Worshipping The Evil Rich

[MaggieMae]

No no... the most rabid of heretics were once priests of their former beliefs or flat out insane. Muggsy here is sure proving that's true.

Oh wait... I have to edit this. She supported HW against Reagan. Of course! That makes sense. HW called Supply Side economics "Voodoo Economics". Economically, the man was a moron who had a recession in his presidency brought on by his own missteps in that arena.

So she's just a leftist elitist, but an elitist none the less. Explains a ton.

H.W.'s economy was the result of taking on Reagan's huge deficit. What kind of revisionist history do you read? Seriously...I'd like to know.

Still aren't able to support your allegations I see.

I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong, not illustrate more of your idiocy.

You're so smart, check a history book that contains the truth yourself. When Reagan took office, the national debt stood at $995 billion. By the end of H.W.'s presidency, it had exploded to $4 trillion. Reagan's "supply side economics" backfired, big time.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I never said he wasn't a billionnaire, genius. But the way you people go on and on about his wealth, you'd think he was the ONLY billionnaire who ever supported people of his own personal choosing.

You're a fucking idiot.

Your dim-witted pal Madeline brought up "mega-rich" folks and I asked about Soros and you, you dipshit, brought out Forbes' Worlds Richest Billionaires and stated you didn't see Soros' name on it, which it is in fact there, and that means you are either a blind idiot, stupid or just a plain ol' liar.Which is it?

For the record I like rich people and I think rich people should be able to spend their money and support whoever the fuck they choose. You liberal idiots need to stop hating on people.

I looked at the top 25 billionnaires. Obviously Soros would be among the complete list because he's, well, a billionnaire. It ain't rocket science and I wasn't trying to present it as such. Again, I was trying to prove that you assholes make it appear that Soros is the only rich person who's ever thrown money into a campaign. When you shut the fuck up about that, I'll shut the fuck up about Soros. But hey, I know that if George Soros isn't mentioned at least once on FoxNews every day, you might actually forget that you're supposed to spread the propaganda.

What does it matter anyway? By the time mid-terms are over in a couple of weeks, campaign donations will reach $4 billion by some estimates. FOUR FUCKING BILLION DOLLARS!! Thanks to the USSC decision which, in effect, eliminated the $5,000 maximum donation by any person or corporation. Now they can donate a million or even ten million if they so desire.

The only people that seem to have a problem with rich folks are you retarded liberals.

Everytime you post you reinforce my belief that you are truly retarded.

A little off topic but I think it's relevant.

"Who pays for campaigns can become a campaign issue; there’s a long record of challengers accusing their opponents of being beholden to outside interests.

“This fundraising strength on the state level is just one result of the grassroots support that is growing for Republican candidates,” said National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Paul Lindsay. “Ultimately this helps Republican candidates get the resources they need to compete in tough races and get their message out to voters between now and November.”

For instance, in North Dakota, Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D) is facing a close reelection contest against longtime state Rep. Rick Berg (R). More than 81 percent of the $643,000 that Pomeroy’s campaign collected from individuals (as opposed to PACs) cames from outside the Roughrider State. Conversely, nearly 85 percent of Berg’s individual donors live inside North Dakota.

Almost 60 percent of Rep. Paul Kanjorski’s (D-Pa.) $500,000 in individual donations came from outside of the Keystone State. His Republican challenger, Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, has raised 88 percent of his personal checks from Pennsylvanians.

The lawmaker with the largest proportion of individual donations from other states is Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who raised more than 98 percent of his individual donor dollars from non-Ohio residents."

Say Anything Republicans Getting More In-State Contributions Than Democrats

 

[Big Fitz]

H.W.'s economy was the result of taking on Reagan's huge deficit. What kind of revisionist history do you read? Seriously...I'd like to know.

Still aren't able to support your allegations I see.

I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong, not illustrate more of your idiocy.

You're so smart, check a history book that contains the truth yourself. When Reagan took office, the national debt stood at $995 billion. By the end of H.W.'s presidency, it had exploded to $4 trillion. Reagan's "supply side economics" backfired, big time.

Huh... that information is wildly over any official numbers I've ever seen, by at least a factor of 3. What's your source?

