You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

[jc456]

You still don't understand the conditions of the authorization. Sucks to be you.

it was authorization. it's all he wanted and got. They approved his actions.

 

[Faun]

it was authorization. it's all he wanted and got. They approved his actions.

Based on conditions you don't understand. Sucks to be you.

 

[jc456]

Based on conditions you don't understand. Sucks to be you.

well you don't even know authorization.

 

[Faun]

well you don't even know authorization.

Now you look even dumber as I was the one who posted the authorization and explained it to you.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Todd, your defense of tax cuts and deregulation as a benefit to the working class is completely detached from reality.

The middle class do very well every time taxes and regulations are cut.

the most job security, occurred when union membership was at its peak and the wealthiest Americans were paying tax rates as high as 91%.

Yeah, life was easy when we were the only economy not bombed into rubble.

Supply-side economics has done nothing but concentrate wealth at the top

How?

If you’re unwilling to consider a marketless socialist economy, then at least acknowledge that Keynesian economics, focused on demand-side solutions, has a proven track record of building a stronger and more equitable economy.

Who uses Keynesian economics today? How do they implement it?

Todd, your claim that the middle class always does well when taxes and regulations are cut is simply not true. The reality is that wealth has become increasingly concentrated at the top precisely because of these policies. Over the past few decades, tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation have led to stagnant wages for the working class, while the rich have seen their wealth skyrocket. The golden age of the American economy wasn't just about being the only economy not bombed into rubble after WWII, it was about strong unions, high wages, and a progressive tax system that ensured the wealthiest paid their fair share, which in turn funded public investments that benefited everyone.

Your dismissal of the role unions and high tax rates played in that era ignores the clear evidence that union workers still make more and have better benefits than their non-union counterparts. Unions have historically been a powerful force in securing fair wages, safe working conditions, and benefits like healthcare and pensions. When union membership was high, the middle class thrived because workers had the collective power to negotiate better terms with their employers. As union power has declined due to policies favoring deregulation and weakening labor laws, we've seen a corresponding decline in middle-class prosperity.

Finally, Keynesian economics is still relevant today and is used in various forms by governments around the world to stabilize economies and promote growth. For example, during economic downturns, Keynesian policies advocate for government intervention to stimulate demand through public spending, which has proven effective in preventing deeper recessions and helping economies recover. Dismissing Keynesian economics ignores its role in building a more equitable economy, where growth is driven by the purchasing power of the many, not just the wealth of the few.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I followed your lead. You presented no data to support your argument. I asked for it. And you failed again.

oh, and sometimes a lie is too obvious to ignore. Now, can you show data or not?

I simply state historical facts, you just resort to insults and nonsense.

 

[jc456]

Now you look even dumber as I was the one who posted the authorization and explained it to you.

I thanked you for proving my point. Again, thanks. Congress approved Bush's Iraq strategy like I said.

 

[jc456]

I simply state historical facts, you just resort to insults and nonsense.

what facts? see facts are data. And so far, you have only presented headlines of word salad. I'm waiting for the data that proves your headlines.

 

[TruthNotBS]

The so-called "tax-cuts" did nothing for the average worker.

The average worker paid less tax.

It did much more for the rich and powerful

It's true, people who paid more saved more from the tax cut. And?

While a small tax cut might seem beneficial at first glance, it doesn't amount to much when other expenses are skyrocketing. Under Trump's administration, funding cuts to vital programs disproportionately hurt the working class. For example, Trump's tax cuts primarily benefited the wealthy and corporations, while simultaneously leading to proposals for cuts in programs like Medicaid, food assistance, and housing subsidies, programs that millions of working-class Americans rely on to make ends meet.

Moreover, the cost of living has continued to rise, with healthcare being one of the most significant burdens. Trump's attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act would have left millions without medical insurance, pushing healthcare costs even higher for those who could least afford it. When wages are stagnant and the safety net is being slashed, any tax savings are quickly overshadowed by the increasing costs of essentials like healthcare, housing, and education. In the end, the working class ends up paying more overall, while the wealthiest Americans continue to see their fortunes grow.

