that effect? you know you are

now when i asked you what it was in the clinton years that produced the great economy if not the same trickle-down since YOU said "30 years" you said the clinton years didnt count isnt that right?

Weird you can't understand English? You must be a poor red stater right?

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital.


According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation

Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



AGAIN, Sinve even though Clinton/Dems increased the top tax rate to 39.6% (all GOPers voted no, of course), they only got the EFFECTIVE rates back to about half what the top 1/10th of 1% paid 1932-1980...You know when Ronnie GUTTED top tax rates from 70% to 28%

 

[Dad2three]

............................SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

then i noted that you were whining about trade agreements and you still are here that were made in the clinton years.
i said so TO YOU all that is required to not be "trickle-down" is to raise taxes on the richest?
nevermind that clinton also lowered the capital gains tax which is how the richest make their money, which you also noted.
nevermind that he limited welfare; something you progs scream about nowadays?

then how can you say you didnt contradict yourself?

it was either trickle-down or it wasnt
it was either a good time economically or it wasnt

Yes, right wingers LOVE simple answers to complex issues.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

since Dad23 is a talking-point spewing idiot

what is the Left's economic theory called? dont say Keynesian theory because that is a joke, true adherents of that will say that isnt what the Left espouses

and where is it working?
and in the clinton years you brag about; wasnt that trickle-down economics dummy?

Yeah, Clinton increasing the top rate from 31% to 39.6% and creating 3 new brackets was "supply side" *shaking head*


Middle Class Series: The Failure of Supply-Side Economics

Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn’t Work

Adherents of the economic theory known as supply-side economics contend that by cutting taxes on the rich we will unleash an avalanche of new investment that will spur economic growth, and boost job creation, leading to economic improvements for everyone. For most of the past 30 years this idea has dominated the economic debate, resulting in two sustained eras of tax cuts aimed at the wealthy, separated by a brief respite in the 1990s.

Now, as our economy struggles to emerge from the deepest recession in generations—and as we argue over what to do with the expiring Bush-era tax cuts—it is more important than ever to understand one simple fact: When put to the test in the real world, supply-side policies did not deliver as promised. In fact, by every important measure, our nation’s economic performance after the tax increases of 1993 significantly outpaced that of the periods following the tax cuts of the early 1980s and the early 2000s.



The Failure of Supply-Side Economics



Why the GOP Won't Admit Supply-Side Econ Has Failed


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. There is little evidence that the Bush tax cuts, or any other tax cuts directed at the so-called job creators, have had a noticeable effect on economic growth. And the promise of broadly shared prosperity has not been realized. Most of the gains from economic growth in recent decades have gone to the top of the income distribution while the inflation adjusted wages of the working class have been relatively flat. Furthermore, the tax cuts have not paid for themselves as promised, and it hasn’t even been close. The Bush tax cuts have already cost us trillions in revenue, and if they are extended for high income tax payers, they will cost us roughly another trillion over the next decade.

Why the GOP Won't Admit Supply-Side Econ Has Failed

Gee, a piece from that bastion of left wing lunacy, Center for American Progress.



Come on, usually you're at least good for some nonsensical cartoon!

 

[Dad2three]

since Dad23 is a talking-point spewing idiot

what is the Left's economic theory called? dont say Keynesian theory because that is a joke, true adherents of that will say that isnt what the Left espouses

and where is it working?
and in the clinton years you brag about; wasnt that trickle-down economics dummy?

Yeah, Clinton increasing the top rate from 31% to 39.6% and creating 3 new brackets was "supply side" *shaking head*


Middle Class Series: The Failure of Supply-Side Economics

Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn’t Work

Adherents of the economic theory known as supply-side economics contend that by cutting taxes on the rich we will unleash an avalanche of new investment that will spur economic growth, and boost job creation, leading to economic improvements for everyone. For most of the past 30 years this idea has dominated the economic debate, resulting in two sustained eras of tax cuts aimed at the wealthy, separated by a brief respite in the 1990s.

Now, as our economy struggles to emerge from the deepest recession in generations—and as we argue over what to do with the expiring Bush-era tax cuts—it is more important than ever to understand one simple fact: When put to the test in the real world, supply-side policies did not deliver as promised. In fact, by every important measure, our nation’s economic performance after the tax increases of 1993 significantly outpaced that of the periods following the tax cuts of the early 1980s and the early 2000s.



The Failure of Supply-Side Economics



Why the GOP Won't Admit Supply-Side Econ Has Failed


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. There is little evidence that the Bush tax cuts, or any other tax cuts directed at the so-called job creators, have had a noticeable effect on economic growth. And the promise of broadly shared prosperity has not been realized. Most of the gains from economic growth in recent decades have gone to the top of the income distribution while the inflation adjusted wages of the working class have been relatively flat. Furthermore, the tax cuts have not paid for themselves as promised, and it hasn’t even been close. The Bush tax cuts have already cost us trillions in revenue, and if they are extended for high income tax payers, they will cost us roughly another trillion over the next decade.

Why the GOP Won't Admit Supply-Side Econ Has Failed

Gee, a piece from that bastion of left wing lunacy, Center for American Progress.



Come on, usually you're at least good for some nonsensical cartoon!

Good job Bubba, you refuted the data and logic they presented right? Oh wait no, you just did your usual ad hom. Shocking

 

[LeftofLeft]

since Dad23 is a talking-point spewing idiot

what is the Left's economic theory called? dont say Keynesian theory because that is a joke, true adherents of that will say that isnt what the Left espouses

and where is it working?
and in the clinton years you brag about; wasnt that trickle-down economics dummy?

Yeah, Clinton increasing the top rate from 31% to 39.6% and creating 3 new brackets was "supply side" *shaking head*


Middle Class Series: The Failure of Supply-Side Economics

Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn’t Work

Adherents of the economic theory known as supply-side economics contend that by cutting taxes on the rich we will unleash an avalanche of new investment that will spur economic growth, and boost job creation, leading to economic improvements for everyone. For most of the past 30 years this idea has dominated the economic debate, resulting in two sustained eras of tax cuts aimed at the wealthy, separated by a brief respite in the 1990s.

Now, as our economy struggles to emerge from the deepest recession in generations—and as we argue over what to do with the expiring Bush-era tax cuts—it is more important than ever to understand one simple fact: When put to the test in the real world, supply-side policies did not deliver as promised. In fact, by every important measure, our nation’s economic performance after the tax increases of 1993 significantly outpaced that of the periods following the tax cuts of the early 1980s and the early 2000s.



The Failure of Supply-Side Economics



Why the GOP Won't Admit Supply-Side Econ Has Failed


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. There is little evidence that the Bush tax cuts, or any other tax cuts directed at the so-called job creators, have had a noticeable effect on economic growth. And the promise of broadly shared prosperity has not been realized. Most of the gains from economic growth in recent decades have gone to the top of the income distribution while the inflation adjusted wages of the working class have been relatively flat. Furthermore, the tax cuts have not paid for themselves as promised, and it hasn’t even been close. The Bush tax cuts have already cost us trillions in revenue, and if they are extended for high income tax payers, they will cost us roughly another trillion over the next decade.

Why the GOP Won't Admit Supply-Side Econ Has Failed

Gee, a piece from that bastion of left wing lunacy, Center for American Progress.



Come on, usually you're at least good for some nonsensical cartoon!

Good job Bubba, you refuted the data and logic they presented right? Oh wait no, you just did your usual ad hom. Shocking

Cut'n'Paste Boy thinks he debates. Cut, Paste, and call everybody Bubba.