 

[MaggieMae]

You're a fucking idiot.

Your dim-witted pal Madeline brought up "mega-rich" folks and I asked about Soros and you, you dipshit, brought out Forbes' Worlds Richest Billionaires and stated you didn't see Soros' name on it, which it is in fact there, and that means you are either a blind idiot, stupid or just a plain ol' liar.Which is it?

For the record I like rich people and I think rich people should be able to spend their money and support whoever the fuck they choose. You liberal idiots need to stop hating on people.

I looked at the top 25 billionnaires. Obviously Soros would be among the complete list because he's, well, a billionnaire. It ain't rocket science and I wasn't trying to present it as such. Again, I was trying to prove that you assholes make it appear that Soros is the only rich person who's ever thrown money into a campaign. When you shut the fuck up about that, I'll shut the fuck up about Soros. But hey, I know that if George Soros isn't mentioned at least once on FoxNews every day, you might actually forget that you're supposed to spread the propaganda.

What does it matter anyway? By the time mid-terms are over in a couple of weeks, campaign donations will reach $4 billion by some estimates. FOUR FUCKING BILLION DOLLARS!! Thanks to the USSC decision which, in effect, eliminated the $5,000 maximum donation by any person or corporation. Now they can donate a million or even ten million if they so desire.

The only people that seem to have a problem with rich folks are you retarded liberals.

Everytime you post you reinforce my belief that you are truly retarded.

A little off topic but I think it's relevant.

"Who pays for campaigns can become a campaign issue; there’s a long record of challengers accusing their opponents of being beholden to outside interests.

“This fundraising strength on the state level is just one result of the grassroots support that is growing for Republican candidates,” said National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Paul Lindsay. “Ultimately this helps Republican candidates get the resources they need to compete in tough races and get their message out to voters between now and November.”

For instance, in North Dakota, Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D) is facing a close reelection contest against longtime state Rep. Rick Berg (R). More than 81 percent of the $643,000 that Pomeroy’s campaign collected from individuals (as opposed to PACs) cames from outside the Roughrider State. Conversely, nearly 85 percent of Berg’s individual donors live inside North Dakota.

Almost 60 percent of Rep. Paul Kanjorski’s (D-Pa.) $500,000 in individual donations came from outside of the Keystone State. His Republican challenger, Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, has raised 88 percent of his personal checks from Pennsylvanians.

The lawmaker with the largest proportion of individual donations from other states is Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who raised more than 98 percent of his individual donor dollars from non-Ohio residents."

Say Anything Republicans Getting More In-State Contributions Than Democrats

I never said that Democrats weren't also taking full advantage of this huge hole through which billions will pass. Pay attention.

 

[MaggieMae]

Still aren't able to support your allegations I see.

I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong, not illustrate more of your idiocy.

You're so smart, check a history book that contains the truth yourself. When Reagan took office, the national debt stood at $995 billion. By the end of H.W.'s presidency, it had exploded to $4 trillion. Reagan's "supply side economics" backfired, big time.

Huh... that information is wildly over any official numbers I've ever seen, by at least a factor of 3. What's your source?

Column in red--scroll down to 09/30/1992 (reads backwards)
US DEBT NEWS UNITED STATES DEBT NEWS AMERICAN GOVERNMENT DEFICIT NEWS | HavenWorks.com/us/debt news :-(

BW Online | June 21, 2004 | The Real Economic Legacy Of Ronald Reagan

Reagan and his supply-side advisers believed that big tax cuts would pay for themselves by generating higher tax revenues through greater economic growth. It never happened.
President Clinton took office in 1993, when those huge budget deficits weighed heavily on the markets and the economy. Clinton's turn away from liberal spending to balancing the budget (the "Rubinomics" policy of his Treasury Secretary, Robert E. Rubin) brought confidence back to the markets. When telecom and the Internet took off three years later, the economy ignited.

Yet despite different fiscal policies, the macroeconomic outcomes were remarkably similar. Under Reagan, lower taxes and a soaring budget deficit produced a growth rate of 3.4%. Under Bill Clinton, higher taxes and a budget surplus generated growth of 3.6%. Throughout both Presidencies, from 1982 to 2000, interest rates fell and the stock market roared. So much for ideology.