 

[TruthNotBS]

what facts? see facts are data. And so far, you have only presented headlines of word salad. I'm waiting for the data that proves your headlines.

What "headlines" are you referring to? Be specific.

 

[Stryder50]

So it's not popular, it just seems to be, and it's not workable? What exactly are you referring to? Go ahead.

Presenting a counter point to your vague adage which had little(no?) example presented.

But socialism is one key example. As shown by the references to the Debt Clock list of some of the world's nations and their debt load.

Margaret Thatcher once said that "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher on Socialism

 

[jc456]

What "headlines" are you referring to? Be specific.

your posts

 

[jc456]

They approved of Bush determining if war was necessary.

yep, approved!!!, thanks.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Presenting a counter point to your vague adage which had little(no?) example presented.

But socialism is one key example. As shown by the references to the Debt Clock list of some of the world's nations and their debt load.

Margaret Thatcher once said that "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher on Socialism

In market socialism, you don't use other people's money, especially when your country has a sovereign currency and a robust GDP. You obviously don't know where the money comes from. Your so-called "debt clock" is a myth and a paper tiger. The US government doesn't have a debt, as you or I have as mere users of the currency. That "debt" can just as well be identified as the "People's surplus". The government's red ink is the people's black ink, or surplus.

I'll be back in a few hours.

 

[TruthNotBS]

your posts

What talking points are you claiming that I didn't provide evidence for, be specific.

 

[Faun]

I thanked you for proving my point. Again, thanks. Congress approved Bush's Iraq strategy like I said.

LOL

Your point was that Congress voted for war irrespective of what Bush would determine. I shattered that idiocy many posts ago. Sucks to be you.

 

[jc456]

The so-called "tax-cuts" did nothing for the average worker.

The average worker paid less tax.

It did much more for the rich and powerful

It's true, people who paid more saved more from the tax cut. And?

he doesn't do math?

 

[Faun]

Presenting a counter point to your vague adage which had little(no?) example presented.

But socialism is one key example. As shown by the references to the Debt Clock list of some of the world's nations and their debt load.

Margaret Thatcher once said that "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher on Socialism

Speaking of the debt clock, have you figured out yet their claim of 162 million people employed in 2000 is wrong?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

creating

1. bring (something) into existence that was not there before

Tell that to your Democrats. They imposed lockdowns on most of society, deleting so many jobs. Then, When those jobs returned after Democrats lockdowns were proven wrong… the Democrats include the returning jobs in their “jobs created” stat

LOL

 

[jc456]

While a small tax cut might seem beneficial at first glance, it doesn't amount to much when other expenses are skyrocketing.

name something that went up in expense. Gas dropped to 1.80 a gallon. Is that not good for middle class? Or in your math is 5.00 a gallon better?

Under Trump's administration, funding cuts to vital programs disproportionately hurt the working class.

another headline without data

For example, Trump's tax cuts primarily benefited the wealthy and corporations, while simultaneously leading to proposals for cuts in programs like Medicaid, food assistance, and housing subsidies, programs that millions of working-class Americans rely on to make ends meet.

Headline without evidence.

Moreover, the cost of living has continued to rise,

why hasn't biden and harris stopped it?

with healthcare being one of the most significant burdens.

yeah, medicare is being denied at hospitals now, under joe.

Trump's attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act would have left millions without medical insurance, pushing healthcare costs even higher for those who could least afford it.

did he?

When wages are stagnant and the safety net is being slashed, any tax savings are quickly overshadowed by the increasing costs of essentials like healthcare, housing, and education. In the end, the working class ends up paying more overall, while the wealthiest Americans continue to see their fortunes grow.

another headline minus evidence to support it. your newspaper isn't interesting at all.