And just for chuckles:

Four Deformations of the Apocalypse (David Stockman, July 31, 2010)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

 

[Big Fitz]

A nonsensical weblog with no discernible information that I can decifer, an opinion piece from a radical left newspaper (the new york times) and a business week (owned by liberal elite Bloomberg) op ed piece.

This is your evidence?

yeah, I'm chuckling all right.

here's some real data for you.

Year
GDP-US $ billion
Federal Deficit -fed $ billion

1980
2788.1
73.83

1981
3126.8
78.97

1982
3253.2
127.98

1983
3534.6
207.80

1984
3930.9
185.37

1985
4217.5
212.31

1986
4460.1
221.23

1987
4736.4
149.73

1988
5100.4
155.18

1989
5482.1
152.64

1990
5800.5
221.04

1991
5992.1
269.24

1992
6342.3
290.32

1993
6667.4
255.05

1994
7085.2
203.19

1995
7414.7
163.95

1996
7838.5
107.43

1997
8332.4
21.89

1998
8793.5
-69.28

1999
9353.5
-125.60

2000
9951.5
-236.24

2001
10286.2
-128.24

2002
10642.3
157.75

2003
11142.1
377.59

2004
11867.8
412.73

2005
12638.4
318.34

2006
13398.9
248.19

2007
14077.6
160.94

2008
14441.4
458.55

2009
14258.2
1412.68

2010
14623.9
1555.58

Huh... Look at that. Reagan's yearly budget deficit never crossed $250 billion.

Then I find it interesting that when you had a republican controlled congress between 1994 to 2001 the budget went down every year. Sure some credit goes to Bill Clinton, but more of it goes to republicans who pushed through conservative reforms like on welfare for one. Of course, 2002 to present you see war expenses factored in, and then the Daschle takeover of the house as well as temporary loss of the senate thanks to Jumping Jim Jeffords. Then in 2008 the Pelosi congress going berserk with spending. At least in 2007 W found his veto pen which he should have used a LOT more previously.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com

You have Uber Failed again and still haven't proven me wrong.

 

[MaggieMae]

A nonsensical weblog with no discernible information that I can decifer, an opinion piece from a radical left newspaper (the new york times) and a business week (owned by liberal elite Bloomberg) op ed piece.

This is your evidence?

yeah, I'm chuckling all right.

here's some real data for you.

Year
GDP-US $ billion
Federal Deficit -fed $ billion

1980
2788.1
73.83

1981
3126.8
78.97

1982
3253.2
127.98

1983
3534.6
207.80

1984
3930.9
185.37

1985
4217.5
212.31

1986
4460.1
221.23

1987
4736.4
149.73

1988
5100.4
155.18

1989
5482.1
152.64

1990
5800.5
221.04

1991
5992.1
269.24

1992
6342.3
290.32

1993
6667.4
255.05

1994
7085.2
203.19

1995
7414.7
163.95

1996
7838.5
107.43

1997
8332.4
21.89

1998
8793.5
-69.28

1999
9353.5
-125.60

2000
9951.5
-236.24

2001
10286.2
-128.24

2002
10642.3
157.75

2003
11142.1
377.59

2004
11867.8
412.73

2005
12638.4
318.34

2006
13398.9
248.19

2007
14077.6
160.94

2008
14441.4
458.55

2009
14258.2
1412.68

2010
14623.9
1555.58

Huh... Look at that. Reagan's yearly budget deficit never crossed $250 billion.

Then I find it interesting that when you had a republican controlled congress between 1994 to 2001 the budget went down every year. Sure some credit goes to Bill Clinton, but more of it goes to republicans who pushed through conservative reforms like on welfare for one. Of course, 2002 to present you see war expenses factored in, and then the Daschle takeover of the house as well as temporary loss of the senate thanks to Jumping Jim Jeffords. Then in 2008 the Pelosi congress going berserk with spending. At least in 2007 W found his veto pen which he should have used a LOT more previously.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com

You have Uber Failed again and still haven't proven me wrong.

Play around with this site, then. But you probably can't be bothered. Only your own sources count. The NYT piece, btw, was written by Reagan's budget director, David Stockman. Carry on, genius. I'm done with you.

Federal Spending, State and Local Public Spending for 1999 - Charts

 

[Big Fitz]

oh yeah. You just quote back the same site I played around with and found data to smoke your whole theory. BTW, Opinion is not fact.

Wow... that's stupid.

 

[topspin]

love the class warfare IDIOTS, polliticians are bought and sold by the rick. If this bimbo thinks only republicans buy politicians I wish she would say it. I need another good laugh today.

 

[Meister]

A nonsensical weblog with no discernible information that I can decifer, an opinion piece from a radical left newspaper (the new york times) and a business week (owned by liberal elite Bloomberg) op ed piece.

This is your evidence?

yeah, I'm chuckling all right.

here's some real data for you.

Year
GDP-US $ billion
Federal Deficit -fed $ billion

1980
2788.1
73.83

1981
3126.8
78.97

1982
3253.2
127.98

1983
3534.6
207.80

1984
3930.9
185.37

1985
4217.5
212.31

1986
4460.1
221.23

1987
4736.4
149.73

1988
5100.4
155.18

1989
5482.1
152.64

1990
5800.5
221.04

1991
5992.1
269.24

1992
6342.3
290.32

1993
6667.4
255.05

1994
7085.2
203.19

1995
7414.7
163.95

1996
7838.5
107.43

1997
8332.4
21.89

1998
8793.5
-69.28

1999
9353.5
-125.60

2000
9951.5
-236.24

2001
10286.2
-128.24

2002
10642.3
157.75

2003
11142.1
377.59

2004
11867.8
412.73

2005
12638.4
318.34

2006
13398.9
248.19

2007
14077.6
160.94

2008
14441.4
458.55

2009
14258.2
1412.68

2010
14623.9
1555.58

Huh... Look at that. Reagan's yearly budget deficit never crossed $250 billion.

Then I find it interesting that when you had a republican controlled congress between 1994 to 2001 the budget went down every year. Sure some credit goes to Bill Clinton, but more of it goes to republicans who pushed through conservative reforms like on welfare for one. Of course, 2002 to present you see war expenses factored in, and then the Daschle takeover of the house as well as temporary loss of the senate thanks to Jumping Jim Jeffords. Then in 2008 the Pelosi congress going berserk with spending. At least in 2007 W found his veto pen which he should have used a LOT more previously.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com

You have Uber Failed again and still haven't proven me wrong.

I will hand it to Clinton, once he lost the House he came back to the center. The man wasn't stupid, nor was he lost in his ideology. Can the same be said for Obama? I think we're going to find out shortly

 

[The T]

Certainly people who adore the superwealthy just because they're successful are damned fools.

As are those who assume that all the rich are the evil.

But as to there being a class war?

Well, that is one way of describing our current brand of supply sider economics, I suppose.

But it's not really a war.

It's more of a tragedy of the commons.

There's a very fine line from adoring as to respecting, as to aspiring.

 

[MaggieMae]

love the class warfare IDIOTS, polliticians are bought and sold by the rick. If this bimbo thinks only republicans buy politicians I wish she would say it. I need another good laugh today.

So point to the post where I said that. That specific isn't even a topic under discussion in this thread, that I can recall. My argument with Fitz is that he seems to think Reagan's economics were so sweet, and they WERE NOT. If Bush41 could have cleaned up the pile of shit Reagan left him and turned the economy around, Clinton never would have been president. Howzat.

 

[Big Fitz]

My argument with Fitz is that he seems to think Reagan's economics were so sweet, and they WERE NOT.

Were born after 1988 I see and learned about the 1980's through your anti-Reagan public school teachers too disappointed Mondale didn't tax em to death back then.

If Bush41 could have cleaned up the pile of shit Reagan left him and turned the economy around, Clinton never would have been president. Howzat.

Big steaming pile o fail. Clinton would never have had such a good time of it if it were not FOR Reagan's supply siding bringing investors back into the US after the Carter admin drove them all out of the country. Then when he TRIED to bankrupt the country in the 1990's with Hillarycare, he got stopped cold by the republican congress and forced to take sensible fiscal policies and do some throat slashing on welfare.

But I thought you were done with this? The consistent failure was bothering you?